Archbishop Molloy High School and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 1:
{{Unicode|}}{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 1}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 2}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 3}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 4}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 5}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 6}}
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 7}}
=July 8=
== Internet law ==
Is there any definition of Internet Law? Perhaps any scholar, legal act or court formulated such definition?
Thanks in advance
[[User:84.40.169.244|84.40.169.244]] 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:Do you mean "[[law (disambiguation)|law]]" in the legal sense? Then "Internet law" would be the body of laws (and regulations having the force of law) that are specifically related to the Internet and its use, as well as the study of such laws and law cases involving Internet issues. The extent is [[jurisdiction]]-dependent, and what laws and regulations exactly are considered to pertain to ''specifically'' the Internet is necessarily somewhat fuzzy (just as it is, for example, for contract law). You can generically define "''XX'' law" this way, where ''XX'' is some noun phrase for something subject to legal regulation. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 11:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== The meaning of the abreviation clav. ==
In the Goldberg variations, each variation has the notation 1 or 2 clav. What is the meaning and purpose for this notation.
Ike royer
[[User:Ikerr|Ikerr]] 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)iker
—
:The [[Goldberg Variations]] was written for a two-manual harpsichord (see [[manual (music)]] for an explanation; see also our article on the Goldberg Variations). The 2 clav. sections were meant to be played on two manuals -- i.e. this allowed both hands to be playing in the same register, something very hard to do on, say, a piano. The 1 clav. and 2 clav. notations indicate which variations are to be played on one and two manuals, respectively. Hope this helps! [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 01:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
"Clav." is short for "clavier", meaning a manual or keyboard. [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 11:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Socialism ==
Hi Wikipedia community!!
I'm reading a great book:
Mises, Ludwig von, "''Socialism, an economic and sociological analysis''".
This book refutes socialism. Well, I would also like to read a book that defends socialism, hopefully as rigorously as Mises attacks it.
Can anybody recommend me a book? Hopefully with a modern perspective; most socialist writers I know are from almost a century ago.
Thanks!
:I cannot offhand think of any recent polemics in favour of socialism. For a sympathetic outline, which neverthless strives to be detached and scholarly, you might consider ''Socialism: a Very Short Introduction'' by Michael Newman. The author believes that socialism is as relevant as it ever was, though it needs to learn from the lessons of the past. Most of the classic defences are probably older than you would wish. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::Well, maybe one who writes about democratic socialism? I'm not very familiar with the subject, but I imagine there must be some modern literature on socialism. What about socialist economics? It would be a more restricted subject but I would enjoy it anyway. I am more than satisfied with Mises on the liberal side, but I honestly don't think a "very short introduction" would make much of an impression after an "economic and sociological analysis". If nothing else, maybe you know of some less recent socialist writers? Thanks for the time, Clio! --[[User:209.9.194.104|209.9.194.104]] 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm very happy to help you 209.9, it's just that I am not sure how ''deep'' you really want to go. Also, on the assumption that you are coming to the subject more or less with no prejudices or preconceptions, I am reluctant to suggest anything that could, conceivably, confirm an attitude of potential hostility! However, at your own risk, and without any specific recommendation on my part, you might be bold enough to tackle ''Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: towards a Radical Democratic Politics'' by Ernesto Laclau and Chantel Mouffe, ''Towards a New Socialism'' by Anatole Anton and Richard Schmitt, and ''The Case for Socialism'' by Alan Maass. Please let me know if you wish travel further into the country of Marxism and I will make some additional suggestions. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::A few links I found that might be helpful to you: [http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/readinglist1.html YSA reading list], [http://www.spmichigan.org/page.php?16 Socialist Party of Michigan Reading List] (looks very comprehensive to me), [http://reality.gn.apc.org/Readinglist.htm Classical Marxist Reading List] (supposedly. . .) Our [[Socialism]] article also has a limited “References and further reading” section. Hope some of that helps! [[User:S.dedalus|S.dedalus]] 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:Depends what you define as socialism. Could be anything from a positive biography of FDR and the New Deal to Marx's Capital itself. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
==What is the world oldest's dead religion?==
What is the world oldest dead religion which we have accurate record of its beliefs.
[[User:211.28.121.144|211.28.121.144]] 07:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:This is not an answer, but I'd like to point out several problems with the question. The first is to determine whether a set of beliefs is a [[religion]]. Is [[Greek mythology]] a religion? Another issue is to determine when a religion's "beliefs" have been recorded ''accurately''. Many religions are not doctrinal, and are more about practicing sacred rituals based on shared cultural assumptions then about dogmas. If someone believes there are evil spirits at road intersections, it is not because their religion tells them to believe that, but because everyone knows this to be so. A related problem is to determine when two religions are the same. Did the inhabitant of old [[Athens]] have the same religion as those of [[Sparta]]? Definitely, the myths changed from place to place. Finally, when is a religion dead? Can we be certain [[Manichaeism]] is truly extinct, or might remnants linger on in China? Is [[Arianism]] dead, or is the [[Arian Catholicism]] a present-day continuation? --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
: [[Proto-Indo-European religion]]? I'm not sure that our record may be termed accurate or that it may be termed dead. Either epithet is equivocal. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:I would presume that the Assyrian religion is the closest thing we have to a described religion that is now dead. The problem is that we don't really have a full picture of the doctrine/theology, but we have a pretty good picture of their pantheon and practices. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:William Hamblin's book, ''Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC'', contains an extensive amoun of information on religion in the Middle East ''long'' before the Greeks, mostly as it relates to war. So I would say that it's likely that the earliest religion we have decent records over would either be something in the Middle East during the 3rd millenium BC, or possibly ancient Egyptian. [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Accurate record of its beliefs is the tricky part. Not quite killed off yet but Id say [[Indigenous Australian culture|The Dreaming]] may be one of our very oldest belief systems since [[Indigenous Australians]] may be the oldest continuous culture on Earth. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:That's if you regard these people as forming a single culture, rather than about 650 distinct cultures with, generally, mutually unintelligible languages, and vastly different cultural practices and belief systems. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 13:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Quite correct Jack, but age was the key point I was getting at. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::But you're assuming their belief system hasn't changed significantly in over 3000 years (without the help of writing to record any of it)… [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Not quite an assumption, more a reflection of current scholarship based on archaeological and historical studies primarily at the University of Queensland and Australia National University.Many ancient societies can and have maintained a culture for a considerable period of time if there has been no major shift in the balance of climate, land, food harvesting, technology, cultural interaction etc [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Linguistic shifts alone would belie any claim that oral information can be transmitted over millenia without changing—without any sort of writing system, it's implausible that their religious beliefs today should be particularly close to what they were 5000 years ago. [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::You are ascribing claims to me that I have not made, in particular your escalating millenia!. My point was to suggest that for a considerable period of time indigenous Australians existed without the natural and cultural upheavals that other societies have experienced particularly in the northern hemisphere, therefore their belief systems are likely to be relatively consistent and intact. But I must take issue with your comments on oral cultures and their assumed inability to hold and pass on information. I know you have expertise in linguistics but I based my assertion on scholarship in my field which is the study of indigenous cultures in the Pacific. People here developed many mechanisms, such as schools, the tohunga system, the cellular structures of family/tribal systems, whakapapa etc to secure information in an oral culture and you would find it very interesting. I invite you to a conference here! For example, even after several hundred years it has been possible to identify locations in the islands from where Maori departed, based on verbal descriptions passed on. Maori culture is dedicated to remembering in a way that the western isnt. Many in the west cant name their great grandparents, whereas in Maori society, recitation of your genealogy is absolutely fundamental to your identity. This is reflected in their notion of time, which is the reverse of that in the west: the Maori word for the past is mua, meaning in front of, the word for the future, muri, means behind. An interesting parallel to our emerging respect for the abilities of Pacific societies is voyaging. For many years it was assumed that Pacific peoples lacked the large ships and technology necessary for oceanic travel and that all settlement was accidental.Now we know that their "primative canoes' are sophisticated vessels and they had fine tuned navigational techniques that had them arriving at their destinations in better shape than many scurvy European seamen. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[Mesopotamian mythology]] is about as far back as we go with any level of accuracy, but even that is a catch-all term for several different belief systems. The [[Sumer|Sumerians]] left us the [[Epic of Gilgamesh]] which, while not a religious text, does shed light on the religious beliefs of the times. [[User:152.16.59.190|152.16.59.190]] 05:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Some Sumerian religious literature survives. Here's a link to some [http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.4*# hymns and cult songs] at ETCSL. --[[User:Nicknack009|Nicknack009]] 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Religion of New Testament scholars ==
Howdy. Does anyone know what religion most academic New Testament scholars belong to? Are they mostly Christians or non-Christians? I suppose that can get blurry with competing definitions, so let's say a Christian is someone who says that they are a Christian. Thanks. [[User:Schmitty120|Schmitty120]] 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[Academic freedom]] means that most scholars neither ''would'' nor ''should'' answer a questionnaire along those lines. Determining "most" would be extremely difficult, additionally. Supposing that every scholar were willing to answer, who is determining which are the scholars? We would need a good method, such as "all persons publishing in peer reviewed journals on New Testament theology, history, and Biblical text within the last ten years" to even come up with the set of persons to question. As an ''academic discipline,'' the personal belief should not matter, unless we buy into the false assumption that belief in the trinity and resurrection is somehow incompatible with academic rigor. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::I would assume that most religious scholars are inspired by religion, and I believe those who want to take up positions as a priest are encouraged to study the religion. While they may not be academic scholars there must be many 'amateur' scholars of religion who's full time job is preaching it. Some, such as [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] [[Dr. Rowan Williams]] are both academic and clerical (his doctorate is in theology). [[User:Cyta|Cyta]] 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm of a similar opinion to Cyta—my hunch (just a hunch) is that most would be Christian, and would be studying the New Testament because of their interest in Christianity. [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:I have no opinion of whether they would or would not be, but this is a major shibboleth just now among some fundamentalists, who are ready to discount centuries of scholarship because they have heard that the scholars "aren't Christian." All such value judgments are slippery at best. There was/is/shall be a major brouhaha at one of my universities when a fundamentalist youngster went to the seminary and found out that, although all of the people called themselves Christians, several did not believe in God and only one believed in the virgin birth. Big ink tossed about, outrage all around, etc. Immediately, we're into "real Christian" vs. "Christian" vs. whatever, and we are immediately again, and most critically, into "what does it matter?" If the scholarship is sound, the scholarship is sound. In many cases, I don't think it ''is'' altogether sound, as the ground work is fine but the interpretation reflects the scholar's prejudices, but that is apparent no matter what the person says he or she is. Again and again, I come back to why it matters to me as a reader of the scholarship whether the scholar is a believer or not. I do not want a believer to bias his scholarship to confirm his beliefs any more than I do a non-believer to bias his or her scholarship. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Geogre is of course right that someone's belief shouldn't matter, scholarship should be addressed on it's own merits, but it doesn't really answer the question. However I don't mind going off topic! Dismissing someone's work based on their beliefs would be wrong, but knowing what those beliefs are would be useful when attempting to analyse their work. I always take a cynical attitude when reading things, and knowing where someone is coming from can help you understand, as Geogre said, there is interpretation in biblical scholarship, it is not a hard science of mathematics and experiment in which there are right and wrong answers. As a sceptical strong atheist, I see many interpret the Bible to reflect their own beliefs, bits they disagree with are metaphors, or don't count anymore. But I am sure there are also those who think long and hard to let the bible guide them rather than vice versa. Anyway, I stand by my original claim that priests studying for professional purposes will mean most studiers of the bible will be Christian. [[User:Cyta|Cyta]] 07:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::All right, thanks everyone. I was asking cause I had heard that New Testament scholars were "predominately non-Christian." [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-wanchick/wanchick3.html] See second paragraph under heading "Resurrection." And I was wondering if that was true. [[User:Schmitty120|Schmitty120]] 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== $12.99 ==
what ever goods I buy costs only in .99 and not in dollars without decimels.
why is that? Is there any tax incentive? what exactly is the tax incentive?
:There is an article that discusses this, [[Psychological pricing]]. As the title indicates, the reason for these prices is psychological - we are more likely to buy something with a lower dollar value, even if the cent value is very high. There are some other theories of origin, also, if you care to read the article. --[[User:Joelmills|Joelmills]] 14:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::Or in simple terms, vendors hope people are stupid. That article, by the way, all joking aside, needs help. [[User:Dreftymac|dr.ef.tymac]] 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I have always found this practice intensely irritating. Surely no one is fooled by it! Pricing things at a whole number of dollars would be much better. Even better would be to price things such that once the local sales tax is added, it then comes out to be a whole number. For example if an item were priced at say $4.65 where I live and local sales tax is 7.5%, tax would be $.35. When this was added to the $4.65, the total would be $5 even. This would make it very easy to figure out in your head what your actual out-of-pocket costs would be. This is probably much too logical, however.--[[User:Eriastrum|Eriastrum]] 15:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::re:Sales tax - in the UK the price displayed in retail outlets will include any taxes or excise duties payable, so the price you see is the price you pay. It is confusing (to say the least) when visiting the USA to discover that one is being asked to pay somewhat more than the price on the label. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::The best solution is for the label to have both prices, with and without taxes. [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I recall, though I'm not positive, that in Australia things were priced at .99 even though they don't have a cent piece, so the price was more or less rounded up anyway (to the nearest 5 cent piece). So if you bought one thing at 1.99 you payed 2.00 anyway (if you bought five things, then you would save the 5 cents!) --[[User:Cody.pope|Cody.Pope]] 16:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::Also, the odd penny/cent/whatever price requires the shop assistant to give change, thus ensuring that the sale will be rung up on the cash register, rather than risk that the shop assistant will just pocket the banknote if the cost of the sale = face value of note. -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:Cody is correct about the pricing in Australia - that is common practice. You usually buy more than 1 item when you shop, so the idea is it all averages out anyway. On a side note: I once saw an item at my local supermarket which was boldly marked "Special: $4.99" and in fine print, "Regular price $5.00". [[User:203.221.126.32|203.221.126.32]] 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::The rounding only applies to cash purchases, because we no longer use 1 or 2-cent coins. If I buy a basket of goods that total $37.83, and I pay by credit card or [[EFTPOS]], I pay exactly $37.83. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 03:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Eriastrum: Actually, sad as it is to say, people are very much fooled by this, without being aware of it. There is considerable market research to prove this (some of which is discussed in the [[Psychological pricing]] article). --[[User:169.230.94.28|169.230.94.28]] 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The same in New Zealand except we now only have 10, 20 and 50 cents and got rid of the 5 cents too. Most stores, especially the big ones round 5 cents and below down and 6 cents and above up. Ironically when the removal of the 5 cent coin was announced there were a lot of people complaining about how retailers were going to raise prices because of it. Which of course was incredibly silly since most prices were still .99 despite us not having the 1 and 2 cent coins for the past 10 years or whatever. There were a few prices at .95 but these of course have not changed and even if they have (never noticed it), they likely would have go down to .90 not up to .00 [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::BTW, the common rounding used when we had 5 cents in New Zealand was usually called Swiss rounding. The price was not always rounded up to the nearest 5 cents. Instead, 1 or 2 cents would be rounded down, 3 or 4 would be rounded up. I.E. 0,1,2 is 0 cents (down); 3,4,5,6,7 is 5 cents; 8,9,0 is 0 cents (up). I presume it's the same in Australia too [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, I think that's how it works here. But only for cash purchases. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
: Yes, actually the "trick" does work psychologically. Boiling it down to its simplest terms, it works like this. Say, the price is advertised at $19.99. Now, of course, logical thinking helps us realize that that price is merely one penny less than a $20 bill. However, when you read the price, you start at the left (the "1" numeral), and proceed to the right. So, basically, you instantly see the "1" and your mindset (brain process) is that the item will cost you in the "tens" of dollars, not the "twenties." It all happens in an instant, of course. Then, by the time you have read across the rest of the digits to the right, your brain has already processed that the item is in the 10's range, and not so "expensive" as the 20's range. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
::That's right. First impressions really do count. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 03:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:On a slightly different note, am I the only one who finds it incredibly annoying when you ask someone how much an item is and they tell you $2 when the price is $2.99 or when you remember the price wrong and think it is $2 when it is actually $2.99? Most of the time of course people will simply say an item is $3 if it is $2.99 [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a friend who's an accountant, who at one time was employed by a chain of cinemas to cut employee petty fraud that was costing them a fortune. One of the chief techniques employed was to set prices for confectionery items, that ended in varying odd amounts of pence. This made it impossible for all but the very best fraudsters to avoid using the till (a classic fraud) as they needed to tot up the amounts (and also find the correct change). From what I understand, she was very successful... but perhaps she's not a [[WP:RS]]! --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 13:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Japanese literature questions ==
#I found in [[Oku no Hosomichi]] the [[haiku]] '松島や 鶴の身を枯れ 杜鵑'. I found this on the Internet; I read the book in [[Yaakov Raz]]'s translation, in which he said both that it was [[Basho]]'s and [[Sora]]'s. Who's is it?
#:I'll take a stab at this. The [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/japanese/basho/MatOkun.html complete text] of ''Oku no Hosomichi'' doesn't have the phrase above, so I don't know what you mean when you say you found it there. The only occurrence of the phrase I could find on the internet was one on a page otherwise entirely in Hebrew [http://www.anime-il.com/index.php?showtopic=58927&st=10 here], where it is attributed to [[Kawai Sora]] (河合 曾良). (I find it amazing that this is a redlink given how many editors there are on Japanese topics.) This is all quite circumstantial, but I find it hard to believe that any haiku by Basho would be found only once on the web. I would say there is pretty strong evidence that it is Sora's. However, as Sora was Basho's disciple, clearly Basho may have influenced its creation. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
#I'm looking for the rules of how to write a [[Noh]] play. I found a link to 13 Noh plays (thanks to Wiki-sama), and it showed quite a unique writing style, which I couldn't really figure out. It was said in Wikipedia that Noh plays are supposed to follow the 5-7 syllable structure, but I saw it was broken quite often. Any explanations?
#:[[Noh]] states "texts are poetic, relying heavily on the Japanese seven-five rhythm", which implies that it is not strict. I think it telling that the [[:ja:能|Japanese Wikipedia description]] seems to make no mention of syllable pattern. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you in advance, [[User:瀬人様|瀬人様]] 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
==The Boy Flood notability==
Is the musical act "The Boy Flood" in any way notable? I'm asking because it's exlinked from [[Area 51]] (which is afflicted by an excessive "in popular culture" section) and I fear it may simply by spam. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 15:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:You probably know my preference. :-) In seriousness, though, when these things grow too many heads, we should lop them off one at a time until we hear someone speak. Hit and run page rank boosting is a real nightmare on Wikipedia, and I'm kind of hardcore about advertising anyway. Let folks ''justify the addition'' rather than your having to justify the excision. How is this pertinent to this? How are these "popular culture" listings ''significant'' popular culture? How do they add to the knowledge of the effect and usefulness of information about Area 51? [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
== trans formers ==
What bad words (such a cuse words) does the new movie transformers conyain.
:"Michael Bay." (Actually, your question would be better answered by one of the sites devoted to such things, like HollywoodJesus. (Yes, folks, it exists.)) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:They use "but" a lot. I find that very offensive. They could use "however", but insist on using such anally-suggestive language. -- [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]]<small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(what?)]]</sup></small> 20:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::The [[Internet Movie Database]] claims that the movie includes "mild swearing, including the s-word several times. The f-word is implied but not used", plus "a couple of sexual jokes including one about masturbation. Some sensuality, and some very suggestive images". [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/parentalguide] [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::According to [http://www.kids-in-mind.com/t/transformers.htm]: "1 F-word, 2 not fully-enunciated F-word derivatives, 6 sexual references ("I'm still a virgin," "were you masturbating?"), 1 obscene hand gesture, 12 scatological terms, 4 anatomical terms, 9 mild obscenities, name-calling (freak, knucklehead), 21 religious exclamations." [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Don't forget the robot urination! [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Plus the dog urination! [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
==Can foreigners give donations to U.S political parties and presidential candidates==
Do any countries allow this? I was thinking if it was allowed, foreign anti-Bush protesters should just fund his opponents instead of protesting [[User:Willy turner|Willy turner]] 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
: United States law forbids non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. See [[1996 United States campaign finance controversy]] for a case study. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:The (current) Brazilian [http://www.v-brazil.com/government/laws/titleII.html Constitution] forbids political parties from receiving financial assistance from a foreign entity, according to proposition II of article 17. (I assume that, by "do any countries allow this?", you meant to ask whether any countries allow foreigners to give donations to political parties) [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Similarly in Canada, section 331 of the Elections Act reads: "No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or (b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act." (Note that "person" in legal lingo includes corporations.) --Anonymous, July 9, 2007, 03:37 (UTC).
::This does not forbid foreigners to give donations to Canadian political parties. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 07:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:An enormous loophole in this law is that large [[corporation]]s, which are [[supranational]] in character, and many of which are incorporated in places like [[the Cayman Islands]], are allowed to give freely. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Even if it were possible for foriegners to give to political candidates, it would be a huge club for Republicans to beat their opponents with, and would be a less than worthless gesture. -[[User:144.160.98.31|144.160.98.31]] 16:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:An alternative is to give to a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that supports policies opposed to White House policies such as the [[Brookings Institution]]. Groups like this are legally forbidden from endorsing candidates or giving money to campaigns but they can advocate for specific policies. An advantage is that you can be specific about what Bush policy you oppose. Of course Pres. Bush, is a [[Lame duck (politics)|lame-duck president]], so it would be hard to hurt him politically at this point. He's Constitutionally prohibited from running for office again and any congressman you help elect wouldn't take office until after Bush is gone in 2009. --[[User:D Monack|D. Monack]] | [[User talk:D Monack|''talk'']] 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Given the insane funding levels involved in US presidential bids and the large involvement of corporations, it would be basically worthless for foreign '''individuals''' to try and influence the US presential elections via funding. Also, while many people may not like Bush, most are probably not willing to waste that much money to try and fix what is ultimately another countries problem (even if that problem has a great influence on them). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Note that a few of the above discussion seems to have gone a bit off track. As I understand it, the question asker is only interested in whether foreign individuals can give funds to the US, including any restrictions by the US and any restrictions by foreign governments on whether their citizens are allowed to donate to US politicians. If the question asker is interested in whether other countries allow foreign donations to their politicians/parties then it's currently allowed in New Zealand, but there have been suggestions to disallow it due to some recent controversies [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Our article on [[1996 United States campaign finance controversy]] refers to "[[law of the United States|United States law]] forbidding non-[[United States citizenship|American citizens]] or non-[[Green Card|permanent residents]] from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties". I think that phrasing is too general. Federal law regulates donations to candidates for federal office. State laws vary. I know that some states allow donations of a kind or in an amount that would be illegal in federal campaigns. I don't know what the state laws are about foreign donors. Of course, the hypothetical foreign anti-Bush partisans probably don't care all that much about electing a Democratic governor. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
=July 9=
== Is there an order to the Arts? If so, what is it? ==
I recently read an article that called film "the seventh art." I then came across a reference to comics as "the ninth art."
Is there a published order to the rest of the arts? What's the order? and/or where can I find this order? THANKS![[User:JAK7wiki|JAK7wiki]] 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:There's an article called [[Six Arts]]. [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::This all reminds me of [[The fifth estate|The Fifth Estate]] and [[Sixth Column]]. --Anon, July 9, 2007, 03:38 (UTC).
:::[[Fourth wall]]. - [[User:Akamad|Akamad]] 04:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::[[The Fifth Element]]. [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::No, no no no. Those two only go ''one'' step past the real or original count. --Anon, July 11, 00:48 (UTC).
The seven liberal arts are: Grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic (or logic), grouped together in the trivium; and arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, a.k.a. the quadrivium, but this question relates to (from rusty memory) Hegel's Aesthetics (early 19th Century) in which he posited six arts in this order I think: architecture, sculpture, painting, music, dance and poetry...hence film has been suggested as the seventh. A Certain Muse will swoop by shortly to illuminate us fully! [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 05:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:What about theatre? Didn't Hegel consider that an art? On the order, there is the famous quotation from Walter Pater that "all art aspires to the condition of music." --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] [[User talk:Richardrj|<sup>talk </sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/Richardrj|<sup>email</sup>]] 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::If we're talking early 19th century, quite possibly not. Theatre was seen as very bawdy. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 15:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::[[Martianus Capella]]'s authoritative presentation of the liberal arts, which I'd take to be therefore their canonical order, is as follows: grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, harmony. [[User:Wareh|Wareh]] 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The Muse swoops, Mhicaoidh, but on this occasion she does not conquer! Your answer could not really be bettered. I have only one tinsy-wincy caveat. As far as I am aware in the ''Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik'' Hegel's evolution proceeds from Architecture, through Sculpture, Painting and Music, before finding expression in Poetry, the art of the Romantics. All art, in his scheme of things, is finally superseded by Philosophy. No dancing, though! [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:That's where your sister [[Terpsichore]] comes in. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Of course, because it forms a central part of our aesthetic, and we all dance together! [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
THANKS to all, but esp. Mhicaoidh and Clio the Muse... Time to bone up on my Hegel! Anyone want to venture a guess?: If film is the 7th and Comics the 9th arts, what is number 8? Photography? Theater? ?? [[User:JAK7wiki|JAK7wiki]] 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:A quick [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22eighth+art%22&hl=en&start=40&sa=N google search] indicates that there are many competing claims to the 8th slot: photography, television, video games (!),... --[[User:mglg|mglg]]<sub>([[User talk:mglg|talk]])</sub>
:: Its Hegels list, so if the old arts are dead I would nominate the new time based ones,as above, especially dancing! [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== 1745 Jacobite Rebellion ==
Could the Jacobites have won in 1745? [[User:SeanScotland|SeanScotland]] 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Nnnno. They had a near military victory, but a military victory and "winning" are very different things. Charlie didn't have sufficient popular support, and, had there been a win on the field, it's very likely that he would have faced the same problems as his beheaded namesake: the mercantile classes, the City of London, and the dissenters starving the crown of funds and probably mobilizing another army. Further, Charlie would have had to pay his friends in France at some point, and that would have resulted in absolutely unimaginable dissent. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Don't forget that Charlie would not have been King, his father would have been, and James III would hardly have been anywhere nearly as popular as Charles III. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Quite true. James was a more sophisticated politician than ''his'' father had been, but no amount of political wheedling could have made up for having come from France, in both senses. First, English anti-gallicism is never to be underestimated. Second, growing up in France had led James to some peculiarly absolutist ideas. He was very pleasant and accommodating when in exile, but even people like Atterbury thought that he needed to wise up about royal power. I disagree with Clio's estimation of the numbers of people who would have been fine with a Stuart restoration. It wasn't just a Tory fringe. In 1714, even Walpole had corresponded with the Pretender about bringing him over, and people didn't seem that vexed by the idea of a Stuart, but not a French one. Had Parliament ''invited'' the Pretender over, the people would have tossed roses, I think, in 1714, and they were not very warmly inclined toward "German George" or "Dunce the second (who) rules like Dunce the first." III was the first one to be an English English king. It's just that an ''imposed'' monarch would have meant civil war, at best. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::That's an unusual view of the [[Old Pretender]], Geogre, whom I always believed to have even ''less'' political skill than his unprepossessing father; he certainly had a lot less charisma. When he visited Scotland at the tail end of the 1715 Rebellion he failed to inspire or enervate the dying cause-'If he was disappointed in us, we were far more disappointed in him'. In 1745 he certainly would not have been 'coming from France'; he had lived in Rome for the past thirty years. I rather suspect, moreover, that his 'peculiarly absolutist ideas' were something of a family tradition, to which the French only contributed by way of example. I can detect no enthusiasm in England in 1745 for a Stuart restoration, but I am willing to consider any alternative sources of information (non-Jacobite, that is!). German Geordie may not have been much loved; but he was still far preferable to Italian Charlie! [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 05:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::First, I have to assume that you regard Atterbury as a Jacobite, instead of another victim of the White Staff nonsense? James II was mild, but the Old Pretender was generally quite skillful in his use of people. During his exile, he was pretty good at picking the ministers to help him, organizing propaganda, etc. Had he been less politically aware than the poxed James II, he would have been an easily defeated menace. Instead, he knew where to throw money. "By 45" is a quite different matter than 15. At 1715, he had been pretty clever with promises and courtly politics. An inspiring figure he was not. Charisma he didn't have. Wiles he did. Charles II had never played the absolutist line, and he was quite clear in knowing the difference between England and France. James II seemed to prefer an absolute line (hard to tell, really...his acts argue both ways), so I'm not sure how Stuart it is. After all, Anne was a Stuart, and she was a realistic monarch.
:::In 45, the Old Pretender had been in Rome, and yet he was "French" to the English. After all, Charles II had been in The Hague in exile, but he did not seem very "Dutch" to his subjects. In '45, I agree, there is no enthusiasm. What I argue is that there was little ''opposition'' to a Stuart restoration. In other words, the nation would not be scandalized, although the Whigs would be. The dichotomy that had surfaced in 1650 was alive still (town and country, aristocracy and merchants, dissenters and establishment, take your pick), but the Dissenters had lost a great deal of their popular support (the charge of "enthusiasm" was devastating) and their fire had been somewhat stolen by the new Establishment variations (Whitefield and Wesley were in full career).
:::I do not think that the nation was clamoring for the Pretender. In fact, I think he's something of a Red Scare that kept Walpole in power for 40 years and effectively destroyed the religious demurrals to capitalism's expansion, but the question is whether the people would have been horrified by the Pretender being a Pretender. They didn't like the Hannovers, who themselves didn't like England very much, but they would never allow an imposed monarch. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh, yes, Atterbury was a Jacobite alright, but he died thirteen years before the events of 1745, and there was no figure of similar standing to come in his place. A Jacobite restoration in 1714 might have been possible; in 1727 difficult; and in 1760 all but impossible. I spent some time studying the Jacobite court in its Roman exile, but was never able to detect any high degree of skill on James' part in the management or the motivation of his supporters. He seemed more inclined than not to follow rather than lead, giving his support to a whole range of improbable schemes. I think he was an 'easily defeated menace', and possibly the best political ally that Walpole ever had!
::::Charles II most certainly did play the absolutist line time and again, from the Treaty of Dover to his dismissal of the Oxford Parliament in 1681, though he was always conscious of the fate of his father, and thus wary of taking matters too far, unlike his brother. He started with the highest political advantages in 1661, a grateful nation and a loyal Parliament. By the late 1670s the bond between King, Parliament and Nation had all but gone. Distrust of the royal government explains much of the political excess of the Popish Plot. We now know from the details of Charles' correspondence with Louis XIV just what fate he had in mind for England. There may be a huge gap between desire and fulfilment; but the desire for absolutism, if it might be so put, is the key factor in understanding the reign. James' built up a large standing army, defied Parliament and the Church, and ruled by the exercise of prerogative power, a fair indication, I think, of his political goals. Anne was certainly a Stuart, but also a child and a product of a revolution which fundamentally shifted the balance between crown and parliament. By 1745 the Pretender was just a remote and alien figure, and I do not detect any resentment of him because of specifically French 'roots.' By that time most of his life had, in any case, been passed in Italy. The Hanoverians? They grew on the English in a way that the Stuarts never did. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It's possible, of course, but I think it very unlikely. One can think of scenarios in which they did better: perhaps France delivers on its promise of invading England with 12,000 troops; perhaps the Jacobites decide not to invade England and remain satisfied with defending Scotland; perhaps in December 1745 they march on London and capture it. See [[Jacobite rebellion#The 'Forty-Five']]. The fundamental problem for the Jacobites was that they had no support among the people of southern England, so they could only have prevailed by applying military force through the kingdom — merely holding the capital would not have been enough — and this would be infeasible since they were outnumbered by the government forces commanded by [[Prince William, Duke of Cumberland|Cumberland]]. And France would have had great difficulties in launching an invasion because of Britain's naval superiority in the channel; see [[War of the Austrian Succession#Naval Operations]]. So if you want a scenario in which the Jacobites win, you have to come up with some way in which a significant part of the English ruling classes can be persuaded to turn against the Hanoverians. [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::The ''ruling class'' was not so against the Pretenders, if you mean the aristocracy. However, the aristocrats were no longer ruling. In effect, all the money was already coming from "trade." By '45, Walpole's policies of Warehouse England were paying off, and the National Debt had been sunk in the South Seas, so there was money all over for the very people who were most antipathetic toward the Pretender, while those in favor were having trouble maintaining their positions. [[User:Utgard Loki|Utgard Loki]] 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It is certainly true that the Jacobite adventure exposed both the fragility of the Hanoverian state and the incompetence of the British government of the day. Charles came to Scotland with no troops and few arms; yet within a matter of weeks he had taken control of most of the country, sweeping aside an army of inexperienced recruits at [[Battle of Prestonpans|Prestonpans]]. Yet the invasion of England that followed in early November was one of history's great gambles. It was, moreover, contrary to the assertion of generations of armchair Jacobites, never more than a 'reconnaissance in strength'; a way, firstly, of testing the resolve of the English Jacobites, and secondly, of prompting the French into launching a cross-Channel invasion. On both of these points Charles had given lavish but vague assurances to the Highland chiefs who followed his banner. No commander in Charles' army, even the most sanguine, believed that the Stuarts could be imposed on a reluctant English nation by arms alone. By the time the army reached Derby in early December the illusion was gone: the English did not rise and the French did not come. At a council of war all of the Jacobite commanders, Charles excepted, decided to return to Scotland and wait there for the promised French aid.
But what if they had continued, as Charles wished? What if the rebels-no more than 5000 strong- had taken London, what difference would this have made? Very little, for the simple reason that the fall of the capital is unlikely to have ended the struggle. During the [[War of the Spanish Succession]] Madrid was temporariliy lost to [[Philip V of Spain|Philip V]], just as [[Frederick the Great]] lost control of Berlin for a time during the [[Seven Years War]], though both monarchs fought on successfully. The armies of General Wade and the Duke of Cumberland, coming down from the north, were more than three times stronger than the force at Charles disposal; and it is highly unlikely that many Londoners would have joined the rebels, judging by the example of Manchester. Of course, the capture of London would have entailed serious logistical problems for Cumberland, in terms of pay and supplies, which could have encouraged desertions from his army. This, however, is clearly one of those historical imponderables that cannot be quantified in any meaningful sense. But in the end, the one chance for Charles, indeed his ''only'' chance, was a successful landing by the French.
By December 1745 this was a very real danger. An invasion force under the Marshal-Duke de Richelieu was poised at Dunkirk, ready to make the crossing. With favourable winds, a landing could have been affected in much the same fashion as that of William of Orange in 1688. [[Admiral Vernon]], commanding the British fleet in the Downs, was well aware that the French might have slipped westwards, unobserved by his own ships. But even if the French had landed, and advanced in support of Charles in London, England would still have to have been ''conquered'' as thoroughly as it had been in 1066; for there is no evidence at all that the nation, beyond some of the Tory fringes, would have settled down to a fresh period of Stuart rule, one that would have reversed all of the prevailing currents of English history. Also the French bill, in political terms alone, is likely to have been extraordinarily high, as Geogre has indicated, the payment of which would have transformed the country into a client state of the Bourbons. A Jacobite victory would almost inevitably have entailed permanent French occupation. It could not have worked any other way. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 00:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== "Die at the flagpole"? From which verse? ==
Years ago I heard a poem/verse with the line (as I remember it!) - "Give me one good man to die at the flagpole with me" - It was a war poem. I have searched to no avail. Can anyone help please? I would be so thrilled to find it. PS I've not used Wikipedia previously.[[User:87.112.29.83|87.112.29.83]] 07:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Sarah.
:You could try asking at the [[q:Wikiquote:Reference desk|Wikiquote Reference Desk]]. [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== German atrocities in the First World War ==
Was this really just Allied propaganda? [[User:General joffe|General joffe]] 09:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:See our article on the [[rape of Belgium]]. [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:The short answer is that no, it was not just Allied propaganda. The Germans were responsible for the deaths of a number of Belgian civilians. At the same time, the scale was much less than depicted in British propaganda efforts, which cast relatively isolated incidents as standard operating procedure for the advancing Germans. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:In basically any war atrocities are committed on all sides, even if you don't count waging war as an atrocity by itself. I don't believe World War I was an exception. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Although as they say, the victor writes the history so you only tend to hear about atrocities commit by the losers (also in many cases the level of atrocities increases as the side gets more desperate) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It is perfectly true that, throughout history, war and atrocity have walked hand in hand, though the Great War is possibly the first occasion in which the question of misbehaviour by one of the combatants became a significant ''political'' issue, an issue deeply tied up with the emergence of propaganda as a weapon, more effective, in its own way, than guns and bombs. Indeed, the British might have been said to have been carried into the war on a wave of propaganda, centering on the rape of 'Gallant little Belgium.' As practitioners of the new art the they were far more adept than the Germans, and the weapons was to be used time and again to explain Prussian barbarism, from the execution of [[Edith Cavell]] and the sinking of the [[RMS Lusitania|Lusitania]]. Whereas the early campaign had been for the consumption of a domestic audience, later activities were aimed at influencing public opinion in the United States. Many of the main accusations against the 'Huns' were summarised in [[The Bryce Report|''The Bryce Report'']] of 1915. As a political tactic the whole thing was quite masterly, later earning the respect of Adolf Hitler in ''Mein Kampf''.
It was only after the war that the doubts began to set in; and, as the attitude towards Germany began to change in the inter-war period, many of the accusations were considered to be outright fabrications, including arguably the most infamous of all, the alleged crucifixion of a Canadian soldier by the name of [[Harry Band]]. In Britain a strong pacifist mood took shape in the 1920s, which argued that 'atrocity propaganda', as it was called, had been used to manipulate people into supporting the mass slaughter on the Western Front. A classic example of this is ''Falsehood in Warfare'' by Arthur Ponsonby, published in 1928. In Germany, a commission set up by the Reichstag to examine the issue, published a report in 1927, denying that any atrocities had ever taken place. And so the matter passed into popular consciousness, making it difficult to get people in the Allied nations to accept the truth of the stories that filtered through from occupied Europe during the Second World War.
So, was it all just fabrication, propaganda and lies? No, it was not, as the Germans tacitly admitted themselves in the ''White Book'' of 1915, which justified actions in Belgium against what was described as [[Francs-tireurs]], alleged irregular forces. The simple fact is that Belgian resistance was tougher, and more prolonged, that the Germans had expected. The invading army became ever more anxious as it advanced, often attributing enemy fire to civilian irregulars. Because of this they began to take pre-emptive measures against an imaginary enemy. Civilians were shot on suspicion alone. The Kaiser himself justified the actions of his troops in a note to President Wilson of September 1914, "My generals were finally compelled to take the most drastic measures in order to punish the guilty and to frighten the blood-thirsty population from continuing their work of vile murder and horror." Over 6000 Belgian civilians were shot, sometimes in large groups by machine gun, in a brief ten-day period during the second half of August 1914. Whole villages were destroyed. In Louvain alone 248 people were killed by nervous German soldiers, convinced that they faced a civilian uprising. On the basis of these very real incidents it became possible to weave stories of mass rape and mutliation; of murdered nuns and disfigured children. Allied propaganda, in other words, may have exaggerated, but it was not without substance; it was not a complete lie. Harry Band? Well, in 2002 Channel Four in England screened a documentary claiming that this story, long considered to be pure invention, was indeed based on a real incident. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
==The Devil to Pay in the Backlands==
hello, i am Rohit and i am located in India. About to complete my M. Phil. in English. I am looking for this book "The Devil to Pay in the Backlands" by Joao Guimaraes in English translation from the last 8 years. Can you tell me how to procure it?
: By eight years do you mean a recent translation? 1963 seems most recent. To buy it, Amazon.com [http://www.amazon.com/Devil-Backlands-Joao-Guimaraes-Rosa/dp/9997555449] have it and can post it to you, but it is expensive. I would try your country's libraries, your supervisor could advise you. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 10:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Seems it is a difficult book to translate, I suspect a more recent English translation may have a different title since even my non-existent Portuguese detects a difference in the titles of the 1956 original and 1963 Knopf English edition. [[User:Mhicaoidh|Mhicaoidh]] 10:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Perhaps the same Portuguese translator as ''[[English as She is Spoke]]''? In the Backlands we shall craunch a marmoset! :) --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
== Regarding "cutting and pasting" ==
I've noticed many of the Guggenheim Fellowships years of names were directly cut and pasted from the external link GUGGENHEIM FELLOWSHIP website. Is this alright to do without any legal glitches? If it is legitimate then one can easily cut and paste for the years that are not yet pasted quite readily. [[User:Pjt48|Pjt48]] 13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:It depends on how they're doing it. Facts can't be copyrighted, but the presentation can. The names are going to be the same, but the words around the facts, the table, even the font can be copyrighted. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 14:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::I've cut and pasted your question, and the reply above, to the [[Wikipedia:Help_desk#Regarding_.22cutting_and_pasting.22_.28moved_from_Humanities_desk.29|help desk]], which is the best place for queries like this. --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] [[User talk:Richardrj|<sup>talk </sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/Richardrj|<sup>email</sup>]] 14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:The information is not in any way "creative" — it is a list of who has received an award. It is almost certainly (though one is rarely ever 100% certain with copyright law!) not copyrightable. See, i.e. [[Feist v. Rural]]. Now if those lists themselves were sellable commodities (like "Top 10 lists" or "Best rock n' roll songs of all time") with a high degree of subjectivity/creativity, then it becomes quite possible that they are copyrighted, but in this case the list is a secondary artifact of the prize-giving, not copyrightable content itself. --[[User:24.147.86.187|24.147.86.187]] 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
==Interesting people in history==
The fascinating question above Trebitsch Lincoln and his world-traveling, eventful life above got me wondering. One of the links from the article, Bernard Wasserstein in the NY Times, said "He is one of those types, notorious in their own day, who sink rapidly into obscurity after their deaths, sometimes hovering briefly in the footnotes of history." If I may be permitted to ask such a broad question, who do you think are some of the most interesting people who've lived? I mean the type of person who you might not come across in history classes – not the Julius Caesars or the Marxes or the emperors or the presidents or other influential political figures – who nevertheless had fascinating lives that today are only footnotes in the broader picture of history? [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:: If you want a Soviet counterpart to Trebitsch, check [[Yakov Blumkin]]. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 14:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
: I would suggest [[Charles Lightoller]] as someone who interested me as a child when I first read about the Titanic. (The second person I thought of after I read your question was, oddly, [[Reginald Barclay]]. I think he would be a fictional version of the same question - a little off topic but I hope it might serve to illustrate the sort of character you are referring to.) [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
: [[Emperor Norton of the United States]]! [[Isabelle Eberhardt]]! [[George Dyson (science historian)|George Dyson]]! I love these kinds of characters and can't wait to see whom others suggest. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::[[Godric of Finchale]], medieval pirate-turned-saint? (Or [[Eustace the Monk]], who was just a pirate...) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[[William Dampier]] (1651–1715), pirate, captain, explorer, and naturalist, who sailed three times around the world. [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::: Talking about pirates, I would settle on [[Cheung Po Tsai]] or [[Ching Shih]]. I wrote the Russian Wikipedia page about them. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:I think a lot of us will have some colorful examples from our areas of expertise. In music history, I can think of some names of interest: [[Carlo Gesualdo]], melomaniac, one of the most brilliantly talented musicians of the late Renaissance, who murdered his wife and her lover, putting their bodies on public display, and who later employed servants to beat him "at stool", as a penance; [[Pierre Alamire]], the finest copyist of the age, whose illuminated manuscripts preserve the music of the Habsburg court, and who was also a diplomat and prodigious spy; the enthusiastic nut [[Anthony Philip Heinrich]], contemporary of Beethoven, the first American composer of orchestral music, and the first to conduct a Beethoven symphony in the young United States (in Lexington, Kentucky, no less--bet you didn't know that), and composer of some of the weirdest music of the nineteenth century. I'm sure this thread will generate lots of interesting suggestions. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:For me, it was [[Jonathan Wild]], but I've also been very interested in [[Ann Cargill]] and [[Elinor James]]. There is very little to be known about these last two, but they're both absolutely perfect for a fictionalized account, if one were inclined. Poor Ann Cargill and her Romantic death, and the civic minded "London godmother," Mrs. James, wagging her finger at Parliament at a time when it was seriously speculated that women were incapable of reason. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[Juan Pujol (alias Garbo)]] has a special place in my heart. Pure genius. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest [[Edward Bernaise]]. An incredibly influential man who led a very interesting life, who no-one has heard of. I highly recommend the documentary 'Century of the Self', which is on google video. [[User:Willy turner|Willy turner]] 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[[William Walker (soldier)]]. Not that I ''admire'' the guy, of course. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that what you're getting is a bit euro-centric (indeed a bit US-centric too). Assuming you haven't studied non-European history that well, you might want to take a look there since even some fairly famous people there may interest you but be unknown. Two that come to mind are [[Hang Tuah]] or [[Zheng He]] (although the later is probably famous enough that you would have heard of him). Unfortunately, I can't remember any others at the moment [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I could come up with a bunch of names of famous adventurers, such as [[Chevalier d'Eon]], but, for the purposes of answering so silly a question, I shall single out [[Móric Beňovský]], a Slovak adventurer, globetrotter, explorer, colonizer, writer, chess player, confidant of [[Benjamin Franklin]], participant of the [[American Revolutionary War]], Polish military commander, and Austrian count who was incidentally one of the first Europeans to treat with the Japanese authorities, after his escape from a Russian prison on the [[Kamchatka Peninsula]]. He was killed by the French while defending the capital of his own kingdom in [[Madagascar]]. Among Russian people, [[Nikolai Rezanov]] is a fascinating personality. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*Someone whose article I'm working on is [[Bok de Korver]], the first Dutch football celebrity. He refused to train before a match, because he believed that training would give someone an unfair advantage over an opponent, who may not have had the opportunity to train. He never made a foul, or even touched an opponent, because he believed a player should use speed, agility and technical skills to win a duel. He had the same mindset as [[John Charles]], the Gentle Giant. Another name that comes to mind is [[William McCrum]], the inventor of the penalty kick in [[football (soccer)]]. [[Special:Contributions/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Aecis|Brievenbus]]</sup> 23:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, along ''those'' lines, there is [[Hank Greenberg]], a baseball player who refused to pitch in the World Series on the sabbath because he was an observant Jew. I've been attracted to crooks and disasters. I'd like to add, to my previous, [[Edward Pilgrim]]: a man "killed" by bureaucracy. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[Sir Thomas Malory]] was a pretty interesting character—a real swashbuckling adventurer (sort of), and a major contributor to the Arthur Cycle. I also think [[Rollo of Normandy]] was interesting, but that may just be me. [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost on-topic... my favourite character from history is [[Saladin]], who taught the Crusaders a thing or two about [[chivalry]], as well as warcraft. Sadly, many school curricula in the Western world tend to skim over Saladin and dote longingly on [[Richard the Lionheart]]. I wonder why? (Actually, I don't). I know which of the two I'd have preferred as my leader, whether as civilian, soldier... or even minstrel. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I seem to recall reading that Saladin is much better thought of in the west than in the areas inhabited by the descendants of the people who fought under him. But, since I can't recall where I read this, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Saladin and Richard are both pretty romanticized. Saladin is probably remembered more for re-establishing Sunnism in Egypt...he defeated the crusaders, but not totally, and it wasn't until [[Baibars]] that they were completely pushed out. Baibars is actually a lot more interesting, if you are interested in shady historical characters! Anyway, neither Richard or Saladin were particularly chivalric, this was only the 12th century after all, and that sort of thing did not really develop until the 13th or 14th. Saladin had no problem with taking revenge on his enemies, slaughtering prisoners when necessary, trying to completely eradicate the Templars and Hospitallers, enslaving poor Christians who couldn't pay for their freedom, etc etc (although at the same time, he was known for his generosity, and supposedly bankrupted himself by giving so many gifts). He was definitely remembered better in the west, and in the 19th century, Kaiser Wilhelm had a magnificent tomb built for Saladin in Damascus, because the modest little one that already existed was not good enough for such a wonderful chivalrous personage as Saladin! Yet no one in Damascus cared enough to build anything like that in the previous 700 years. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Contemporary christian chroniclers in the holy land, not known for their admiration of muslims, write in almost awestruck terms of Saladin's behaviour on various occasions, at the 1183 siege of [[Kerak in Moab]] (where [[William of Tyre]] tells us how he ordered his siege engines not to target the tower where a newly-wed couple were residing), after he captured Jerusalem (1187, [[Ernoul]] tells how the christians were allowed to leave, unharmed and with some vestige of honour), after the battle of [[Horns of Hattin|Hattin]], when he personally served the (desperately thirsty) elite prisoners with rosewater, iced with snow from [[Mount Hermon]]... except for [[Reynald of Chatillon]], whom Saladin was personally to decapitate some moments later (one doesn't butcher one's guests) (Ernoul again). The view of Saladin isn't a post-dated romanticising, but one of reluctantly admiring enemies. One cannot judge historical personalities by the standards of today, but by those of their own times. Saladin exceeded the standards of his time - a simple comparison of what happened in Jerusalem when captured by the 1st Crusade and then by Saladin tells its own tale. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::So far as crusaders go, [[Bohemond I of Antioch]] has always been an interesting character. So far as unknown Americans, I'm partial to [[Adriaen van der Donck]] of course. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|☎]] 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Ch'in Chiu-Shao]]: Lustful, corrupt, boastful and fiercely intelligent. Depressingly, our article makes him seem like a good guy, but he was a flamboyant, egotistical rogue, of the good sort, though. [[User:203.221.127.130|203.221.127.130]] 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:How about [[Larry Walters|"Lawnchair" Larry Walters]]? [[Special:Contributions/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Aecis|Brievenbus]]</sup> 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
More explorers: [[Ernest Shackleton]]. In my opinion one of the most heroic explorers of all time. Sir [[Richard_Francis_Burton]], and [[Captain James Cook]] as well.
What about [[Edward de Vere]], 17th Earl of Oxford. There's far more evidence that he was the author of the plays attributed to [[William Shakespeare]] than there is evidence that Shakespeare ever wrote anything ''at all''. To quote from [[Mark Anderson]]'s book "Shakespeare By Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man who was Shakespeare" (ISBN 1-592-40215-1), ''"As far as is known and can be proven, Shakespeare never wrote a sentence in his life"''. Apart from that, de Vere led a fascinating life in its own right. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== unconditional love and free lunch ==
I think these two things, unconditional love and free lunch are different things. But let it be two different questions.
1)Is there unconditional love in this universe?
2)Is there free lunch in this universe?
Can you explain a bit in detail both of these things and say more about these things.
:Have you read the article on [[altruism]]? That might point you in the direction of an answer. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]][[User:Zahakiel|<font color = "indigo"><span style="text-decoration:none">Zahakiel</span></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]] 16:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::See also [[Unconditional love]] and [[Free lunch]] (and [[TANSTAAFL]]). In both cases, there is a problem with testability. For a positive answer, how could you prove the love is ''truly'' unconditional, and the lunch ''truly'' free? For a negative answer, how would you go about to prove there is no ''whatever'' (e.g. [[unicorn]]) in this [[universe]]? This does not mean the concepts are meaningless or useless; it just shows there is no point in elevating them to a level of absoluteness. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:For reasons I've never understood, if you are really filthy rich like Trump or Paris Hilton, restaurants do indeed give you free lunches. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::On the surface that practice looks like mindless fawning. But I think the quid pro quo is that celebrities have a good chance of being spotted by paparazzi and photographed while at the restaurant, and the restaurant will then attract more customers wanting to dine at the same place as Paris did, or eat the same meal she ate. Why they would actually want to do this, or emulate any of her behaviours at all, escapes me entirely. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== The Dow Jones Industrial Average ==
Does anyone know why the opening value of the DJIA for one day is different from the closing value for the day before? I had always assumed that the DJIA opening value for any day was exactly the same number as the DJIA closing value for the day before. Is that assumption wrong? In other words, if the market closes on the afternoon of June 4 at exactly 13,000.00 -- why doesn't the market open on the morning of June 5 at exactly 13,000.00? What happens to the number in the interim between one day's close and the next day's opening? Thanks. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
:Your question could be recharacterized as "Why does a given stock open at a different price than the previous close?" The stated prices reflecting actual sales. The last sale of a day need not be at the same price as the first sale of the next day. Also, a change in an expensive stock (such as IBM) has a larger effect (about 3 times as large) than a change in a lower priced stock, since the DJIA is the sum of 30 stock prices divided by a carefully chosen denominator. I looked at closing and opening DJIAs from April 3, 2007 through July 6, 2007. The largest change was from the April 4 close of 12,530.05 to the April 5 open of 12,505.73, a decrease of -24.32 or 0.194%. The largest increase was July 2 to July 3, when the open was higher than the previous close by 21.44, or 0.158 %.The average change from close to open in this approximate 3 month period was 0.010 %, which really isn't all that large. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 20:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Is the opening price the price of the actual first sale of that stock on that day, no matter how small the volume? If so, I could (in theory) set a record for greatest jump in overnight price by simply buying one of each of the DJIA stocks for twice their closing price, and making sure I'm the [[first post]]! buyer. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The morning opening price of a stock will reflect the information available to buyers and sellers (regarding that stock, alternative things to invest ones money in, interest rates, currency exchange rates, economic indicators, etc.) at that time, which may be more than was available at closing time the previous evening. Imagine, for example, that the CEO was arrested for fraud in the early morning... --[[User:mglg|mglg]]<sub>([[User talk:mglg|talk]])</sub> 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not understanding (or following) any of these above answers. So, let me rephrase my question. This is how I think that the stock market works. It closes at 4:00 pm (or whenever) and that's that. There is no activity again until the next morning at 10:00 am (or whenever). To me, that's what the open and close means. (Think of a WalMart store opening its front doors for customers and closing its front doors to customers each day for business.) My assumption is that nothing at all happens after 4:00 pm, since the market is "closed". No activity at all will occur until the market reopens at 10 am the next day. That is my premise for how the stock market works. As such, I cannot understand why tomorrow's opening value does not exactly match today's closing value. So, where is my thinking incorrect? If there is indeed "activity" (whatever that may be) after 4 pm and before 10 am ... what would that activity be? And, if indeed there is activity, what does it even mean to say that the market "closes" at 4 and "opens" at 10? What does open and close mean if, in fact, the market is really open all the time (24 hours a day) and never really closed? Thanks. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
:My understanding is that there's also a degree of after-hours trading; I've run across references to this (or something similar) numerous times in business news. I suppose that all those transactions queue up and execute instantaneously with the next market opening before any regular-hours transactions can go through, thus effectively changing the new opening value. — [[User talk :Lomn|Lomn]] 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Think of it as reflecting two different transactions, with a matchup between what someone is willing to sell for and what someone is willing to pay. It fluctuates all day; why should the last trade of one day be at the same price as the first trade of the next day? Financial news is often released after the market close and is reflected in the next day's price. At 3:59 pm I offer 100 shares of Widget at an asking price of $100 and you buy it. No more is sold that day, so the closing price is 100. During the night, you hear a rumor that the widgets they make have a lethal defect and the government will likely require an expensive recall. In a panic, you offer the shares for sale at 90 first thing the next morning and someone buys them, thinking he is getting a bargain. The opening price of 90 is thus lower than the closing price. No one is required to pay or to sell for the same price at open that it sold for at the previous close. Every sale has a buyer who seeks the lowest price and a seller who seeks the highest price, and there is a constant fluctuation. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::My understanding of the above is this. The closing price for the stock is the price it was trading for when the market closed. The opening price of a stock is the price it is trading for when the market opens. Given that things change between the closing and opening, it is likely that there will be a difference in these two values. (Indeed major annoucements are usually after the market closes) For example, if overnight, it's revealed that the iPhone has a major problem which results in it combusting in some instances, it is rather likely that people are going to be selling Apple shares when the market opens at a far lower price then they were buying them before it closed. The index of any share market of course depends on the values of the stock in it. Therefore, if these values change, so will the index [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 22:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: (This is but another version of the preceding, with a few added bits. I hate to waste all the typing on a possible edit conflict.) Some of the discrepancy is accounted for in “after-hours trading”. See [http://invest-faq.com/articles/trade-after-hours.html] and [http://www.sec.gov/answers/afterhours.htm]. What used to be restricted to institutional investors is now much more widely available. It is also true that many stocks available on U.S. markets are also available in international markets where the business days do not coincide in hours or sometimes even in days. (The NYSE is closed on July 4th, but the rest of the world keep on trading and that trading information is what establishes the number at which the DJIA opens on the 5th.) Open or closed, the NYSE, FTSE, CAC and the like are all receiving information 24/7; in that sense, then, it never closes. The daily “close”, aside from being a ritual at many exchanges, may be not much more now than the marker for the time at which the staff gets to leave for the day. The “open” and “close” times also affect many business deals, and so have a specific meaning when used, for example, to note to whom dividends are payable: to the shareholders of record as at the close of the NYSE on such-and-such a date. [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] 22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
OK -- this makes sense to me now. So, basically, the "market" is at work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (the free market forces in equilibrium price through supply and demand). The daily opening/closing values of the DJIA are merely snapshots in time taken (rather arbitrarily) at 10 AM and 4 PM. Does this sum it up pretty accurately? And, as such, the open/close values are not particularly relevant -- other than to gauge general patterns and to have a consistent starting/stopping time to take the daily snapshot. Is this thinking accurate? Thanks. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
== I'm looking for an unusual (English) word I can't find anywhere ==
The past few days I have been scouring the internet looking for this stupid word. I know it has an article page on wikipedia, but for the life of me, I cannot remember what it is. I've described it to my friends and they all have no idea. It's not a common word, and although I consider myself well-versed, it's not one I've encountered before, or since. Its a small word, maybe four or five letters, and I'm almost positive it begins with the litter 'm.' Now the important part, the definition. It's hard to describe, but basically it is a noun that refers to a cultural phenomenon; moreso, it compares cultural phenomena to a virus. That's basically all I have. Can anybody help? [[User:24.225.133.132|24.225.133.132]] 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Dan S.
:[[Meme]]? --[[User:mglg|mglg]]<sub>([[User talk:mglg|talk]])</sub> 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::I believe it is meme. It always reminds me of a GB Shaw quote: "A fashion is nothing but an induced epidemic." -- [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]]<small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(what?)]]</sup></small> 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Benjamin Disraeli ==
I couldn't find an answer to my question in the article on [[Benjamin Disraeli]] (which would make sense, since it's basically a factoid). Is it true that he is the only Jewish head of state/head of government of a country other than Israel? [[Special:Contributions/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Aecis|Brievenbus]]</sup> 22:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Hello, Aecis. On a point of information, Disraeli may have been Jewish by background and tradition, but, under the guidance of his father, he converted to Anglicanism at an early age. Jewish people were not admitted to the British Parliament until 1858. Of course, there have been Jewish people who have headed governments elsewhere. [[Leon Blum]] springs to mind, and there are probably others. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Just came across [[Laurent Fabius]] as well. [[Special:Contributions/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Aecis|Brievenbus]]</sup> 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::You can also have [[Kurt Eisner]] and [[Bela Kun]]! [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[Janet Jagan]] in Guyana is another.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 23:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Jewish heads of government or state have included [[Julius Vogel]] (New Zealand), [[Leon Blum]] (France), [[Ruth Dreifuss]] (Switzerland) and [[Bruno Kreisky]] (Austria). -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 23:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Also [[Roy Welensky]] (prime minister of the semi-independent Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland from 1957 to 1963). ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Came across [http://volokh.com/posts/1136402090.shtml] (yes the title sounds fishy but from the discussion it seems fine. You can always check any claims on wikipedia) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::That link refers to the 2 Jewish Australian Governors- General, Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir Zelman Cowan. They don't strictly satisfy the question because they were neither heads of government nor heads of state. We consider our monarch to be our head of state. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The Australian Governor-General could be described as the ''Efficient'' head of state, and the Queen of Australia as the ''Dignified'' head of state, if you were to follow [[Walter Bagehot]]'s division. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::True, one could do that. But as to the formal designation (which is not actually formal because the term "head of state" appears nowhere in our constitutional documents), see [[Government of Australia#Head of State]]. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 21:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
=July 10=
== Unions and Villages in Bangladesh ==
What is an 'union' and how many there in Bangladesh? How many villages are there in Bangladesh?
*Dunno the first, but the answer to the second is 68038. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
**{{fact}} [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::The 68038 number looks like a mis-typing of the number of villages reported by the 1991 census, which was 86038. The updated number of villages according to the [http://www.bbs.gov.bd/dataindex/census/bang_atg.pdf 2001 census] is 87362. Clearly it is a matter of definition what should be counted as a village, so for this number to be of any use one would have to find out what definition of "village" the census used. As for what unions are, see [[Trade union]]. [[USAID]] claims there are about 4400 unions in Bangladesh [http://www.usaid.gov/bd/dem_gov.html]. --[[User:mglg|mglg]]<sub>([[User talk:mglg|talk]])</sub> 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== What is the definition of ? ==
Can someone please tell me what is the definition or explanation of Commercial Burglary. As in someone was charged with Commercail Burglary by the police? justin7773 Thank you!
:It would help if you told us what legal jurisdiction? It sounds like something legal to me. And of course note our legal disclaimer. [[User:Splintercellguy|Splintercellguy]] 06:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
: The burglary of someone's place of business ("commercial") as opposed to someone's home ("residential"). And, in case your question is also asking, "burglary" means that an intruder breaks into the business with the purpose / plan of committing a crime once he enters the business (for example, typically, stealing). ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
== Association of social and economical beliefs ==
I hope you understand what I mean. I would really like to learn how deregulation of the economy and capitalism and the like became so associated with so-called "social conservatism". How come communists are pro-gay rights and capitalists are against it (not that they are like that in the real world, but this seems to be a strong stereotype). In the US, for instance, why is the Democratic Party so socially libertarian (or liberal, whatever), but tend to be more socialist than the Republican Party? [[User:A.Z.|A.Z.]] 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Well, for a long time, since at least the 1920's, the Republican Party has been the party of [[Lasse_faire]] economics. In general through out US history, relgious groups have been fairly non partisan, or even liberal. This changed in the 1970's after the [[Roe_v_Wade]] [[Supreme_court]] decision. This made abortion legal in all US states. Religious groups were, (and still are) extremely opposed to legalized abortion. [[Reagan]] made part of his presidential platform that he would work to over turn Roe v Wade. And thus an alliance was born, that stands today. Of course once the religious got a taste of power, they didn't stop at just opposing [[abortion]], but started lobbying against [[ gay]]s, for teaching [[creationism]] as [[science]], and the rest of their socially conservative agenda. Since they are now an important part of the Republican coalition, Republican polititians are pretty much obligated to at least give lip service to social conservatism. One of the interesting things about the upcoming presidential campaign is that at least two of the republican front runners, [[Rudy_Guliani]], and [[Mitt_Romney]] have a history of social liberalism. It will be interesting to see how this plays out... -[[User:Czmtzc|Czmtzc]] 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Stalin and Hitler ==
How do they compare as military leaders? [[User:BadDog4|BadDog4]] 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the fact that Stalin obviously defeated Hitler is relevant. Hitler made several strategic and tactical decisions that are now wideley seen as errors. For example; not destroying Britains radar network when he could have easily/not appreciating the significance of radar soon enough. Making the descision During the battle of britain to stop attacking fighter bases and switch to bombing london when the RAF were on their knees. Refusing his commanders request to withdraw after loosing at Stalingrad, leading to the capture of hundreds of thousands of troops. Refusing to supply his troops in Russia with proper winter equipment and clothing. There must be a section on the hitler page regarding his success/failure as a military leader. In a nutshell he repeatedly overuled his commanders, who knew what they were doing more than him. And the fact he was pretty bonkers meant he constantly overestimated the german armed forces capabilities, and underestimated his oponents.
Dont know as much re Stalin. But he did order the murder of thousands of his officers before the war, which wouldnt have exactly helped. Having said that the modernisation and effectiveness of soviet troops and equipment during the war was pretty remarkable. [[User:Willy turner|Willy turner]] 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Very difficult to analyse, because the Hitler of 1939 vintage was a rather different beast than the 1945 one. Also, be aware that being on the offensive always makes a military leader look good, but there's more to it than that. So the all-conquering Wehrmacht in the early part of the war makes Hitler look good, but how did he cope with stagnation and then retreat? Compare how the media perceived GW Bush during the successful invasion of Iraq... with how his military leadership is perceived now after some years of military occupation. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::The speed and easy with which Hitler's forces defeated the large and well equipped Belgian, British and French forces in 1940 per [[Timeline of World War II]] makes him look like a military wizard. The later idiocies make him look like a military bozo. Stalin did idiotic things too, like shooting many of his generals right before the Nazi attack on Russia, due to a deception by the Germans to make him think his generals were conspiring against him. Then he stayed incommunicado for an extended time after the German attack began, doing nothing to provide leadership. He also had the advantage of vast amounts of equipment shipped to Russia from the US, which Hitler certainly did not have. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Edison, that view on Stalin and the military purges of 1938 has long been discarded. The 'Heydrich Plot' was a political fiction. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:As I mentioned in an earlier thread, if Hitler had not been such a rabid anti-semite, the [[Hans Bethe]]s of the world would likely have been working for him instead of Uncle Sam. It's questionable whether Germany could have mounted a [[Manhattan Project]] during the war, but chasing most of the best physicists out of Europe definitively foreclosed any possibility. Bad military move, especially when he could have used a [[Hail Mary pass|Hail Mary]] at the end of the war.--[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Well, Hitler did invest heavily in "wonder weapons" of many sorts, so you can't really fault him for not investing in one particular one (which his best scientists told him was unpromising, and which most scientists worldwide thought was a long-shot in any case, even in the US effort). --[[User:24.147.86.187|24.147.86.187]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:EinsteinSzilard.jpg|thumb|right]]
:::Sure, but if the likes of [[Leó Szilárd]] and [[Albert Einstein]] had still been in Europe, then [[Einstein-Szilárd letter|the letter]] in the photo at right might have been addressed "Dear Mein Fuhrer ...". --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 13:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference between Stalin and Hitler as military leaders? Well, that's simple enough: Hitler thought he was a genius and acted like a genius, with disastrous consequences for the whole German war effort. Stalin thought he was a genius and acted like a politician, giving the initiative to the people who had the talent and skill to realise his strategic vision. Stalin learned from his mistakes; Hitler did not learn from Stalin's mistakes. Possibly the worst order that any leader can give to his generals is 'hold on at all costs and do not retreat.' All this means is that the enemy finds a weak point, advances and then destroys the defending forces in battles of envelopment, precisely what happened in western Russia in the summer and autumn of 1941. But by 1942 Stalin had learned the advantages of trading territory for military advantage. The [[Second Battle of Kharkov]] was to be the last truly serious Russian defeat in the war. Thereafter, with minimal interference from Stalin, soldiers like [[Georgy Zhukov]] and [[Ivan Koniev]] were allowed sufficient inititive to bring their formidable talents to bear. Hitler, in contrast, began to interfere with military operations, down to the most basic levels of command, robbing the German army of the flexibility and initiative which had long been the chief mark of its battle-field effectiveness. The German Sixth Army could have withdrawn from [[Battle of Stalingrad|Stalingrad]] even after it was surrounded in November 1942; but Hitler insisted that it remain. A new pattern of fight and defend at all costs was established, leading to the destruction of one German force after the other as the Russians pushed westwards in 1943-44.
There are other factors to consider in the respective war-time roles of Stalin and Hitler. As a leader Stalin was an inspiration, and his decision to remain in Moscow, and be seen in public, as the Germans advanced towards the city, had an incalculable effect on Russian morale. [[ W. Averell Harriman]], the U.S. ambassador to Moscow from 1943-45, was to say of him "I'd like to emphasize my great admiration for Stalin the national leader in an emergency, one of those historical occasions when one man made such a difference." Contrast that with Hitler who, as the German emergency deepened, sunk further and further into the background, leaving Goebbels to fill the gap in national leadership. For all his faults Stalin was an asset for the Russian war effort; for all his talents Hitler was a disaster for the German. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
==Waiting lines for NHS==
I have watch the movie Sicko. My only concern with a universal health care system is the waiting lines. How bad could they become? I don't know anyone from the UK. Can someone from UK enlighten me? I looked at the wiki page on NHS and it did say
*The length of waiting lists for consultations and surgical procedures.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6141634.stm</ref>
How bad would it be, for example if I have a heart attack?
[[User:220.239.108.118|220.239.108.118]] 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Speaking as a citizen of a country with a universal health care system (Belgium), I can answer that it needn't be bad. When I had appendicitis, I was examined and in the operating room within a few hours (can't be more precise as I don't remember much beyond, y'know, stabbing pain). People from the UK and the Netherlands actually come here to get operations done, as well. There are many ways of implementing a universal health care system, so don't compare only to the UK's. :) [[User:Random Nonsense|Random Nonsense]] 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:In Canada, it's horrible. I personally know one woman who was afraid she had breast cancer. They forced her to wait months for an appointment with a specialist. [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::A Canadian friend of mine has [[shingles]]. She had to wait eight hours in the ER before being put into an isolation ward. During the eight hours, my supposedly contagious friend was sitting amongst all of the other patients, visiting the cafeteria, shopping at the gift shop. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, ''Shingles cannot be passed from one person to another. However, the virus that causes shingles, VZV, can be spread from a person with active shingles to a person who has never had chickenpox through direct contact with the rash. The person exposed would then develop chickenpox, not shingles. The virus is not spread through sneezing, coughing or casual contact. A person with shingles can spread the disease when the rash is in the blister-phase. Once the rash has developed crusts, the person is no longer contagious. A person is not infectious before blisters appear or with post-herpetic neuralgia (pain after the rash is gone).''' [[shingles]].
:::Meanwhile, as described below, I have a "good" plan and live in a state with "excellent" healthcare. Last time I took a friend who was passing out for no apparent reason to the ER, it was five hours before getting seen, and then it was immediate hospitalization and IV and 'good thing you came in'. We were literally just getting up to leave and see if it would "get better over night". Last time I went to the ER myself, I had to sit with a bleeding head wound for 2 hours before getting seen. The punchline is, I was the only one in the waiting room. Given that it was 6 pm, I can only assume the staff were having dinner. Which I don't begrudge them; I certainly wasn't going to die, but if you think the main goal in any ER, anywhere, is to make the patient happy and comfortable ASAP, forget it. They see people coming in with a knife sticking out of their eyeball, they're not going to feel the same urgency about your skin rash as you do. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, if you had a heart attack you would be treated immediatley. [[User:Willy turner|Willy turner]] 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:This isn't really a Humanities question, you know, so I'll just urge you to stick to Dame Logic. If someone "knows someone who," don't take that as evidence. If you find studies, look at the sources. Remember that any governmental agency requires funding, and if the funding is cut by enemies of the program, the program will not work very well. As for the UK, look at the last time the ''rumor'' of cutting the NHS spread, with John Major, and his government nearly fell from the mere rumor. The citizenry grumble, but the system appears to be overwhelmingly popular. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:In the US, with "good" insurance, it took ten months for me to get ear surgery to correct a hearing problem. I was required to see no fewer than FIVE doctors before I was able to see the surgeon who scheduled the surgery a month later (it would have been sooner, but he was going on vacation). Despite living in a major metropolitan area, my "good" insurance also claimed that there was only one doctor in the metropolitan area, with his office 20 miles away, who could do the surgery. I remember being told back in 93 that we didn't want universal healthcare because we didn't want the government picking our doctors. Apparently we want accountants doing that. [[User:Donald Hosek|Donald Hosek]] 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Amen. I had "good" insurance and live in a state with "excellent" healthcare. I got mysterious cramps in my leg, so bad I had to stop and rest just to get from my desk to my car at work. Took '''6 months''' to see a specialist, who sent me for a cat scan. Got billed for the cat scan because the MD failed to preauthorize it, despite the insurance contract saying I would not be billed for anything a 'participating' MD recommended, no matter what. The insurance company, MD, and cat scan place pointed fingers at each other, but I just refused to pay and finally they went away. The icing on the cake is that the MD and the cat scan place are parts of the same big practice and are down the hall from each other. And, of course, the leg pain finally went away by itself without the doctor ever getting around to doing anything.
::Part two: I had occasion to see a neurologist and a GI specialist. Had to wait '''two months''' to get to see each. In each case, it was just an initial visit, before starting the real work. Before I could get a second visit with either, the insurance company notified me as a 'courtesy' when they did the next year's contracts, that neither of these doctors were 'participating' any more, i.e. if I wanted to go on with the diagnosis, never mind the treatment, I would have to cover half. I had noted that the bill for the single neurologist visit, which the insurer had paid as 'usual and customary charges', was $750. I didn't bother starting up all over again with new doctors; the GI thing went away, the neurological thing is still there.
::Part three: My insurance company gave cash incentives for healthy living, like getting a physical every year. So, I got a physical (after only a '''four month''' wait) and got $20. I also got a bill from the doctor for $250, because the insurance company only pays for one physical every two years and I had one the year before.
::The thing is, that I'm pretty healthy, and like I said, this is a "good" insurance plan and these are "good" doctors, and none of this is particularly unusual. Everybody I know who is about the same age has similar stories often with worse endings, for themselves or their family or parents. I have family in Canada, and their healthcare isn't perfect either, by any means. But their stories are certainly no worse than the stories of American healthcare; they're indistinguishable, except that they are never left staring at a huge doctor's bill, let alone having to pay it. And what they pay for their healthcare indirectly through taxes is about half of what we're paying indirectly through our employers plus our cash "contributions".
::Meanwhile, the waits in emergency rooms are huge. You could easily die of a heart attack in the ER waiting for treatment if you walk in instead of taking the ambulance ride. And I can say from family experience, if you need immediate treatment in Canada (I don't have any experience with the UK) you do get it immediately; if you have a heart condition you can get admitted into the hospital directly from the doctor's office. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:One thing to note is that the US currently spends much more per-patient than the NHS does, so any lines would be correspondingly shorter. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]], are you talking about Federal dollars, Fed and state combined dollars, or total dollars spent per patient without regard to source? Does the per paitent spending exclude the overhead costs of an employer (or a private individual) contracting with an insurance company that operates or contracts with a PPO or HMO which then employs or contracts with actual care providers? Also, most (if not all) US gov't spending for healthcare goes to Medicare, Medicaid. and WIC. So if you are not old, poor, or pregnant; you see roughly none of that money. [[User:161.222.160.8|161.222.160.8]] 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Furthermore, the general boogie man trotted out for governmental insurance (other than "In the UK, they hate it," when they don't, and "In Canada, they cross the border to get life saving surgery," when they don't) is "waste." "Government waste" is the reason to avoid rationalized health care and state health care. Ok. Supposing that all government agencies have an 18% waste rate (much higher than the US federal government does have at the Veteran's Administration, but never mind that). Suppose that private insurance has 11% waste. That leaves 7% greater waste with the government. Now, free market corporations exist to make a ''profit.'' Is that profit margin over 7%? Can the patient do anything about the profits? Publically traded corporations are ''required'' to maximize profits, by law. They ''must'' deny every claim they can and pay as little as possible. In a democracy, people can change their governments, but they can't change their corporate insurer's profit margins or force them to behave in their interests, when they are compelled not to. Additionally, the high capitalization required to set up a health insurance company means that there is not easy and open competition between providers. This, however, is just logic. Reality may not obey it. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::It's pretty much a truism in the healthcare industry that at this point, all the slack has been squeezed out, and the main way to increase profitability is to squeeze out the sick people. This of course leads to the unavoidable spiral; in order to attract people who don't actually need healthcare you have to lower your rates, which doesn't allow you to cover people who do need healthcare, so you squeeze them out more, which means that you are now looking for a population who need even less healthcare, so you need to lower your rates more, etc.
:::Note that the US Medicare program, which is socialized medicine, is not only the most cost effective medical care provided in the US, but also has the highest level of patient satisfaction; and furthermore, the only part of healthcare where the US is competitive or even excels vs. other countries in quality, is healthcare for those above 70 years of age. Who, of course, are all receiving it via Medicare. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I am another person with "good" insurance in a U.S. state with top-notch medical care, and I have had to wait months for attention to severe back pain. After I waited 6 months, during which the pain subsided, my turn finally came up for the MRI. Turns out that I had a herniated disk, which had probably gotten worse while I was waiting for attention. Only after he had received the MRI report would my physician approve me for physical therapy. The insurance paid the bill, but not before they paid accountants and other examiners to try to find reasons not to pay the bill, and not before they had distributed dividends to shareholders and hundred-million-dollar bonuses to executives. In civilized countries, they get you treatment as quickly as they can, and the government pays the bill, without the overhead. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:You could look at the statistics [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nscl.asp?id=6536 here], but they only go up to 2003 and they have been improving for the last few years. This article from 2002 [http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,,681906,00.html] gives some idea of how things have been changing in the last few years. Compare it with [http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2631539.ece this] article from this year. Pay attention to the 'months' in one, and the 'weeks' in the other! In short, waiting lists can get very long if those in charge of funding don't put enough money in, and don't organise it properly; waiting lists can also get a lot shorter, if the will is there. Ah, if only it weren't for the slaughter, Tony Blair would surely be remembered as a great Prime Minister... [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Uhaw ang Tigang na Lupa ==
Please help me get a copy of the story entitled "Uhaw ang Tigang na Lupa" by Liwayway Arceo of the Philippines.[[User:Cpamplona|Cpamplona]] 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Crime in Victorian England ==
How was crime viewed in Victorian England? [[User:Gordon Nash|Gordon Nash]] 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:It depends what sort of crimes you mean; Victorian England (and indeed the rest of the UK) tended to be very tough on crimes; especially that we would today consider [[petty crime]]; stealing a dress could result in being sent to prison for two months while teenager Isabella Reilly, who stole £10, got 7 years. Of course not all crimes were treated so seriously - employment laws were almost non-existent: by comparison Thomas Clark, manager of a chimney sweep company, only got 6 months for forcing a child into a 30 cm (1 ft) wide chimney and suffocating him. Prison was a nasty place as well; while some people, like [[Elizabeth Fry]], encouraged prison reforms, most Victorian moralists believed that prisons should be as close to [[hell on Earth]] as possible; [[Sydney Smith]], a very progressive man for the age, said that "''[prison] work should be as dull as possible - pushing and pulling instead of reading and writing''" and that food "''should be no better than water, gruel, and flour pudding''". Prisoners frequently had to build and then disassemble pyramids of cannon balls; [[Birmingham Prison]] even had something called the crank which prisoners had to spin; a huge wheel whose sole purpose was to count 10,000 revolutions and did no useful work, and was used until 1898; decades after Fry's prison reform. [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Don't forget the [[Treadwheel|treadmill]]. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::According to [http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/ this] £10 in 1865 (around the middle of Queen Victoria's reign) would be worth around £615 in 2006 or over $1200. -[[User:Czmtzc|Czmtzc]] 16:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Ah, that would make more sense; my source claimed it was "a purse containing £10", so I assumed it would be worth a bit less than that (you don't normally carry 600 quid with you; I'm guessing that the book hadn't already converted it to modern money, in which case £10 pounds today would be worth 3 shillings and sixpence in 1875 (the year of the arrest))! Whistling in the street got Peter McKenna a fine of £2 in 1873; looking at that site, that would be worth £121 in todays money! [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Laika, where are you getting these punishments? Sounds like an interesting site... -[[User:Czmtzc|Czmtzc]] 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::It's a book; the Villainous Victorians, by [[Terry Deary]]. [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a ''huge'' literature on this fascinating subject, from an analysis of statistical trends to the examination of individula cases, too much to detail here; but please let me know if you need a reading list, Gordon, and I will do my best to oblige. What I will say is that crime, as we understand it today, might even be said to be the ''creation'' of the Victorian age. Literacy had created the demand for a popular press; and the press fed on the public's taste for crime, particularly in its more lurid forms. Let's take one one case where Victorian perceptions shaped, and continue to shape, how one particular case has been projected and understood: namely the Whitechapel Murders of 1888. Here we are in the realm of [[Jack the Ripper]]. He was a 'gentleman', was he not, one who may even have come all the way down to the slums from the palaces of royalty? Well, in fact, we know virtually nothing about the Ripper, because he was never caught. But the journalists of the day were quite happy to fulfill the popular prejudice, no doubt stimulated by the publication two years previously of [[Robert Louis Stevenson]]'s [[The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde|''The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'']], that the Ripper was a 'toff', who got his 'pleasures' slumming in London's seedy east end.
'Mugging' was also the creation of the Victorian age, or at least the popular anxiety associated with the crime is. It began with the 'garotting panic' of 1862. Assailants would attack a victim from the back, half-throttle and then rob him. The technique itself had been learned from the practice in convict ships, where it was used in restraining prisoners. The panic began when an MP was attacked in this fashion after leaving a late sitting in the Commons. Soon the press was full of adverts for 'anti-garotte collars' for gentlemen!
The next big concern was over the nature of criminality itself. Most law-breakers, of course, were from the urban poor, the seedbed of the new 'criminal classes'. An explanation was required, beyond mere poverty of course, and was readily supplied by the likes of [[Edwin Chadwick]], the Poor Law reformer, who believed criminality was the response of the idle and the feckless, tempted by easy returns as an alternative to honest labour. Temperance reformers placed the blame on alcohol, just as reformers in education blamed ignorance and lack of opportunity. For the evangelists, it was all due to the abandonment of the standards set by religion. With the growth of popular forms of Social Darwinsim hereditary became a factor; and by the end of the century the notion of the habitual criminal, tainted by birth and background, was gaining ascendency over the notions of morality and idelness. From this management and control became the dominant elements of law-enforcement; and so it remains today. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:It should be noted that even despite this new moral panic, among the law abiding, the police were sometimes more unpopular than the criminals; the upper classes had to pay high taxes to fund the new [[Metropolitan Police]], while the working class was cut off from the [[black market]] - after a police raid in the slums in November 1840 to break up a forgery ring, a crowd of locals gathered around the house to pelt the police with stones, while in the 1840s, [[George Waldegrave, 7th Earl Waldegrave]] hired a professional boxer to attack one Police Officer and tried to run down another one with his cart! [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 10:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, indeed, Laika. Many working-class communities, quite apart from any criminal elements, resented the police because of their tendency to interfere with what were considered to be quite legitimate leisure pursuits. They were often described as 'blue locusts' or 'blue drones', and attacks on the police continued in disproportionate numbers for the best part of the century. It was only latterly that their 'social control' function achieved a widespread acceptance. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 22:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Spanish Civil War ==
What would have been the likely political outcome of a Republican victory in the Spanish Civil War? [[User:Tower Raven|Tower Raven]] 12:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A propaganda dream for the USSR for one thing, I guess (had "Socialism in one country" been somewhat tailed back by 1937, to allow for greater co-operation with capitalist states, and Stalin learned his lesson that fascism was a bigger threat than socialism?) and a propaganda nightmare for Hitler and Mussolini, both of whom would have been pleased to have an ideologically similar next door neighbour. Mussolini would have come off worse in prestige, though, because he was the one who sent the greater forces to Spain to help the right. To state the obvious, the left would clearly have stayed in power. I could see WW2 still going ahead though, because Hitler was never going to rely on having a fascist ally in the form of Spain.[[User Talk:martianlostinspace|martianlostinspace]] 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I do not believe that there has been any conflict in history more misread than the [[Spanish Civil War]] of 1936-1939, and one that continues to be misread, if we take [[Ken Loach]]'s [[Land and Freedom|''Land and Freedom'']] as an example. There was not one civil war but several, some with deep roots in Spanish history, most often concerned with the friction between central power and local autonomy. For the government in Madrid the Anarchists, their allies, were as big a threat as the Fascists, their enemies. It's likely, then, that the victorious Spain, though dominated by bourgeoise democrats, would have continued to rely on the military and political support of Stalin and the Communists. For such support the Communists would clearly demand some kind of return, and in stages are likely to have acquired a dominant position in government, perhaps even fulfilling the prediction of Julian Besterio, the moderate socialist politician, that "if the war is won, Spain will be Communist. For every other element of our democracy this would be calamitous." Consider what was to happen a few years hence in Poland, for example, another Catholic and agrarian nation. The same pattern of alliance, co-option and control is likely to have emerged in Spain in 1939-40.
:The Franco dictatorship was centralist in nature; there is no reason to suppose that the victorious republic would have been any different. The Communist controlled Popular Army would thus have suppressed any attempts at Anarchist resistance, just as it would have moved against the seperatist movements in Catalonia and the Basque country. Would there have been another Civil War? This is possible. There would certainly have been a lengthy period of political instability and counter-insurgency operations. This leads on to the next stage of my analysis: Spain's position in the coming international crisis.
:Republican Spain, dominated by the Communists, would, of course, have followed the Russian lead after the [[Nazi-Soviet Pact]] was concluded in August 1939, which meant rejecting the coming Second World War as an 'imperialist conflict'. A Soviet satellite standing astride the western gate to the Meditteranean may very well have provoked a response by Britain and France, if not outright intervention then perhaps some military assistance to the remnants of the Nationalist army, which had taken refuge in Portugal in 1939, a situation that would have destabilised the country even further. Hitler, after his victory over France in 1940, would therefore have a weak and divided Spain, controlled by the Communists, on his southern flank. The outbreak of war with the Soviet Union in 1941 is quite likely to have been followed at one and the same time by an invasion of Spain, or at least a dash for the vital base of Gibraltar; this was certainly within the capability of the German army left in France. We know that Hitler had such a plan even with Franco in control. With Spain governed by [[Dolores Ibárruri]] there is no reason to suppose that he would not have put these plans into effect. In the end Franco, if he serves no other historical purpose, may very well have saved Spain from Hitler. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 02:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== [[Queen Elizabeth II]]'s "Uncle Dickey" ==
I saw on a PBS show, that the Queen of the UK had a "Uncle Dickey", and he was assassinated, but WP couldn't confirm it when I looked it up. Is this true? - [[User:Presidentman|Presidentman]] 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:: It is indeed true - [[Louis Mountbatten]]. [[User:Lanfear's Bane|Lanfear's Bane]]
:::Thanks, because he was called "Dickey" I looked up him by the possible name of Richard, etc. But when I couldn't find one I came here. - [[User:Presidentman|Presidentman]]
* This from [[Philip Ziegler]]'s biography of Mountbatten: "With a perversity characteristic of the British upper classes at the time, the child was never called by any of [his 5 given names]. A nickname was de rigeur, and the Queen [Victoria] suggested Nicky. This served for a while but caused confusion amid the plethora of Nickies at the Russian Court, and recourse was had to Dicky, or, more frequently, Dickie. Dickie he remained for the rest of his life." [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 21:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:He was a man who knew the ins and outs of wearing a [[dickie]]. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Wrongway Corrigan's flight and Clifford MacGregor's North Pole Expedition ==
We're looking for information about the polar explorer and aviation pioneer Clifford MacGregor. A book was written about him and Douglas Corrigan in the 1940's. Thank you! Georgia Hunt
:I can't turn much up about a Clifford MacGregor from a Google search, when paired with search terms like "north pole," "explorer," etc., and pairing the name with "Corrigan" gets zero hits. You may want to try and track down a bibliography of works on [[Douglas Corrigan]] (maybe starting with that article) and track back from there; I tried a few library searches and came up dry there as well, however. Cheers! [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Tony Fox|review?]]</small> 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
== Communication in Behavioural Science ==
Can you critically analyse the place of silence in communication. Mabel
:Please do not post the same question on multiple Reference Desks. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
==Greatest Book of All Time==
I would like some input. Thanks in advance. Surely, this is subjective and no one single book can definitively be deemed the greatest book written in all of time. However, what are some "good guesses" for books that would surely make the Top 10 (or Top 100 or whatever) list? If possible, please offer a title, as opposed to "Anything written by Shakespeare"-type of responses. Thanks. ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
:See [[List of Great Books]]. — [[User talk :Lomn|Lomn]] 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Kim (book)|Kim]] by Rudyard Kipling. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
*If you go by sales, the Bible and Koran are up there. I'm not sure about the Bhagavad Gita, but in certain regions I'm certain it does well also. The [[Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong|Little Red Book]] sold phenomenally, but that's because you ''had'' to have one under Mao's regime. And, well... I also just ran across this: [[List of best-selling books]]. Now if you mean "greatest" in terms of quality, do you mean content, style, number of pages...? The best selling list might give you some indication, but the quality of content is certainly going to be judged by subjective factors. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]][[User:Zahakiel|<font color = "indigo"><span style="text-decoration:none">Zahakiel</span></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]] 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::The BBC's [[Big Read]], although a rather populist poll, came up with the ''[[Lord of the Rings]]'' trilogy first, followed by ''[[Pride and Prejudice]]'', ''[[His Dark Materials]]'' (again, technically a trilogy), ''[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy]]'' and ''[[Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire]]''; some classics such as ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'' and ''[[To Kill a Mockingbird]]'' scored pretty highly as well though; I particularly like that ''[[Winnie-the-Pooh (book)|Winnie-the-Pooh]]'' managed to make it into the Top 10! [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Some personal choices: [[The Name of the Rose]] (Umberto Eco), [[The Gospel According to Jesus Christ]] (Jose Saramago), [[The Untouchable (novel)|The Untouchable]] and [[The Book of Evidence]] (John Banville), [[The Remains of the Day]] and [[An Artist of the Floating World]] (Kazuo Ishiguro) and [[Steppenwolf (novel)|Steppenwolf]] (Herman Hesse). [[User:Carom|Carom]] 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::[[Ulysses (novel)|Ulysses]], by James Joyce, is a popular choice to top those top ten lists. Darn good novel, too, though very difficult to read. If we're talking about "all time," though, you can't forget [[The Iliad]] and [[The Odyssey]], referenced throughout all of Western literature almost as often as the Bible is. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|Talk]]) 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a silly question really: there cannot be a single greatest book (greatest by what criteria and for what purpose?). But ''[[The Origin of Species]]'' gets my vote. [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
: Not a silly question, really ... in fact, the premise of the question pre-emptively acknowledged and addressed your very point ... ([[User:JosephASpadaro|JosephASpadaro]] 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
::Our article on the book ''[[Anna Karenina]]'' by [[Leo Tolstoy]] states that “According to a recent poll of 125 contemporary authors, published in a book entitled ''The Top Ten,'' ''Anna Karenina'' is the greatest novel ever written.”[http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html] However in my personal opinion I would have to go with ''[[Ulysses (novel)|Ulysses]]'', and ''[[The Iliad]]'' and ''[[The Odyssey]]'' as well. We should also not forget the ''[[Ramayana]]''. --[[User:S.dedalus|S.dedalus]] 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:It's worth asking whether we're judging the books on their literary merits, or their overall impact on our culture. If it's the latter, then it's a very different question, and we'd have to answer with books like [[The Bible]], [[The Koran]], [[Origin of Species]], [[The Communist Manifesto]], and [[Thin Thighs in Thirty Days]]. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|Talk]]) 03:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::''The Complete [[Calvin and Hobbes]]'' by [[Bill Waterson]]. Definitively...it even has pictures. [[User:38.112.225.84|38.112.225.84]] 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::[[My Side of the Mountain]] - Jean George. the one book i would have to rescue from a burning house/take with me to a desert island/pass on to my children [[User:Perry-mankster|Perry-mankster]] 08:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Shame they only printed the one copy then, huh? :) [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]][[User:Zahakiel|<font color = "indigo"><span style="text-decoration:none">Zahakiel</span></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]] 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:The book with the most universal appeal across all cultures must surely be ''[[Everybody Poops]]. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Time Magazine offer their 100 greatest English language novels since 1923 (not sure what the significance of that date is) [http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the_complete_list.html here]. [[User:Hammer Raccoon|Hammer Raccoon]] 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:The signficance of 1923 (in this context) is that Time Magazine was founded in that year. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== post ww2 spheres of influence ==
why did the USSR acquire such a huge sphere of influence(the Baltic,and,Balkan states,as well as
everything behind the iron curtain)after WWII while all we got were some Nazi scientists and the responsibility of propping up former enemies with the Marshall plan?
:You may want to take a look at [[Aftermath of World War II]] as a starting point on that one - it's got links to lots of relevant articles that can help your research. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Tony Fox|review?]]</small> 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The United States also acquired a 'huge sphere of influence', as you put it, in both Europe and Asia. Marshall Aid was used to 'prop up' old friends as well as 'former enemies'. If it had not been it is likely that Stalin, rather than getting a slice of the cake, would have taken control of the bakery. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:The Soviets got control of Eastern Europe because it was their tanks that were on the ground there when the war ended. As hard as the war was on the Western Allies, the Soviets lost millions of people and suffered the near ruin of parts of the country. Control over Eastern Europe was the prize the Soviets received for their enormous efforts during the war, although I doubt it was of much consolation to the people who actually put forth those efforts in the USSR. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, Eisenhower held some of his troops back so that they would meet the Russians in Berlin. I've heard speculation that we may have been able to meet in Prague if we'd kept going at the same pace. There isn't really any way to know what "could" have happened though. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Several documentaries aired in May, during the commemoration of the Dutch liberation, stated that the Americans could advance so rapidly because of the Allied strategy: the Americans made the push forward towards Berlin, while the armies of Canada and the UK secured the territory conquered by the US. [[Special:Contributions/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Aecis|Brievenbus]]</sup> 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Aecis, I'm sorry, but this is wrong. British and American forces advanced within their designated areas of operation; the British to the north and the Americans to the south. British and Canadian forces did not, as your documentaries seem to suggest, advance in the wake of the Americans in some form of rear consolidation. In relation to Wrad's point, the British and Americans both advanced deep into what was to become the Soviet sphere of influence in Germany; the British into Mecklenburg,and the Americans into Saxony as far as Leipzig. Both were handed to the Soviets in accordance with the demarcated zones of occupation agreed at Yalta, just as the Soviets handed over sections of Berlin to the western Allies. American forces also advanced into western Czechoslovakia, but the Russians were still in a dominant position in the area, and would remain so. What could have happened is what did happen: the Communists seized control of an independent country in the coup of 1948. On the wider point, the Allies advanced rapidly into western Germany after crossing the Rhine in the spring of 1945 because by that time all the hardest resistance was in the east. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mwalcoff that the Soviets ended up controlling Eastern Europe for the simple reason that they were occupying it. An alternative theory that the questioner may be interested in, however, is that [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] "gave away" Eastern Europe at the [[Yalta Conference]] because elements of his administration and the [[U.S. State Department]] were "soft on communism" and he, personally, was too weak (he would die within a matter of months) to stand up to Joseph Stalin. This seems unconvincing because there is no real way the Western Allies could have stopped Soviet control (short of attacking the Red Army and pushing it out of the European territories that it had conquered).
As it was, the Soviets promised at Yalta that the countries they were occupying would have the right to independence and self-determination (a promise that they would break, but never mind that). [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 00:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The spheres of influence were agreed at the [[Yalta Conference]] in February 1945. By this point, Soviet troops occupied the whole of Rumania and Bulgaria, much of Poland, Hungary and the Baltic states, and parts of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. So the occupation of eastern Europe was already a ''fait accompli'' ([[:Image:Eastern Front 1945-01 to 1945-05.png|this map]] shows the front line in January 1945). The Western Allies acquiesced in this occupation in return for a promise of Soviet assistance in the war with Japan. This was criticized after the war as a piece of shameless ''realpolitik''. But it's hard to see what else Roosevelt and Churchill could have done: the prospect of fighting the Soviets for eastern Europe was unthinkable; Stalin was not amenable to persuasion; and the Soviet argument that they had paid for their territorial gains with blood (more than 20 million dead) while the Western Allies had delayed opening the second front gave them a significant moral advantage in the negotiations.
Clio is absolutely right about the relative contributions of the Western Allies (and the French should not be forgotten; the [[French First Army]] fought hard for the [[Colmar Pocket]] and the Black Forest), and correct to point out that as the war came to an end, all of the Allies moved to take up the occupation zones agreed at Yalta. This meant the Western Allies stopping at some places where they could have advanced (e.g. at the Elbe), and giving up other gains, but it also meant the Soviets giving up some of their territory, including three quarters of Berlin and Vienna. There's no sense in which the U.S. could have occupied Prague; the [[Third United States Army]] could perhaps have captured it, but it would have led to political trouble with the Soviets, and they would have had to give it up again as it was in the Soviet zone. The situation was tragic for the Czech resistance however, because the zones were secret; see [[Prague Offensive]] and [[Prague uprising]]. [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 00:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:''[T]he [[Third United States Army]] could perhaps have captured it, but it would have led to political trouble with the Soviets'' Given that 3rd Army was commanded by [[George Patton]], definitely. What would have been ''Old Blood and Guts'''s reaction to the order to withdraw, one wonders. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::He would have obeyed the order, then complained about it ever afterwards. [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to correct one detail: the Soviets kept more than 1/4 of Berlin and of Germany. The French were not represented at the Yalta Conference, which agreed on three occupation zones. When the western Allies later agreed that the French should occupy a zone as well, the Soviets weren't ceding any area. So they got [[:Image:Occupied_Berlin.svg|about 1/3 of Berlin]] and [[:Image:Soviet_Occupied_Germany.png|about 1/3 of Germany]] while the other allies got about 2/9 each. Actually, looking at the maps, it seems to me that the Soviets got a bit more than 1/3, not even counting East Prussia. --Anonymous, July 11, 01:08 (UTC).
:I thought it was because the Western allies wanted to minimize casualties, particularly taking Berlin, while Stalin didn't mind how many men he lost if it extended his ___domain, and the Russians in general were after revenge. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] 06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
=July 11=
== Colonies in Antarctica? ==
Do any treaties or laws prohibit settlement in Antarctica? (Not that it's likely.) [[User:24.167.78.33|24.167.78.33]] 00:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Hard to say - one would need to read all the Treaties forming the [[Antarctic Treaty System]] to come up with an answer. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== political gender ==
How many female governors are there in the U.S.? silver bullet
:Count'em yourself at [[List of current United States Governors]]. [[User:169.230.94.28|169.230.94.28]] 02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:[http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070703093751AAwb2P7 Someone's] already counted, and they say seven. - [[User:Akamad|Akamad]] 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Louis Dembitz Brandeis's relationship with Jacob Frank ==
Hello,
The article on Louis Brandeis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis, suggests that Brandeis was a Jacob Frank supporter because a bust of Frank was found on Brandeis's desk. There is no citation, however, and I was wondering where this information came from.
Thank you.
:According to the book ''Great Jewish Men'' by Elinor and Robert Slater, Brandeis' mother was the descendant of followers of [[Jacob Frank]].[http://books.google.com/books?id=T91sokr_nJYC&pg=PA70&ots=uvxFGIDKIW&dq=Louis+Brandeis+%22Jacob+Frank%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=KBZ8L79W2HHElGvfgcwqm7ivzuQ#PPA70,M1] Perhaps the bust was a family heirloom? Maybe a joke? [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] 03:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::I couldn't find anything about a bust of Frank, the whole business with finding it while cleaning out his desk strikes me as an urban legend, however, according to a recent article in ''American Jewish Life'' magazine:
::{{quote|Amazingly, some of Frank’s followers went on to become leaders of the Prague Enlightenment, prominent attorneys in Poland, and shape-shifters of every kind. Adam Mickiewicz, considered Poland’s greatest poet, used Frankist themes in his work. Even Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis had a portrait of Frank’s daughter Eva on his desk in the Supreme Court — an heirloom he received from his Dembitz relatives, whose ancestors were followers of Frank.|http://www.ajlmagazine.com/content/032007/heretic.html}}
::A much more thorough discussion of Brandeis' intellectual connection to Frankism, including excerpts from a letter Brandeis' mother wrote about the sect at her son's request, is available in the 1999 article "A VOCATION FOR LAW? AMERICAN JEWISH LAWYERS AND THEIR ANTECEDENTS" by in the Fordham Urban Law Journal. A pdf is available at the authors website[http://marcgalanter.net/Documents/papers/AVocationforLaw.pdf].
::It seems clear to me that Brandeis' mother at least thought the whole idea of Jacob Frank being the messiah as absurd, and she even refers to the sect's "crazy beliefs", however, the family did seem to be inspired by some aspects of Frankism, particularly its rejection of dogma that it perceived as sophistic, its emphasis on utopian ideas and "the Jewish mission among other nations to bring about the world's redemption" (see [[Tikkun Olam]]). Frankists seem to have been particularly interested in restoring humanity to "the condition of perfection with which he was endowed when he came from the Creator's hand... again ... free from vice and sin." (quoting from Brandeis' great uncle).
::I'm not an expert on Brandeis by any means, but I can definitely see how the story of the Frankist sect as told to a young Brandeis might have inspired some of his thinking about issues such as civil liberties and the role of individuals and government in society. [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== "Political" as noun ==
Is it acceptable to use political as noun in sociology? A neologism? [[User:62.75.162.71|62.75.162.71]] 06:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I hope this is the place better suited for this question than the language RD. [[User:62.141.48.177|62.141.48.177]] 06:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:The word ''political'' by itself is not a noun, but like many adjectives can be used as a noun in English. There is the well-known slogan ''[http://scholar.alexanderstreet.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=2259 The Personal is Political]'' coined by [[Carol Hanisch]]. The adjective ''personal'' is used here as a noun, signifying "that which is personal", "all things personal". The slogan is often found in contraposition: ''The political is personal''. Another example of this nominalization of adjectives is found in this saying attributed to Napoleon: ''From the sublime to the ridiculous is only a step'' (in French: ''Du sublime au ridicule il n'y a qu'un pas''). --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 09:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::What would you have "political" mean? I've heard it used as a noun for political prisoners. Isn't it best to use established language that is readily understood - or is that a bad thing in sociology? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 10:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I think I should clarify. Problematic is both nound and adjective. Can you say political similarly? To make it further clear, if somebody says "the expasion of the political effected by the movement", do you think it is acceptable? In the given quote "the political" itself is adjective. It is the addition of definite article that gives it nominal quality.
:::But what is intended to be meant by "the political"? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 10:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::In "the expansion of the political" I understand ''the political'' to mean: "the political ___domain", that is, the province of those things considered to be subject to political discourse and control. As an effect of the movement, some things became part of the political ___domain that were not considered political before. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::That would make sense. I would suggest that you use "the political ___domain" instead of "the political", as the former is more readily understood. Sociologists have a bad habit of making up words or usages, with no good reason. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Lambiam is correct. In English sometimes words are implied, like when you say, "Sit down," the word "You" is implied before it. Similarly, you can use an adjective if the noun that follows it is obvious, for example, "This is of concern to the aforementioned," where the aforementioned is the person(s) or thing(s) previously discussed. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]][[User:Zahakiel|<font color = "indigo"><span style="text-decoration:none">Zahakiel</span></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]] 17:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:If the preceding (!) hasn't addressed the questioner's question, then perhaps s/he heard the noun "[[politico]]"? --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Possession by ancestor spirits in mythology ==
Many years ago I read a novel which included the possibility of technologically recording a person's thoughts and personality so that their accumulated wisdom would not be carried to the grave. These [[Mind uploading|uploads]] would then function as virtual advisers to a living person. People being the angels that they are, sometimes an upload would effectively obliterate the native personality and steal their body. The author named this process after legends of [[Spiritual possession|possession]] by ancestor spirits in some body of mythology, but I cannot recall which myth cycle or the name for the term. Searching yields plenty of links about [[Shinto]], [[voodoo]], and a bunch of New Age "interpretations", but nothing that looks correct. Does anybody have an idea what this might be called? Or, possibly, the book I am partially remembering?
-[[User:Eldereft|Eldereft]] 07:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
: Did you read [[Mind transfer in fiction]]? Maybe that helps you remember which book you read about it... — [[User:Shinhan|<font color="blue">Shinhan</font>]] < ''[[User_talk:Shinhan|<font color="navy">talk</font>]]'' > 10:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Some good reading material there, thanks, but nothing shakes loose. -[[User:Eldereft|Eldereft]] 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Even today belief in possession by ancestor spirits as an actually occurring phenomenon (rather than having a legendary and mythological status) is found among more than a few cultures (e.g., such diverse groups as the [[Warao]], the [[Sakalava]], and the [[Venda]]). It is usually beneficial: the ancestral spirits provide valuable guidance on life-changing decisions. Do you have any remembrance of the geographic and historic origin of these legends that might narrow down the search? --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 11:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, it was a science fiction novel set in an indefinite place and time, with the ancestor possession pretty much thrown in as 'here is a similar legend'. But the possession was distinctly not beneficial even in the myth. -[[User:Eldereft|Eldereft]] 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Napoleon on St Helena ==
I am researching the last part of the life of Napoleon, specifically his time on St. Helena. You have a little information on your Napoleon page, though not as much as I would have wished. If possible, can I have some more specific details on his actions and attitudes during those six years. How was he perceived in Britain and France at the time and did he ever hope to return to Europe? [[User:Hope and Glory|Hope and Glory]] 10:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Ah, Napoleon on St. Helena, most definitely an island too far! When he was told by his British captors that was where he was bound he said "Go to St. Helena-no!-no! I prefer death" But to St. Helena he went. [[Lord Liverpool]], the British Prime Minister of the day, explained the reasons for sending the troublesome Emperor so far from Europe-"There is only one place in the circuit of the island where ships can anchor...At such a distance, and in such a place, all intrigue would be impossible; and, being withdrawn so far from the European world, he would very soon be forgotten." But he was not forgotten, by the British least of all.
:In exile, Napoleon set himself two tasks: to persuade his former enemies to grant his release, and to create an image of himself for future generations of Frenchmen, an image based on Christian concepts of martyrdom. He failed in the first but suceeded in the second, creating a myth that was to become the basis for the [[Second French Empire|Second Empire]]. His memoirs were, in fact, a quite cynical exercise in political manipulation, and he went so far as to tell an aide "If Jesus Christ had not died on the cross, He would never have been worshipped as a God." He concluded his account of his career with an accusation and a plea "I am dying prematurely murdered by the English oligarchy and its hired assassins...I wish my ashes to rest near the banks of the Seine in the midst of the French people I have so dearly loved."
:In a sense the creation of the 'Napoleon myth' was the Emperor's last great victory. Even the themes he anticipated were later taken up by his countrymen in a romantic vision that overlooked the tyranny and militarism of the First Empire. By 1840 he was being compared to [[Prometheus]], chained to a rock (St. Helena), where his blood was drunk by the vulture of Albion;
:''Jesus by his strength''
:''Saved the pagan, lost in sin''.
:''Napoleon saved France'';
:''Like Jesus he was sold''
:''After odious sufferings'',
:''Jesus died on the cross'';
:''Napoleon at St. Helena'',
:''Has suffered like Jesus''.
:In 1840 the singularly unheroic [[Louis Phillipe]] arranged for Napoleon's remains to be returned to France, to be re-interred at [[Les Invalides]]. Some 600,000 people watched the procession through Paris, with cries of ''Vive l'Empereur!'' and ''A bas les Anglais!'' While he was still alive, though, the chief preoccupation of the government of [[Louis XVIII]] was to ensure that he remained in the south Atlantic, and that there would be no repetition of the Hundred Days. The Duc de Richelieu, Louis' chief minister, even went so far as to ask his agent on St. Helena if the barrels leaving Napoleon's house at Longwood, were being checked! Some of the fear was justified, because there were indeed genuine plots to rescue Napoleon, including one from Brazil and another from Texas, where some four hundred exiled soldiers from the Grand Army dreamed of a resurrection of the Napoleonic Empire in America. Believe it or not, there was also a plan to rescue him using a submarine!
:Despite his complaints and his petulance, Napoleon was not too badly treated by the British, and was more or less free to live his life in the manner of in English country gentleman in quite comfortable surroundings. When he was a boy, [[William Makepeace Thackery]], the writer, stopped at St. Helena on a voyage from India. His servant took him to Longwood "We saw a man walking...'That is he', said the black servant, 'That is Bonaparte, he eats three sheep every day, and all the children he can lay his hands on.' " Napoleon received many visitors, to the anger and consternation of Richelieu "This devil of a man exercises an astonishing seduction on all those who approach him."
:In a uniquely British way, Napoleon was transformed in the public mind from a monster to a hero, no doubt a direct expression of discontent at the reactionary post-war government of Lord Liverpool. In 1818 ''The Times'', which Napoleon received in exile, in reporting a false rumour of his escape, said that this had been greeted by spontaneous illuminations in London. There was some sympathy for him also in the political opposition in Parliament. Lord Holland, the nephew of [[Charles James Fox]], the former Whig leader, sent over 1000 books and pamphlets to Longwood, as well as jam and other comforts. Holland also accused the government of attempting to kill the Emperor by a proceess of slow assassination. Napoleon knew of this, and based his hopes for release on the possibility of Holland becoming Prime Minister, Richelieu's greatest fear.
:Napoleon also enjoyed the support of [[Lord Cochrane|Admiral Lord Cochrane]], one of the greatest sailors of the age, closely involved in Chile and Brazil's struggle for independence. It was his expressed aim to make him Emperor of a unified South American state, a scheme that was frustrated by Napoleon's death in 1821. For [[Lord Byron]], amongst others, Napoleon was the very epitome of the Romantic hero, the persecuted, lonely and flawed genius. At quite the other extreme, the news that Napoleon had taken up gardening at Longwood appealed to more domestic British sensibilities, which had the effect of humanising him still further. When news of his death reached Europe in early July 1821 the French Foreign Minister noted that this caused a far greater sensation in London than in Paris. Ironically, it was the British who were the first to adopt a myth, later exported to France, where tragedy was destined to be refashioned in the shape of farce. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 02:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
== duc d'Enghien and Mohiloff ==
I am looking for a black-and-white image of the execution of [[Louis-Antoine-Henri de Bourbon-Condé, duc d'Enghien]] that features his dog, Mohiloff. There are a number of good full-color images available ([http://www.napoleonicsociety.com/images/ducenghien_clip_image001.jpg e.g.] [http://www.herodote.net/Images/Enghien.jpg e.g.])--surely there exist some black-and-white etchings or engravings patterned after these? [[User:Cyrusc|Cyrusc]] 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Couldn't you just get one of these images and use an image editor to make them monochrome? [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Charnock the Alchemist ==
Does anyone know anything about Thomas Charnock, the Elizabethan alchemist? [[User:Janesimon|Janesimon]] 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Have you tried a Google search for his name? In less than a minute it returned: http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101005173/ (click on "view full biography). If you want more detailed information than a biography, you might want to ask more specific questions :) [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]][[User:Zahakiel|<font color = "indigo"><span style="text-decoration:none">Zahakiel</span></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]] 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you for that 'helpful' information. You may have a subscription to the ODNB: I do not. I repeat: does anyone know anything about Thomas Charnock, and by this I mean details of his life as well as his writing? There is nothing useful on google. [[User:Janesimon|Janesimon]] 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I do not have a subscription, but it may have opened for me because I am on a more public terminal. In any event, the point was that the information is easy to find if you spend a little time on it. I am sorry my efforts were not as useful to you as I had hoped. Someone below has already indicated that they can send you the info. from the ODNB site, or I may have offered myself. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]][[User:Zahakiel|<font color = "indigo"><span style="text-decoration:none">Zahakiel</span></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]] 18:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::For your information, there is indeed some quite useful information, including brief biographies, among the 1080 sites returned by simply googling on the name. But since you apparently have looked through them all, and anyway are too arrogant to appreciate attempts at help, you can go find them yourself. Have a good day. [[User:169.230.94.28|169.230.94.28]] 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:I'd be happy to e-mail you the ODNB bit if you'd tell me where to send it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Please do not use Wikipedia as a channel for blatant copyright violation. [[User:169.230.94.28|169.230.94.28]] 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Ease up — if it is a copy for scholarly research then it usually falls under fair use. I don't think a 600 word article sent to one person is exactly going to break the bank. --[[User:24.147.86.187|24.147.86.187]] 21:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:It's possible that your local library allows you to view it from home, depending on where you live. [http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/freeodnb/libraries/] But then, you might live elsewhere. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::I'd also point out that going to the library and looking in books is often helpful. You can use http://books.google.com to find books with promising info and then check to see which are available at local libraries. Inter-library loan can even get you books from non-local libraries. [[User:Donald Hosek|Donald Hosek]] 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should either answer questions or not, as the case may be. I do not think it's a good idea to snipe at other users. I am quite happy to supply some information on Charnock, not taken, I have to stress, from the ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.'' If you wish to pursue the matter further, Janesimon, I would suggest either ''The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age'' by Frances Yates, or ''Mystic Metal of Gold: Essays on Alchemy and Renaissance Culture'' edited by S. Linden. There is also a useful article entitled ''Base Matter into Gold'' by Jonathan Hughes in the August 2005 edition of ''History Today''. And, if you are really serious, you should consult Charnock's own notes! If you have neither the time nor the inclination for this then there are some pertinent extracts in ''Alchemical Fragments Copied from Thomas Charnock's Own Handriting'' by Elias Ashmole.
Charnock was born in about 1524 and died in 1581. He spent most of his life in Comberwich, a small village near the port of Bristol in the west of England. His unpublished notebooks are useful, not just for an understanding of Elizabethan attitudes towards alchemy in general, but for the insight they give to Charnock's life and thoughts. Apart from the usual preoccupations of his profession, he also had an amateur interest in Atlantic exploration, and in his study he had an astrolobe, maps, a globe and other navigational instruments. He rather quaintly described the difficulties he found in trying to decipher Medieval English texts on alchemy, which were "as harde to my understanding as yff I had harde one rede a booke off the language off the natione which dwell in the fourth parte off the worlde named America."
His uncle, also called Thomas Charnock, had been an alchemist, as well as the confessor to [[Henry VII of England|Henry VII]]. Thomas' interest in the subject appears to have been stimulated when he inherited his uncle's books while in his teens. Although he married in 1562, and had two children, he preferred the life of scholarly solitude, made clear in the preamble of the treatise he wrote for [[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth I]]. He says that his pursuit of the [[philosopher's stone]] has in large measure been impeded by 'worldly necessities', and that the said stone is reserved for men who have the gift of 'solitariness.' He took this seriously enough to ask Elizabeth to allow him to carry on his experiments in the [[Tower of London]], or another 'solitary place.' This was probably stimulated by the hostility of his neighbours, which forced him to barricade himself in his cottage. His appeal to the Queen was ignored.
His work was tiresome and demanding, requiring him, amongst other things, to keep a fire burning at a constant temperature. Quite often he would wake up in the night, troubled that things were not going well. Concerns over servants, fires, and the cost of fuel were steady preoccupations. He was also pursued by fairly constant bad luck "God send me better fortunre or else I am clean discouraged and will turn from philosophy to husbandry and go and get me unto the plough." When England went to war with France in 1557 the local Justice of the Peace, who seems to have been a personal enemy, made sure that poor Thomas was forced into service. In frustration, he took a hatchet to his equipment, smashing glasses and pots alike. Nothing daunted, he was back at his experiments seven years later.
It seems obvious from the hostility he engendered locally that his neighbours had deep superstitious fears, which Carnock did much to encourage, describing himself as a magus as well as a philosopher, who had mastery of "dark and misty terms." After his death it was reported that no-one would live in his former cottage, which was "troublesome and haunted by spirits and that its owner had a reputation as a troublesome person and a conjurer."
Charnock himself was always aware of the ambiguity of his art, warning that [[Roger Bacon]], the founder of English alchemy, had come dangerously close to to the occult, and had ultimately been unsuccessful in his quest for the stone because the Devil was his familiar. His own search for the stone proceeded in the face of one failure after another. Even so, he kept his fires burning for three years constantly, which "brought him more joy than any worldly goods." Though he constantly bemoans the frustrations of his quest, he warms any independent reader not to be deceived by surface appearances, and that he deals in allegories and veiled truths. His victory, if it can be so described, was in simple perseverance; in the pursuit of a 'truth' that remained constantly elusive. In his notebooks he might be said to have penned his own epitaph;
''Here Charnock changeth to a better cheere''
''For the sorrow that he hath suffred many a year.'' [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
== Statistical agencies ==
I am looking for the central statistical bureaus or agencies of the countries [[American Virgin Islands]], [[French Guiana]], [[Iraq]] and the [[Federated States of Micronesia]]. Does anybody know, whether those countries have such institutions and what their names are? --[[User:141.35.20.90|141.35.20.90]] 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:I think the [[American Virgin Islands]] are covered by the US Census: [http://www.census.gov/census2000/usvi.html]. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]][[User:Abeg92/ea|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]][[User talk:Abeg92|g92]]<small>[[Special:Contributions/Abeg92|contribs]]</small> 20:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:The first two are not countries in the common sense of the word. The American Virgin Islands are a territory of the United States, while French Guiana is an overseas department of France. The relevant central statistics bureau for the latter is that of France, the [[INSEE]]. Depending on what your interests are, the [[INED]] may also be relevant. For the US, I don't think there is a single central institution, but for agriculture there is the [[National Agricultural Statistics Service]]. Apparently the US territories are also in its province, as evidenced by [http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/usvi/usvi.pdf this information] on the census of the Virgin Islands. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 20:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Khadijah and Muhammad ==
In the article on [[Khadijah]], I read that she was 14 years older than [[Muhammad]]. However, her article gives her birth year as being 565 AD, while Muhammad was born in 570. What's correct? [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
*Depends on when in the year the birthdays were! --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Additionally, Muhammad's birth year is uncertain. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Question concerning Roman administration of Gaul? ==
Was there a Senate or other assembly in Late Roman period Gaul?
Are there other examples of a Provincial "Senate" or other local administrative bodies?
I have found a reference under the Wikipedia definition of "Curia":
<blockquote>
"During their expansion, the Romans exported the model to every city that gained the status of Municipium, so that '''it had its own Senate''' and its own officials charged with local administration (although they weren't usually elected but nominated by the central government;"
</blockquote>
Any links or advice would also be appreciated!
--[[User:Bshaheen|Bshaheen]] 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
== Another goddamn speeding ticket ==
I live in Arkasnas and I got a speeding ticket. I pleaded not guilty, and have a court date.
Two questions: I am disqualified from testifying in court [[Arkansas_Constitution#Controversy|because I am an atheist]]. Does this mean I can claim I am unable to defend myself & therefore am not afforded a fair trial?
Also, do I have the right to demand a jury trial? Section 2 of Article 3 of the US constitution says "Section 2 specifies the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts and requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except cases of impeachment." [[User:XM|XM]] 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:"Do not request medical, veterinary or legal advice. Ask a doctor, veterinarian or lawyer instead. " --[[User:LarryMac|<font color="#3EA99F">LarryMac</font>]][[User talk:LarryMac|<font color="#3EA99F"><small> | Talk</small></font>]] 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:This is not advice, but a comment. You could show up, say you want to testify, announce that you are an atheist when they call you thus forcing them to (a) let you testify anyway in which case your question is moot or (b) let them disqualify you and then sue the state in Federal court. We do have a [[Fourteenth amendment]] after all. [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] 20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Well, the Fourteenth Amendment pertains to race. He would be covered by the [[First Amendment]], which prohibits religious discrimination. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]][[User:Abeg92/ea|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]][[User talk:Abeg92|g92]]<small>[[Special:Contributions/Abeg92|contribs]]</small> 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::No, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply ''only'' to race. It says:
:::{{quote|All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.}}
:::IANAL, but my understanding is that the whole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was that before it, the bill of rights only applied to the Federal government. If a federal court infringed on his rights he would be covered, but not if a state court did it. Basically, the former states of the confederacy used this loophole after the civil war to prevent blacks from voting, so the point of the 14th is that it forces the states to follow the rest of the constitution. [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] 20:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:I think these types of questions are okay to ask and be answered here, but it must be noted that nothing here is actual medical, veterinary or legal advice. If you want to be sure ask a lawyer, as nobody here makes any guarantee of validity of advice. With that out of the way, I do think that you will be allowed to defend yourself, but you could look around for a good First Amendment lawyer. On your second question, I do not think trial by jury is required for minor offenses such as speeding tickets, but I many be wrong. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]][[User:Abeg92/ea|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]][[User talk:Abeg92|g92]]<small>[[Special:Contributions/Abeg92|contribs]]</small> 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Definitely consult a suitably specialized lawyer, but I'm wondering if this might not be your chance to national fame, by making it very clear in court that you "deny the being of a God", and if you're thereby denied the possibility of testifying for that reason, fight this possibly unconstitutional denial of the right to a fair trial all the way. Anther thing I'm wondering, is how appropriate it is for an atheist to use the word ''goddamn''. It appears somewhat incongruous to me to thus appeal to an entity whose being you deny. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Note that the article pointed to says, regarding the ban on atheists testifying, ''It is rarely enforced, since it would almost certainly be thrown out if challenged in court.''. In other words, there's probably nobody who would care. Regarding "goddamn", well, I use the term "fucking" as a curse, even though I think fucking, in general, is a good thing; and I might refer to someone as an asshole even though, all things considered, I'm glad we each have one. Curse words rarely connote their literal meaning... --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I just like the goddamn Irony :-). If I ask to testify but then point out that I can't because of the constitution, what happens? I mean, I can say I wish to testify, but doing so would violate the constitution, which I am unwilling to do. What happens then? Also, I know a jury trial wouldn't be required, but could I demand one? Also, I understand comments here don't constitute legal advice or whatever. I am sick of being treated as a 2nd class citizen because I don't believe in god [[User:XM|XM]] 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
'''Demanding a jury trial:''' It depends on the jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions specifically designate "traffic court" for quickly handling people in your exact situation. The offenses adjudicated there customarily cover minor penalties and therefore defendants are considered to have waived their right to a jury trial by the mere act of filling out the little ticket stub (read it closely, it's a very common tactic). Moreover, unless driving is designated as a "right" in your state's constitution, you may not have a right to demand a jury trial at all. This is one reason why state DMV offices go through great pains to indoctrinate people with the whole "driving is a privilege" bit.
Since WP is not the place for this kind of advice, let's get to the bottom line here. What do you want to do? Do you want to: 1) prove a righteously indignant point and pursue every legal claim you possibly can; or 2) just rant and vent some steam; or 3) get this over with without having to pay much money or lose much time. If it's (3) ... (if I were you) I'd just pay the ticket and not try to make any kind of "statement" while doing it. If it's (1) I'd hire a lawyer and not waste time here on WP. If it's (2) ... have fun. [[User:Dreftymac|dr.ef.tymac]] 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Just a point: if you took the fourteenth amendment route, you would certainly ''not'' be able to resolve it quickly. To actually test it, you would have to go through a whole matter of courts, and in the end, if you ''won'', all you would be winning is the ability to go through another trial about your speeding ticket. Whoop-eeee. --21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Not to mention that your penalties and points for the underlying unresolved traffic offense would still be accruing for as long as you chose to pursue your constitutional claim. You might actually find your driving "privileges" revoked (or worse) if the trial court jury turns out to be unsympathetic toward your "[[Thomas Paine]]" strategy for protesting a speeding ticket. [[User:Dreftymac|dr.ef.tymac]] 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I was definitely not suggesting that the original poster make a federal case (literally) out of his traffic ticket - I was just commenting on the Arkansas constitution. If XM wants to get out of a traffic ticket, ranting about being an atheist will probably not be helpful. If you are actually serious about challenging the law on constitutional grounds, you should contact the Arkansas ACLU. Maybe they are looking for someone with standing. The thing is that you have to have standing to sue, which means that you need to demonstrate that your rights were violated. I doubt you'll have a case if you announce that you wish to testify but won't because it would violate the constitution, the court has to prevent you from testifying because of your beliefs. Even if you were prevented from testifying, I'm still not sure that would give you standing to sue - what if the state were to argue, for example, that your rights were not violated because you could have been afforded due process without testifying? This seems like a reasonable argument given that most people who get traffic tickets don't testify.
:::Interestingly, the Arkansas constitution was challenged in Federal court in 1982 and survived - the court threw out the case arguing that ordinary taxpayers did not have standing.[http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2005/02/a_christian_nat.html] What would be great is if a state employee wrote an open letter to the governor denying the being of God. The governor would then be forced to either publicly ignore the constitution or fire the person, inviting a legal challenge. [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] 00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Several states ([[Massachusetts Constitution|Massachusetts]], [[Mississippi Constitution|Mississippi]], [[North Carolina Constitution|North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania Constitution|Pennsylvania]], [[South Carolina Constitution|South Carolina]], [[Arkansas Constitution|Arkansas]], [[Tennessee Constitution|Tennessee]], [[Texas Constitution|Texas]]) have similar requirements to believe in God in their constitutions (with some, like Pennsylvania, demanding further that you believe that He will institute "a future state of rewards and punishments"), but they were all nullified in 1961 by [[Torcaso v. Watkins]]. I'd look [[premenstrual stress syndrome|for]] [[Black rage|a]] [[Twinkie defense|different]] [[Chewbacca defense|defense]]. --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 21:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::*I was curious about that Pennsylvania one, so I looked it up. What it actually says is that if you have the indicated religious belief, then you are protected from discrimination on religious grounds as regards holding public office. It doesn't say that if you don't have it, then you aren't protected. [http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html The actual wording] is: ''No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.'' --Anonymous, July 11, 22:52 (UTC).
:Even if [[Article VI of the United States Constitution|Article VI]] isn't good enough (and it might not be ''per se''), the [[Establishment Clause]] would wipe such a State constitution clause off the table. No sane judge is going to try to enforce that kind of requirement on you because they know that they'll get reversed on appeal. (At least for now, the establishment clause is [[incorporation (Bill of Rights)|incorporated]] on the States by the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Constitution]]).
:As far as a jury trial, that's up to how the law is phrased in Arkansas. For such a matter such as a traffic ticket, you generally don't have a right under the federal constitution to a jury trial. See ''[[Blanton v. North Las Vegas]]'' (1989). –[[User:Pakman044|Pakman044]] 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Regarding a jury trial, a speeding ticket is usually a civil infraction rather than a criminal infraction, so you probably won't be able to demand a trial by jury. You'll want to consult a lawyer specializing in your state's traffic laws to verify this. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 22:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Errr ... you might want to consult a lawyer yourself, [[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]], or at least re-evaluate the accuracy of whatever source you used to supply that information:
Arkansas Motor Vehicle and Traffic Laws:
§ 27-51-201 (a)(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed
greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions ...
§ 27-51-201 (g) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to relieve the
plaintiff in any civil action from the burden of proving negligence upon the part of
the defendant
§ 27-50-305 (a) Any person violating any of the provisions of this act shall be '''guilty'''
'''of a misdemeanor''', unless the violation is by this act or other law of this state
declared to be a felony.
::Can you give a specific example of a jurisdiction that classifies traffic offenses as "civil infractions"? [[User:Dreftymac|dr.ef.tymac]] 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, the [[Traffic ticket]] article says that's mostly true for the US, so if that's wrong it needs to be fixed. In Canada most traffic offenses are not criminal, they're in a category called [[quasi-criminal]] (has to be that way: criminal law is federal jurisdiction while traffic laws are provincial). This exhausts my knowledge on the subject. --Anon, July 11, 23:00 (UTC).
::::Ahh. I can't vouch for Canada, but the portions relevant to the U.S.A. make some generalizations that could stand to be clarified and referenced ... but basically [[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]]'s point makes sense considering non-moving violations and the various differences for what constitutes a "minor offense" ... including speeding. I concur, but the article and its related cousins sure could use some work :/ [[User:Dreftymac|dr.ef.tymac]] 23:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::In my experience (U.S.), traffic violations are criminal matters, not civil. Carnildo's answer errs, though, in assuming that a civil matter can't be tried to a jury. Under the [[Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution]], a litigant in most civil cases has a right to a trial by jury if s/he demands it. That even applies to the atheists. :) [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 02:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
== Play based on Macbeth ==
What is the name of the French play in part based on Shakespeare's Macbeth?
:Well, this surely can be none other than [[Ubu Roi]] by [[Alfred Jarry]]. ''Merde''! [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::''Je dirai même plus: Merdre!'' --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Now, now. ''Ubu Roi'' may be the only play ''not'' based on Shakespeare written after the 17th century. (I prefer [[Pere Ubu]], myself -- a well named band that lives up to its titling.) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
== [[Sartre]], [[Existentialism]], and [[Atheism]] ==
Sartre's page claims that atheism is foundational to his existentialism. I take this to be correct, as it is from this that he then derives anguish, forelorness, despair, and other existential concepts.
However, does he ever give an argument to support his atheism? I suppose taking it as a basic is legitimate, but an argument would make the position much stronger. [[User:Llamabr|Llamabr]] 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:I'm afraid there is no substitute here to ploughing directly into the core works of Sartrean philosophy. You could be bold and climb the heights of [[Being and Nothingness|''Being and Nothingness'']], though I think it best if you begin with the foothills; and here I would recommend [[Existentialism is a Humanism|''Existentialism is a Humanism'']], followed up with some of his literary work, certainly [[Nausea (novel)|''Nausea'']] and possibly [[The Roads to Freedom|''The Roads to Freedom'']] trilogy, as well as the play [[No Exit|''No Exit'']]. And remember always that existence preceeds essence! [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:The thesis is entirely incorrect. ''For Sartre,'' existentialism demands atheism, but it is absolutely not true that existentialism is atheist or that is is necessary. The first existentialist was Soren Kierkegaard, after all, and there remains a strong Christian existentialist philosophy. Existence preceding essence does not negate essence; it merely makes essence individual and therefore refocuses morality onto the individual and the development of the self. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, indeed; and I, too have read [[Fear and Trembling|''Fear and Trembling'']], and am thus quite aware that a Christian existentialism preceeds an Atheist existentialism. But the focus here is on Sartre. [[User:Clio the Muse|Clio the Muse]] 03:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
== Do Ipods store any mp3 files? ==
I don't own an ipod yet, and I want to know if there is a way to get any music files onto an ipod (like if you bought a CD and want to get the music from the CD onto the ipod), or if only mp3 files from the itunes store will load onto the ipod.--[[User:24.153.177.210|24.153.177.210]] 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, iPods do store regular MP3 files that you can rip from a CD. iTunes does not sell files in the MP3 format, but in the [[AAC]] format using Apple's [[FairPlay]] [[Digital Rights Management]] [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Out of the box, the iPod will want you to use iTunes to manage your music library. I rather like it, others do not. It'll rip CDs into your choice of MP3, AAC (unprotected), AIFF, WAV or Apple Lossless (the last three if you don't want any loss in sound quality, with Apple Lossless offering non-lossy compression). Note also that some [[EMI]] music in the iTunes Music Store is availabe at a slightly higher price with a higher bitrate and no DRM. Other labels are expected to follow. [[User:Donald Hosek|Donald Hosek]] 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:Note that you can put mp3s, etc., onto an iPod but not copy them off (this is for copyright reasons). So if you put a song onto an iPod (with iTunes), and then delete the original file, and then have an iPod crash, you out one song. --[[User:24.147.86.187|24.147.86.187]] 00:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
::Not quite accurate. You can't use iTunes to transfer files from your iPod to a computer, but it is incredibly easy to circumvent this limitation.[[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
=July 12=
==Cultural variations in the perception of past & future==
This question is inspired by a comment above ([[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#What_is_the_world_oldest.27s_dead_religion|here]]) about the Maori word for ''past'' meaning ''in front'' and the word for ''future'' meaning ''behind'', which struck a chord in this fan of Terry Pratchett's Discworld. Which cultures (past or present) see the past as being in front of them (logical in a way - one can see the past), and the future as being behind them (as one cannot see the future), and which cultures take the opposite view (as we do in England)? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
| |||