Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

< Wikipedia:Reference desk
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smurrayinchester (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 30 March 2007 (Selling at a loss). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by LarryMac in topic Thatcher's Falkland's War vs Blair's Saving Grace

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg


March 27

Iran and Capital Punishment

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

What is Iran's views on capital punishment? I know they are a retentionist, but everything I seem to find regaurding this issue is showing them as having one of the highest execution rates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

You're finding things that show them as having one of the highest execution rates because they have one of the highest execution rates; second after the People's Republic of China, in fact. This is because Sharia, which their legal system is based on, endorses it. See Human rights in Iran#Corporal and capital punishment. Picaroon 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is that in terms of gross figures or per capita rates?Jatrius 10:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The PRC is first and Iran is second in gross numbers. Singapore is the leader in per capita rates. Picaroon 23:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Where does China stand? Oh, we said that. Are we sure China and Iran give out the right numbers? [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Don't know about Iran, but the number of executions held in China is a state secret, so any figures there are uncertain. However, they're definitely ahead of everyone else put together by a large margin. Algebraist 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what is retentionist, but I know in Iran they hang teenagers for being gay. I don't know how to link it, but if you search for "iran hanging gay" (not together as an expression, but three separate words) on Google you will see it. There's also the article Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. A.Z. 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

HERO STREET USA

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I wanted to know; could someone could put that in the contents of wikipedia? It's a great story that many would willingly read.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.131.74 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs to be created, please feel free to do it yourself. Wikipedia has free registration, so all you have to do is create an account and then create the article. Picaroon 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is a very brief mention in the Silvis, Illinois article. If you have some information you would like to add try this link.—eric 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The Hero Street USA website cites over a dozen news articles in major national press, including People (magazine) and Reader's Digest, which suggests separate article notability, doesn't it? I'd say either suggestion seems sound. Have fun! Jfarber 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It wouldn't even take an account to create the page. It's already done. Currently it's a redirect to Silvis, Illinois. Just go here, click "edit this page" and start writing. Dismas|(talk) 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Naqqar khana or Mughal/Persian/Islamic Architecture discussing it?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is there anyone who knows something about Persian/Mughal architecture? I want to write, and before that read about Naqqar Khana/Naubat Khana et. cetra. Kindly help me by guiding to a book or something.--Scheibenzahl 08:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you have access to a good library, you might try Koch, Ebba (2002). Mughal Architecture: An Outline of Its History and Development (1526-1858). Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 9780195660425., Nath, Ravinder (1992). History of Mughal Architecture, Vol. 1. South Asia Books. ISBN 9788170171607., and later volumes as well as other books by this author.  --LambiamTalk 11:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Did you also check out Mughal architecture and Iranian architecture? The latter has some references you may be interested in, the the external links for both may be helpful. - Taxman Talk 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Lambiam and Taxman. I will try to look into the aforementioned books. My question was more directed towards Naqqar Khanas, though. Any specifics in that direction?--Scheibenzahl 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Transcript of Kill the Messenger documentary

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is a transcript available of the Kill the Messenger (film) documentary?

--58.172.144.32 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

IF such a thing is available -- and the odds are quite good, given that this is a 2005 film, amd likely was transcribed for subtitling purposes if nothing else -- it would be copyrighted. I'd contact the film's distributor to see about getting one, and how much it would cost. (Information on distribution companies can be found at IMDB.com, usually) Jfarber 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

UN authority

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Does the United Nations have the authority to draw a line well inside any disputed territory Iran claims and continually tries to exercise control over by kidnappings and other criminal activity to protect the UN's own interests? 71.100.175.98 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The UN can be used to solve border disputes, yes. In the case of rivers between two countries I believe it is customary to split them right down the middle, with some adjustments made for islands in the river. Of course, the two nations may bilaterally decide to use different borders. However, if one country unilaterally decides to extend it's border into another nation's territory, that's a rather serious issue, possibly an act of war. StuRat 16:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It would seem that in a situation where there is an ongoing armed conflict which can be classified in many respects as almost a civil war that includes operations in disputed border regions that it would be most wise and prudent for the world body to likewise, in its own interest, mitigate the disputed border as well. If the UN has the authority to mitigate then why doesn't it act? Nebraska bob 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you may have a rather unrealistic view of the United Nations, if you will forgive me for saying so questioner. As an organisation it is no more than the sum of its parts; and, against a morass of competing sectional and political interests, it is difficult to get agreement on the resolution of disputes, even in the Security Council. When, and if, agreement is reached, there is a huge problem in determining the most effective means to be employed in dealing with problems. There are numerous UN Resolutions which have never been implemented. Consider the example of Darfur in Sudan, where the UN effectively stood aside in the face of genocide, just as it did in Rwanda in 1994. When the UN has sent in ground troops they have been so constrained by the 'rules of engagement'-the action they are allowed to take in any given set of circumstances-that they may as well not have been there at all. The most shocking example of this is Srebrenica in Croatia, established as a UN 'safe haven', where in 1995 some 8000 Muslim men and boys were taken by Serb forces and massacred, virtually under the noses of some 400 'peace keepers' from the Netherlands. And as far as protection of human rights in general is concerned, did you know that both Saudia Arabia and Cuba are members of the UN Human Rights Council? It's hard to believe, but it is nevertheless true. To be honest with you, and deeply conscious of the fact that this is a personal opinion, the United Nations, as an agency for solving international disputes, is no more effective, and possibly even worse, than the old League of Nations. It's a depressing thought. Clio the Muse 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well Clio, I agree that the UN seems pretty inept in its actions and as you say many of its opinions appear to have used lemon juice for printer's ink. That said it occurred to me that Bill Gates became the richest man in the world for one reason. That reason? The law. The law, whether you like to admit it or not, is so solid (even if enforcement of it is not always) that one can build an empire followed by a dynasty on it. That said the UN, does it not, make international law by means of Security Council mandates and if not then you are right, I am totally lost as to what the purpose or function of the UN is other than a social club where representatives of various countries can show off their wives. Nebraska bob 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Law without substance is no law at all. It is one thing to to make a declaration of principle, and quite another to ensure you have the will, the means and the ability to act on that principle. On your final observation, Nebraska bob, I have no comment, other than to point out that some representatives also show off their husbands! Clio the Muse 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Clio, you are a bit confused here. A declared principle is the substance of the law. Nebraska bob 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Respectfully, I think you may be the confused one, Nbob. The Declaration of Independence, for example, is an entire body of principles, from self-evident truths to independence itself, but it is not a document of law. Principles, as Clio suggests, are just that: belief statements, if you will, usually having to do with some stated intent, but without the force of law or enforcement behind them. The substance of the law would be present, instead, in a document like the United States Constitution, which contains both formal declarations of what should be right and true and a system of implementation and enforcement to ensure that such principles can be acted upon and interpreted on-site as needed. Jfarber 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
...and thank you, Jf, for making this distinction. However, correct me if I am wrong but UN mandates do possess the latter. Nebraska bob 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Charles Joshua Chaplin or Charles Josuah Chaplin?

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

We have an article currently at Charles-Josuah Chaplin, which seems like an unlikely name. The ARC lists him as "Charles Joshua Chaplin", but I get Google results for both names, not all from Wikipedia mirrors. Even a book search shows hits for both. [1] [2] What's the definitive name? grendel|khan 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Josuah does indeed look like a misspelling of Joshua. But there again, it seems to have an established usage. There was an English poet and translator by the name of Josuah Sylvester, who lived at the time of Elizabeth I and James I; and I note there is a Josuah Hess Bridge in Columbia County, Pennsylvania. For the individual in question I suppose you would really need to check his birth records to make absolutely sure that his name is correct. Clio the Muse 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Josuah looks like a Biblical name, but the Concordance I cited in the question below shows no instances of the name in the Bible. Unless it has a different provenance, it would indeed seem to be a misspelling that's become a recognised, if highly unusual, name. JackofOz 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The LoC Authority records give the name as Charles Joshua Chaplin. (You have to search; they don't support deep linking.) The reference in the MARC record is: Thieme-Becker: |b v. 6, p. 374 (Chaplin, Charles (Charles Joshua); French painter, engraver, and lithographer; born of English parents in Les Andelys (Eure) 6/8/1825, d. Paris 1/30/1891). There's another 670 record, but it doesn't include a middle name. The Authority record comes from "J. Paul Getty Center for the History of Art & the Humanities, Vocabulary Coordination Group (Santa Monica, CA)". I'd move it to Charles Chaplin (French artist), but that disambiguation is getting pretty crowded; I'm thinking of just moving it to "Charles Joshua Chaplin". In any case, I left a note on the page author's talk page, and I'll wait for a response before moving anything. grendel|khan 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is Josuah a French spelling? Corvus cornix 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Too bad Josuah has been away for a year; maybe he'd know. grendel|khan 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It occurs to me that Josuah may also be a variation of Josiah. Clio the Muse 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Biblical people

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

How many are cited in today's bible

a) excluding the Mormon bible?
b) including the Mormon bible?

Thanks, Bapho 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean the Christian bible -- old and new testament? And are you asking for people who are named, specificially, or just any mention of any people, even in crowds? Jfarber 20:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Both testments. OK, I mean people who are not only mentioned but play a role. That's difficult to do, I know... Bapho 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, Bapho, a lot, I will say that much, especially if you include all the begetting! I am not going to count them, though: life is short and crowded. But do let me know if you ever manage to figure this out. Clio the Muse 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
you're right... but someone must already have counted them. I mean the bible is older than 2,000 years... Bapho 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, indeed; you may very well have a point, though it must have been a tiresome task. Having said that, did you know that James Ussher, a seventeenth archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, once traced the date of the creation all the way back to the eve of Sunday 22 October 4004 BC, by working through the Bible, using the life of the patriarchs, amongst other things, as a benchmark? You will find the details in Ussher chronology. It took many hours of dedicated labour, as I feel sure you may imagine! Clio the Muse 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You may want to take Claire Llewellyn, Who's Who in the Bible (2002) and spend some leisure hours counting the entries. --Wetman 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Any decent Concordance (publishing) (eg. this one) will list not just all the names (and every other key word), but will also exhaustively list all the places in the Bible where they're mentioned, so you can determine how important each name is compared to, say, Jesus. JackofOz 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Rather difficult to count is JC god and the holy goat 0, 1, 2, or 3? As it mentions the human race isn't that everyone? This says 2,270,365+ were killed which isn't bad considering. meltBanana 02:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC).Reply
The holy goat? You are not Rowan Atkinson by any chance, are you, MeltBannana? Clio the Muse 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nay. 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
By "cited", I expect Bapho was interested in how many different humans are identified by name in the Bible. Jesus was a human, so he gets counted - once. The Holy Ghost and the other persons of the Trinity are not human, neither are the angels Gabriel, Michael et al - they're spirits. JackofOz 03:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is no such thing as a "Mormon Bible". The Book of Mormon is an entirely different volume. Corvus cornix 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


March 28

Invasion

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

I was learning about the invasion on the United States by Pancho Villa in World Histoy class recently, and a thought ocurred to me. How would the United States retaliate if, say, Canada were to invade Montana. Like if whatever army that Canada has were to to come into rural Montana and start taking people, putting them into jail at gunpoint and executing resistors, what would the US do? I'm talking about something set forth by the country, not a rougue attempt like Panch Villa's was. Thanks, schyler 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Topics proposed for debate belong at the many bulletin boards on the Internet. This is a reference desk, to answer authentic, answerable inquiries. --Wetman 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok Wetman, I know how the referene desk works. I was asking if there is a set way of how the United States would handle an invasion. Also, I have NO CLUE how you would think this would be a topic for debate. A topic for debate would be: "Invasion"---Should the Canada invade the United States, and how would they respond? As that was clarly NOT my question, I do not see why you thought that, but htanks for your input anyways. Very helpful..... schyler 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Schyler, I'm sure Wetman is not meaning to be unkind, but he is quite right: this is not an authentic question. I'm sure you know very well what the 'answer' is: if the United States was invaded, by Canada, or any other country, the President would take whatever military action was appropriate to the level of the threat, just as Woodrow Wilson did in 1917. Clio the Muse 03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

So pretty much the president just takes action and the people stand behind him. I was hoping it was somewhere in a document of some kind what action is taken in the event of a ninvasion on the United States. I still don't understnad how this isn't an authentic question though. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well. schyler 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You will find lots of documents dealing with the Pancho Villa episode, and probably plans for dealing with a possible Japanese assault on the west coast of the United States in 1942; but the kind of contingency or 'game' plans you are looking for will clearly lie deep in the heart of the Pentagon, subject to the usual levels of classification, and there is thus very little point in speculation. Do not worry about this: your explanation was perfectly clear. Clio the Muse 03:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The Pentagon might just dust off War Plan Red which was our pre-1939 plan for fighting the British Empire. The U.S. would have attacked Halifax with poison gas. It included contingencies in which Canada seized U.S. territory and the U.S seized Canadian Atlantic ports to prevent British reinforcenents and supplies from arriving. The Canadian war plan for fighting the U.S. at the time involved Canadian "flying air columns" to occupy Seattle, Portland, Oregon, Minneapolis and St. Paul. Simultaneous troop movements to converge on Albany, naval assault on Maine and bridgeheads along Niagara and Detroit. This was intended to buy time so British reinforcements could arrive to save the day. It would be imprudent and foolhardy for the U.S war planners not to have contingency plans for any eventuality. But given the results in Iraq, who can say? Edison 05:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as how the supposition involves Canadians invading, I'd expect the US President would politely but firmly ask them to leave, after cleaning up any mess. DDB 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the Canadian army, with its half-dozen moose-riding hosers and pack of attack beavers, would require a lit-tle bit more than a request from the prez to retreat! Maybe? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, of course! He'd at least have to say "please." Clarityfiend 06:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
To further clarify my joke .. There are stereotypes of all peoples; Brash US salesman, Stoic English etc etc. For Canadians, a stereotype is politeness and selflessness. In one movie, some Canadian teens are enjoying themselves in a public swimming pool, when a guy asks them to leave. They all start leaving the pool, when one asks "Hang on, why are we leaving the pool, why can't they share?" "Dude, don't be selfish. They need it." DDB 08:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's pretty clear what would happen if Canada invaded Montana. First of all, American men would be afraid to wear tuques in public for fear of being mistaken for a Canadian. Sean Penn would travel to Ottawa to offer his help. Of course, there'd be conspiracy theories about how the Bush administration was actually behind the invasion--or was it the Jews? The UN would pass a resolution condemning Israel. Fox News would air The Canadian Conspiracy. And, eventually, the U.S. would retaliate by invading Syria. —Kevin 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant! Clio the Muse 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, was I supposed to understand the connection between the Canada, Israel, and Syria? · AO Talk 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes.[citation needed] —Kevin 13:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hercules foot

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

I came across this article and was wondering what the story on hercules foot was... I found nothing of note looking around... http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1014.asp 192.251.125.85 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC) bbwarfieldReply

sorry it is number 8 the earl of aberdine entry 192.251.125.85 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC) bbwarfieldReply

I can only presume it was the foot from a statue of Hercules. The British had no qualms about stealing artifacts from places like the Parthenon - see Elgin marbles. JackofOz 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
see "Ex pede Herculem", from The Histories of Herodotus, 4.82.—eric 02:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I found a reference to the foot here at Google Book Search (hope the link works). It's from the book Lord Aberdeen by Muriel Evelyn Chamberlain (1983), p. 42: "Aberdeen did apparently secure one relic of the Parthenon, a foot of Hercules from one of the metopes. It is mentioned among the goods he shipped home but has unfortunately disappeared." --Cam 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just to be clear, Pythagoras didn't have an actual foot in hand:

ex pede Herculem. From this sample you can judge of the whole. Plutarch says that Pythagoras calculated the height of Hercules by comparing the length of various stadia in Greece. A stadium was 600 feet in length, but Hercules' stadium at Olympia was much longer; therefore, said the philosopher, the foot of Hercules Was proportionately longer than an ordinary foot; and as the foot bears a certain ratio to the height, so the height of Hercules can be easily ascertained. Ex ungue leonem, a lion (may be drawn) from its claw, is a similar phrase. ("ex pede Herculem", The Reader's Encyclopedia 1948)

—eric 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
What I would really like to know is how on earth was it possible to 'lose' something apparently as big as this stone foot? I assume that it did not simply walk off? Clio the Muse 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would guess somebody has it but keeps it secret (knowing that they would be forced to give it back to Greece, otherwise). So, for now, it must remain a hot foot. Too bad, I can think of an ideal place to display it. StuRat 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

...and where is the rest of him?

Really, we ought to be able to find a picture here, but so far i have been unable to even find a reference (besides the one from Cam) that states herakles appeared on any of the Parthenon metopes. He should have been on the east frieze which depicts the gods battle with the gigantes.—eric 06:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

How long per year do the Swiss Alps stay open to Skiiers?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm curious because I'll be there in the Summer...and obviously chances are that there will be no snow, but who knows? Anyone know? If they arent open yearround, side question: what altitude/mountains of the world ARE skiiable year round? Thanks 140.180.9.227 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I've skied at Zermatt, near the Matterhorn, in late June and early July! The season on the main slopes runs until May, but it's possible to ski in the glacier areas right into the high summer. Clio the Muse 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Back in the day they would be available for skiing all year. But global warming has had a devastating effect on the Alpine snows, and many peaks are now bare. 82.36.179.20 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

French explorers

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to find the name of the french explorer that has a county named after him in Wisconsin. Tyler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.133.251.176 (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Hi, Tyler. I think you will find that Pepin County is named after Pierre and Jean Pepin, so you have two for the price of one! There is also St Croix County, named after the explorer, St. Croix. Clio the Muse 11:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The Dictionary of Wisconsin History has a list of place names in Wisconsin along with their etymologies. I haven't checked thoroughly, so I don't know if there are any other counties named after French explorers, but the list might make for interesting browsing. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

British Slavery

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Britains involvement in the slave trade —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.252.99 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Cleopatra's involvement in the Senate Rfwoolf 13:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Atlantic slave trade may answer your question. grendel|khan 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is it exactly that you would like to know about Britain's involvement in the slave trade, which was abolished by Parliament two hundred years ago? Clio the Muse 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Book Indexes

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm reading Cosmos (but i'd guess this isn't unique to just this book) and in the Index, when some page numbers are listed, they are followed by an n. e.g. Cicero, 67 n.. What does this mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthonymorris (talk • contribs) 13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

The reference is probably to a footnote (note) on that page. Wareh 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This would indeed be a reference to a note on the page in question. Clio the Muse 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

NFL Draft

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I've read the article but I still don't quite understand a few things. Are all players who participate in the draft picked/drafted? I understand there are eligiblity requirements but if all players are drafted, how is someone chosen to participate? I would presume there are more people eligible then are drafted. Also what is a draft prospect? Someone who may take part in the draft or someone who is going to take part in the draft? Nil Einne 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are far more eligible players than drafted players. The two basic tenets of eligibility are the 3-years-out-of-high-school criteria mentioned in the article and forfeiture of amateur status and thus NCAA eligibility. The latter is probably more a consequence than a formal criterion, for that matter, but it operates much the same. I'm pretty sure that a draft prospect must submit some formal notice of draft eligibility but said notice is fairly trivial (that is, while I'm not in the draft pool, I easily could be). A draft prospect is anyone eligible to be selected in the draft; the label is not a guarantee that he will be drafted. "Take part in" is a fairly vague criterion so I've tried to avoid it in answering the question. — Lomn 14:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
By taking part in the draft, I meant someone who makes himself available to be drafted. I would guess someone has to make it clear they are available to be drafted & based on that there must be some sort of list (aren't people normally present during the draft anyway?). Or are players drafted even if they don't want to be drafted (for whatever reason) because they are eligible and made to reject the draft? Anyway I don't really care that much & you've already answered all I really needed to know. I just wanted to check due to a notability issue (it confirms my suspicion that being a draft prospect is not likely to be sufficient in itself to be noteable since anyone who is eligble can be a draft prospect. If there was some sort of selection to actually become a draft prospect and everyone who was a prospect was drafted that would be different). Cheers! Nil Einne 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Typically, only those players expected to be very high (say, the first 10 or so of the 200+ picks) draft picks are present. Certainly players are drafted despite their wishes: notably, John Elway and Eli Manning were first-overall picks who forced trades to teams that did not draft them by threatening to hold out for a year (which nullifies the draft pick). If someone completely uninterested in professional football were drafted, he could simply ignore the result. — Lomn 15:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think you're sort of confusing some of the terms here... Obviously, the NFL draft is nothing like a military draft - if one didn't want to play football, it wouldn't matter whether or not one was drafted. The term "draft prospect" is usually used to refer to players expected to be picked particularly high; the approximately 150th best football player in the country is likely to be drafted, but wouldn't really be considered a "prospect." Or, perhaps, he'd be considered a low-level prospect. At any rate, "draft prospect" is not a definition for which one has to be selected, but a label that is applied. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are two types of players available in the draft:

  • Those who have completed their four years of college eligibility and are automatically eligible for the draft
  • Those who are at least three years out of high school and have declared themselves eligible for the draft, forfeiting their remaining college eligibility.

There are thousands of players in the first category, the vast majority of whom are not likely to be chosen or play football professionally. Even though someone whose college career is over doesn't need to declare himself eligible, it would be very strange for someone not interested in playing in the NFL to be drafted. Teams generally speak to potential draftees before the draft, and it would be common knowledge that a player was uninterested in playing profesionally.

This article in the Cincinnati Post explains what happened to the 479 people in the second category from 1990 to 2002:

  • 322 were drafted
  • 65 were not drafted but signed with NFL teams as undrafted free agents
  • 96 were not drafted and were not signed by an NFL team

As mentioned above, there is no official definition of "draft prospect." A PR guy at a small college might define his team's star player as a "draft prospect" in the team media guide, but that may just mean he's got an outside chance of being drafted at all. My personal opinion would be that any college player who is likely to be drafted is "notable," since there has undoubtedly a great deal of publicity written about him. Finally, it's relatively uncommon for players to be physically present during the draft, which lasts two days. Usually, players watch on TV and wait to get a phone call. -- Mwalcoff 23:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Twister/ Child in Time

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey I was just wondering about Deep Purple in the movie Twister. Now, you hear the song Child in Time but the actual concert (California Jam 1974) which exists on dvd, says that the song list on it has no Child in Time performance. That's actually funny itself because when you look very briefly at Ritchie Blackmore's fingers on the neck of the guitar, it fits the song. In this concert, he's really playing Space Truckin' because that's where he changes his clothes to what you see briefly see on Dusty's TV. I'm just wondering why would the movie crew put that song as a recording to that little footage?Jk31213 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

AMH:LOWELL MILL

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE VISITORS ACCOUNT OF ACTUALLY WHAT WHEN ON AT THE MILL AND HOW THE OPERATIVES WERE TREATED? I THINK ONE WAS AN EYE WITNESS ; THE OTHER WAS SPECULATION FROM HEARSAY.WHAT IS YOUR OPINION? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.27.189 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

see the caps key at the far left? press it.82.152.206.193 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, using all uppercase is considered to be a capital offense here. StuRat 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not the Blarney Stone

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

One of my earliest childhood memories is of being dangled over a precipice to kiss a stone. I would like to know where I was, and why it was desirable to kiss this stone.

It seems like I was on the stone battlements of a castle or fort. The stone was in the middle of an opening surrounded by a metal rail, and was hanging over a high drop-off.

During this time, we traveled up the Eastern seaboard of the US., and to Quebec, Montreal and Toronto Canada, as well as England, Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Spain and Italy.

Kittycathy 18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kitty, I am puzzled why your question has been headed 'not the Blarney Stone' when it so obviously is. The said stone is in the battlements of Blarney Castle near Cork in the Republic of Ireland, and kissing it, according to legend, accords powers of eloquence. Clio the Muse 18:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have never been to Ireland! Kittycathy 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, that is where the Blarney Stone is. Clio the Muse 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Clio is correct in saying that the Blarney Stone is in Ireland - but there is no way you could kiss it by being dangled over a precipice - I know - I did it. What happens is you lie on your back on the stone floor high on the walls of Blarney Castle, and two big guys take a hold of your legs and push you horizontally into space until only your Butt and legs are in contact with the stone floor. You then have to do a serious trunk curl and raise your head and lips to the underside of a large stone lintel (the Blarney Stone) and "kiss" it. As to the gift of eloquence - boy does it really work!! It's 40 years since I did it and everyone I know says they would love to hear me out but they just don't have the time. Dangle? Nah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.73 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC).Reply
If the questioner says she's never been to Ireland and has denied it's the Blarney Stone, who are we to dispute her. JackofOz 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Probably an adult could simply lean over the rail to kiss this stone, and I remember being held out over the abyss because I was so young. Any ideas? Kittycathy 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps in a former life you were Bridey Murphy. --Wetman 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thatcher's Falkland's War vs Blair's Saving Grace

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

I was wondering what my fellow Wikipedians' opinion might be of the historical comparisons between Maggie Thatcher's 1982 turnaround in her then declining popularity when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and Maggie so resoundingly defeated General Galtieri and his mob; and the last minute baton that Iran has handed Tony Blair by (apparently) wrongly imprisoning 15 UK Armed forces personnel whilst they were engaged on (apparently) entirely legitimate business in the terrirorial waters of Iraq. Was that bad timing on Iran's part or was that bad timing on Iran's part? Oh how Tony Blair and George Bush (also suffering badly in the opinion polls in his political dying days) must be breathing a sigh of relief and polishing up their respective "I told you so" CV's). But this is not a platform, it is a very serious question. Is there a likely historical comparison between these two events and their eventual outcomes? 81.145.240.73 18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)81.145.240.73 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Topics proposed for debate belong at the many bulletin boards on the Internet. This is a reference desk, to answer authentic, answerable inquiries. --Wetman 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

They are not valid or legitimate comparisons. The Falklands' War did indeed come at a time of declining popularity for the British government, and a period of particularly low morale among the nation as a whole. The decisive action of Margaret Thatcher, arguably one of the best Prime Ministers Britain ever had, confirmed that the British nation is at its best when forced into a corner. I think Tony Blair has always, consciously and unconsciously, attempted to model himself on Mrs Thatcher, with mixed degrees of success. His 'Falklands' War' was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has proved to be a major miscalculation. The business with Iran, as far as I can determine, only serves to confirm this, and is unlikely to add to the popularity in any degree of a dying ministry. Clio the Muse 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Happy to read your contribution Clio - would you mind awfully editing your references above to England? I am Scottish and Maggie was Scotland's Prime Minister too, and that also of Wales and Northern Ireland, as is Tony Blair. It wasn't England who went to war with Argentina - it was The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aka the UK. Thanks in anticipation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.73 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC).Reply
My apologies; I did not mean to offend you, and you are quite right, it should be Britain, not just England. It's a culturally conditioned reflex on my part, which I will do my best to amend! Clio the Muse 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
you've still left two erroneous English References above unedited!
They will remain as they are, because any amendments would render your contribution meaningless. Clio the Muse 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
With respect, Clio, I think the questioner has a point. If it's fair enough for you to introduce such personal (and irrelevant) opinions as "Margaret Thatcher, arguably one of the best Prime Minister's [sic] England ever had", it's fair enough for the questioner to respond in kind. Cheers JackofOz 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
My point about Margaret Thatcher was, I think, pertinent to the matter under consideration, because some direct comparison was called for. Thank you, Jack, for pointing out my grammatical solecism, which I am happy to have corrected! Clio the Muse 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Jackof for your support, but I still remain convinced that Clio is deliberately misssing the point - in that she has made a big mistake and cannot accept that horrendous fact. I still contend that she should have the courage to publicly apologise and correct her mistakes! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.229 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC).Reply
I did apologise earlier for the mistaken reference to Britain as England Clio the Muse 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes. You refused to remove the erroneous references to "England", and "English" which, whatever your justifications, were misleading to those others who may have subsequently merely "skim read". You should tread carefully when proclaiming on strange territory. 81.145.241.229 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have nothing more to add, other than regret. My very best wishes. Clio the Muse 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
On reflection, I decided to make the alterations you requested. Again my regards. Clio the Muse 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


Please will all Ref Desk participants refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you --Dweller 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Once again, topics proposed for debate belong at the many bulletin boards on the Internet. This is a reference desk, to answer authentic, answerable inquiries. --Wetman 08:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of "I told you so" CV's ... Wetman gets the prescience barnstar. dr.ef.tymac 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, he does! Incidentally, do American people understand the expression ' a storm in a teacup'? Oh, well: onwards, ever onwards, for England, home, and beauty. Clio the Muse 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
We probably more commonly would use the expression 'tempest in a teacup'; I'd hope the reasonably intelligent could easily connect 'storm' to 'tempest', although I sometimes worry for my countrymen. --LarryMac 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This isn't the Language Reference Desk, but I thought these Google phrase-search estimated hit counts might be of interest:
   "storm in a teacup"          310,000
   "tempest in a teapot"        298,000
   "tempest in a teacup"         35,800
   "storm in a teapot"           10,100
--Anon, March 31, 2007, 00:07 (UTC).

where

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

where is isle of wight in relation to bognor regis?

March 29

Born in the wrong ethnicity

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

If transsexuality is the belief that one was born in the wrong sex, and therianthropy the belief that one was born in the wrong species, what is the term for the belief that one was born in the wrong ethnicity? NeonMerlin 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tuff luck? 71.100.2.150 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
See poseur and wigger. StuRat 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
In the medical world, a transsexual is more technically/formally referred to as someone who is Gender Dysmorphic, so I went out looking for the phrase Ethnic Dysmorphic and found one reference, to a 2001 conference paper called "'How to Eat an Oreo': Using African American Research through Personal Narrative To Analyze Ethnic Dysmorphic Phenomenon" (Ashford) source. Jfarber 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Since dysmorphic implies negative feelings of one’s self would not Ethnic Sociodysmorphic fit the following circumstance:
There are persons who belong physically to the White race (although they may have a visibly undetectable percent of Black genes) who posses mannerisms, speech, mind set and ethnicity of a Black person. Such persons are completely genuine individuals and do not fit either the definition of poseur or wigger. They are not ashamed in public to utter profanities, spit on the sidewalk, loose control, etc. They do in fact find it odd that White people are not like them and from this awareness one would expect they might briefly wonder if they have been born into the wrong ethnicity. What they do believe, however, is that Whites have been born into the wrong ethnicity. The descriptive term they use to convey this belief is to call Whites Whitey (similar to calling a transsexual a Homo). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.2.150 (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC).Reply
Isn't those traits rather about class and upbringing than race? (Or maybe I shouldn't start discussing this, anyway...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 09:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The particulars above are provided merely to distinguish between the terms Ethnic Sociodysmorphic and Ethnic Dysmorphic. Ethnicity may embrace race or races, class and upbringing among any number of other common denominators between individuals. 71.100.2.150 13:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
See Tim Westwood. --Richardrj talk email 09:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What is the legal term used to define a person who withholds knowledge that taking too much of a drug or taking a drug such as methadone or chloral hydrate in combination with certain other drugs may kill? 71.100.2.150 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Criminally negligent? Professionally negligent? JackofOz 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you are looking specifically for terms that apply to a person, you might also try tortfeasor, offender, suspect, defendant, person of interest, or even just person ... you might also try refining your question, since the factual scenario you describe doesn't give the first hint at who this "person" is, and what legal duty (if any) might be breached by this "witholding" of information. Once you've clarified the question, consider posing it to your family legal advisor, instead of Wikipedia. Just a thought. dr.ef.tymac 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The question can not be answered by my legal advisor since it is generic rather than specific although if you follow certain recent newspaper articles an example could possibly be derived from them. If the person were a lawyer for instance they might claim they could not be held liable since they were not a medical expert even though they demonstrated sufficient expertise to provide the drugs but withold the correct instructions. The proper term for such a criminally negligent person, however, now that I have thought about refining the question is a Criminal. 71.100.2.150 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Reply
Even if the question is purely hypothetical, or loosely based on newspaper articles, a conclusion of criminal or civil liability would still require more facts, at least more than you've provided here. For example, assuming the person is a lawyer, under what circumstances did she provide the drugs to the recipient? Has an attorney-client relationship been established? Who is the recipient? Is this just some random person off the street? A minor child? A police officer conducting a search in the lawyer's home? An armed robber? A pharmacist? dr.ef.tymac 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Religious views on Waco

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I skimmed through the the Waco Siege and the Branch Davidian articles and I couldn't find the answer to my question. What were/are some of the views on the whole event by other religious groups? --The Dark Side 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would expect most established religions to view David Koresh as a false prophet. StuRat 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:15. Clio the Muse 05:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mussolini

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Someone told me that Mussolini kept two pictures on his desk, one of himself and one of someone else. Is there any validity to this, and if so, who was the other person? Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

One with Claretta Petacci on one side and Donna Rachelle on the other (just in case)? Clio the Muse 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would have guessed the other pic was Manfred von Richthofen, while he was suffering from some sickness. In other words, an "ill ace". :-) StuRat 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Martinique

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you have been to Martinique (or any of the other overseas areas controlled by France) does that technically mean you have been to the nation of France

You have certainly been to one of the Overseas departments of France, now more correctly known as Overseas regions. Clio the Muse 05:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not all of the "overseas areas controlled by France" are overseas departments. There are other kinds, which may be better considered dependencies and not part of France itself. So it depends on which specific place you've been to. As for the overseas departments themselves, they are part of France just as Hawaii is part of the US. --Anonymous, March 29, 2007, 06:05 (UTC).
Very true. This was highlighted when the French did nuclear testing on Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia. Many neighbouring countries that objected to the tests, suggested France let off her bombs in her own backyard, to which the French replied, "We are doing exactly that. French Polynesia is as much a part of France as Paris is". JackofOz 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Guantanamo Bay

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

This is a hypothetical situation if your were born in the US controlled part of Guantanamo Bay would be considered a US citizen and if so could you run for president? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

  • Guantanamo Bay is not considered American territory, just like the Panama Canal Zone wasn't considered American territory. So, if a non-American visiting there gave birth, her child would not be an American citizen. However, citizenship (even "natural-born" citizenship) can also be derived from one's parents, so Zone-born John McCain is still-eligible for the presidency.--Pharos 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, McCain's constitutional eligibility is disputed, though it is unlikely to be legally challenged. Marco polo 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Extremely unlikely, I would say. There are some Americans of course who hold dissenting constitutional views on almost everything in the document. For all practical purposes, though, this is rather settled, considering that he's been allowed to run in the past. If you thought Bush v. Gore was controversial, imagine the Supreme Court denying the presidency to a winning candidate for being born outside of US territory. Not gonna happen, unless they have a sudden yen to start Civil War II.--Pharos 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please cite where this has been allowed to run in the past. Corvus cornix 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
John McCain sought the republican nomination in 2000. He's never actually run for the presidency though. Not sure at what point the supreme court would intervene, should they be crazed enough to do so. Algebraist 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
My understanding of the US Supreme Court is that they don't unilaterally intervene. They hear cases that are brought to them from lower courts. Seems to me all it would take is an opponent to challenge McCain's eligibility on constitutional grounds; this might be seen as a more effective ploy than trying to beat him at the ballot box. But then, I might not have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. JackofOz 05:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Plea Bargain Gone Bad

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

My two sons were arrested on burglary charges. The older son turned State's evidence against the younger son. The older one (21 years old) had a fat juvenile record, while the younger one (18) had no record at all. The court granted the older son Youthful Offender status, and the Judge, Assistant D.A., Probation Officer, and our attorney agreed that the same would be granted to the younger son. The younger son's hearing was a week later, and the attorney was not able to be there, so a court appointed attorney was present, as well as a different District Attorney. Instead, the Y.O. decision was denied for our younger son. Is there some way this can be reversed, either by going in front of the Judge again at the next pre-trial hearing, or behind closed doors, or is there a way we can force the court administrators to stand by the original "talked about" agreement? One of the burglaries committed was at a local sheriff's house, where an illegal automatic shotgun was supposedly taken. However, the sheriff, who is a neighbor of our's, did not file a report because the gun stolen was illegal. Our attorney has told us that the local law enforcement really "have it in" for our younger son because of this sheriff's loss. Would a change of venue be appropriate because it does not seem that our son will be treated in an unbiased manner in this case. Any advise you may have will be greatly appreciated. Our e-mail address is *** or ***. We are desperate for some help for our son. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.150.231.15 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Your children's interests are better served by legal professionals, not random internet nerds. Emails edited out to protect you from spambots. --TotoBaggins 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I won't offer any legal advise, but do have some general advice. Your sons are both on a path to a miserable life, unless you do something drastic to turn their lives around now. Prison time might be just what they need (the older son may have already done time, in which case it might be time to give up on him, but the younger son might still have a chance at a good life). Also, the older son appears to be leading the younger son into a life of crime, you should keep him away from that bad influence in any way you can. StuRat 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I very much doubt StuRat is a parent, with advice like "it might be time to give up on him". I recommend you don't do that, ever. JackofOz 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

No question about it you need professional legal advice. While your sons may have at one time found "sanctioned" careers as thieves with the CIA, the CIA only considers hiring applicants with resumes which included a long list of undocumented thefts, i.e., persons smart enough not to get caught, no offence to your sons intended. With a CIA career now out of the question the Mafia may still be hiring. 71.100.2.150 07:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

Your son really needs to talk to his lawyer about these issues. And if you and your son so distrust the lawyer's ability that you are turning to random strangers on the Internet, I suggest for the sake of your son's future that you scrape up enough cash to hire a better lawyer! I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but in some states, if the judge doesn't sign the plea agreement, he/she isn't bound by it. If that's the case where you are, I double my suggestion that your son find a good lawyer because it sounds like he's really going to need one. Good luck. Crypticfirefly 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

'Trex' as used by Martin Amis

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

In his novel The Information, Amis often uses the word 'trex' when referring to something worthless - the word seems interchangable with 'crap' or 'rubbish' - but can anyone tell me what it literally means? Surely he's not referring to the composite wood-plastic material that comes up when I google the word.

Thanks,

08:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Knowing Amis I would imagine he coined the word himself to mean exactly what you say. --Richardrj talk email 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As a sidenote, it sounds similar to Yiddish/German "dreck" (crap, waste). 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Trex is a brand name for a solid-fat product (vegetable fat sold as a solid, as a replacement for lard). See here. Trex, like lard, does have that rather nasty wax-meets-fat character. Perhaps if you look at the context of where he's using it and substituted "unpleasant fatty material" it would still make sense? But certainly Trex isn't used in the UK to mean any more than this (minor) brand, so I think Richardrj is correct in saying that his usage (whether based on the fat stuff or not) is uniquely Amis. Darryl Revok 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This would have been an excellent question for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you're right, Darryl, he's taken the product name and run with it, made it his own; so almost a neologism, Richard, probably influenced by its similarity to dreck, Wakuran. Adambrowne666 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Impeachment

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

What are the advantages and disadvantages of impeachment as a means of removing a president from office? What other mehtods might be acceptable alternatives?

72.159.131.254 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the United States, we currently have a highly effective way of removing a president from office - election. A president can serve for 4 years and then, if a plurality of the electoral college believes that another candidate is better, the president will be removed from office. Also, after 8 years, it doesn't matter how good the president is doing. He will be removed from office. Impeachment is rather silly in modern times. It takes so long to impeach a president that his term will likely expire before any impeachment process is complete. --Kainaw (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It only drags on in questionable cases. Four years would be too long to wait if we had a President who was clearly insane, etc. In such a case the impeachment would proceed rapidly, as even those of the President's party would realize that having an insane President is neither in the nation's interest or the interest of their party. StuRat 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
For that matter, I don't think what little empirical evidence exists suggests dragging even in the questionable cases. The impeachment of Bill Clinton — certainly an excellent "modern times" example — took less than two months from House impeachment to Senate acquittal. In contrast, Andrew Johnson's impeachment, sans modern media frenzy, lasted over three months. Neither supports the claim that the process is likely to run past the term of office. — Lomn 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
How long from "we want to impeach that guy" to "we need to create an independent panel to investigate him" to "we need to go over the findings of the panel" to "we need to start an impeachment hearing" to "we will impeach him now"? I wasn't referring to the final stage. I was referring to the entire process. For example, if Congress wanted to impeach Bush right now. They would have to vote on it (a good month or two of debates), then form a panel (a few months there to vote on who will be on the panel), then wait for the independent investigation (that can take years), then discuss the results of the investigation (a few more months), then vote on the formation of an impeachment panel (a few more months), then have the impeachment panel set up the impeachment process (a few more months), then vote on impeachment. I can't see Congress doing that all in a few months. --Kainaw (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
One note: a plurality of the Electoral College is insufficient; a simple majority is required or the election moves into Congress. As for the original question, we don't answer homework. — Lomn 13:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Historically, the other methods are coup d'etat from within, invasion and occupation from without, and assassination. Impeachment seems preferable to me, as well as several years overdue. alteripse 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As Kainaw points out, impeachment by itself is not a means of removal from office, it's only part of a longer process. That longer process is colloquially, but inaccurately, referred to as "impeachment". Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but both stayed put because they weren't "impeached". JackofOz 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Iranian criminal acts

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

If it can be verified by third parties that British sailors and marines did not in fact violate Iranian waters can Iran be charged which kidnapping or any similar crime that can be pursued and resolved in the International court? 71.100.2.150 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

I hope not. International courts are dumb. HappyBlackGuy 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That would be unlikely to help, the Iranians would just ignore the court. A similar incident happened when North Korea decided they needed some Japanese translators, so they naturally kidnapped around 20 people from Japan, around half of which agreed to serve as translators, with the other half mostly dying of "natural causes". No action taken by the international community, short of removing the current government of NK by force, could ever bring about trials of those involved in the kidnapping, since NK is a rogue state, just like Iran. StuRat 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Stu Rat, not natural causes, but car accidents. An ordinary tragedy in the West, but almost unheard of in NK, where car use is not widespread. DDB 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually DDB I was just looking over the statistics on car and motorcycle accidents in Vietnam and it appears that fatal car accidents all over the world have risen well beyond fatalities of war or those caused by other conflicts (domestic violence, etc.). 71.100.2.150 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nelson Mandela

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have asked this question before, but i forgot to keep looking at this page :( so here it is.

Im looking for a video of Nelson Mandela on a place such as youtube, where they offer code so that you can embed the video in your own site/blog/whatever.

The video i need is of Nelson Mandela saying the following: "Even in the grimmest times, I have seen glimmers of humanity which have reassured me that man's goodness is a flame which can never be extinguished."

I think it was shown alot on NBC or CBS as a service announcement in the United States.

Does anyone know where i can find a clip of this? i looked all over youtube :(

Also, if you somehow are able to capture it, please upload it to youtube and post the link here?

Greatly appreciated!

137.81.113.190 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

IF the video clip was shown in the mass media, then it is under copyright, and we can legally do little more than suggest that you contact the network in question directly. Jfarber 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

In that case, who has seen it? I'm sorry but i forget what network it is on :( Thanks for the help Jfarber! :)

137.81.40.118 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The use of laudanum in the Victorian era?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please help me:

I am writing a book review about the Victorian era and I need to know what were the effects of the opium based drug laudanum on the women who frequently used it at the time?

Thank you in advanc

--213.202.165.57 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have you read our article on laudanum? A quick search is often the fastest way to resolve these questions. — Lomn 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The effects of laudanum on women were no different from the effects on men. For a superb literary account of the nineteenth century experience you could do no better than read Thomas de Quincy's Confessions of an English Opium Eater. The pursuit of the vengeful Chinaman sticks in mind! Clio the Muse 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've now had a chance to go in to this subject in a little more depth. Laudanum was used for a huge variety of ailments, from colds to heart conditions, for both children and adults. Women used it to relieve period pains, and for attaining the pale complexion so prized at the time. It was spoon fed to infants to keep them pacified, many dying of overdoses. Karl Marx makes note of this practice in volume one of Capital I found this quote from an English doctor, writing in 1873:

Anyone who visits such a town as Louth or Wisbeach, and strolls about the streets on a Saturday evening, watching the country people as they do their marketing, may soon satisfy himself that the crowds in the chemists' shops come for opium; and they have a peculiar way of getting it. They go in, lay down their money, and receive the opium pills in exchange without saying a word...In these districts it is taken by people of all classes, but especially by the poor and miserable, and by those who in other districts would seek comfort from gin and beer.

If you want to investigate the subject in more detail have a look at Secret Passions, Secret Remedies: Narcotic Drugs in British Society, 1820-1930 by Terry Parssinien, and Opium and the People: Opiate use in Nineteenth Century England by Virginia Berridge and Griffith Edwards. Clio the Muse 23:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

1907

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

who was prime minister in 1907 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetpea007 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Wilfred Laurier. (Er, you meant Canada, right?) - Eron Talk 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the United Kingdom it was Henry Campbell Bannerman, heading a Liberal government. Clio the Muse 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

And if you have somewhere other than those in mind, try List of state leaders in 1907. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

eastern religon Jane

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am seeking information reaging a sect, I think Budist, near India- The name of the religion is Jane.

thank you

Sounds like Jane: Jain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Difficult piece

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

It's kinda a weird question, but what is/are regarded to be the most difficult pieces of music/tunes/whatever to play on a piano? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dylan-thompson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Hmmm, I seem to recall we had this question a while back, but I can't seem to locate it. Art Tatum wrote (and played) some seemingly impossible jazz works. Vladimir Horowitz wrote at least 3 versions of the Carmen Variations, each harder than the preceding one, and he kept the scores in a safe so that others couldn't work out how the hell he played with what sounded like 6 hands. Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit used to be the standard answer to this sort of question, but these days, almost any talented 20-year old pianist tosses it off as if it were scales (well .. ok, not quite). There are many, many other answers to this question. JackofOz 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is Conlon Nancarrow, most of whose piano music is basically unplayable, perhaps most dramatically in his "Boogie-Woogie Suite". Of course since he wrote for player piano perhaps his music doesn't count in the "most difficult to play" category. Personally I always thought Piano Concerto No. 3 by Sergei Rachmaninoff was a major contender. The page on it even says as much. Pfly 04:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I vote for Frederic Rzewski's The People United Will Never Be Defeated!. There's numerous pieces by Charles Valentin Alkan that could be contenders; and I think Ives' Concord Sonata has a few thousand notes too many to be considered merely "difficult." There's tons more. Fun question. Antandrus (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm back. Leopold Godowsky wrote 53 Studies on Chopin's Etudes. This is from our article:
  • As a composer, Godowsky has been best known for his paraphrases of piano pieces by other composers, which he enhanced with ingenious contrapuntal devices and rich chromatic harmonies. His most famous work in this genre is the 53 Studies on Chopin's Etudes, in which he varies the already challenging originals by: introducing countermelodies; transferring the technically difficult passages from the right hand to the left; transcribing the entire etude for left hand solo; or (get this) interweaving two etudes, with the left hand playing one and the right hand the other (as impossible as this seems). These are so taxing even for virtuosi that only three have ventured to record the entire set: Geoffrey Douglas Madge, Carlo Grante and Marc-André Hamelin.
JackofOz 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
By the way, there are at least two virtuoso pieces by Conlon Nancarrow for real piano: Two Canons for Ursula (1989) (that would be Ursula Oppens).
And getting somewhat offtopic, but regarding interweaving different pieces, have a look at one of the strangest characters in all music history: Pietro Raimondi. One of his compositions consisted of three different oratorios to be performed simultaneously, on three different stages in the same hall. This, incredibly, was in 1848. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wonderful. Thanks, Ant. I've checked Raimondi out in my old Grove V (1966 revision), and it seems he wrote tonnes of music, including 62 operas, 21 grand ballets, the entire Book of Psalms (!) for 4-8 voices, hundreds of vocal fugues including one in 64 parts for sixteen 4-part choirs, and so much more. The article finishes with: "Such stupendous labours ... also give one the heartache at the thought of their utter futility. Raimondi's compositions, with all their ingenuity, belong to a past age, and it may safely be said that they will never be revived". I, for one, would love to hear some of them, so get to it, record companies. Remember what Grove V said about Rachmaninoff - "monotonous in texture ... consist[ing] mainly of artificial and gushing tunes ... not likely to last". Yeah, right. JackofOz 05:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The first time I encountered Raimondi I thought I had found a nihilartikel. That such people could exist ... Oh, and I need one of those Grove Vs; maybe eBay. There's good stuff in that old edition. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Continuity of government

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

My question concerns the Franco-American Alliance of 1778. In that alliance the United States and the French agreed to come to each other’s aid against the British. This alliance was made when France was under a monarchy. In 1793, Edmond C. Genêt came to the United States to try obtain American support in the war against Britain. At that time though, the French government was quite different from the one that made the original treaty. (It changed several times in the 1790’s.) I’d like to know if the argument that the treaty could have been disregarded because the government had changed was made at that time. If it was, were there any historical events or political treatises that were referred to? (Even if the Americans didn’t make the argument, are there any historical examples or treatises that would have leant themselves to that argument?)Sjmcfarland 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Treaties usually count for less than Realpolitik, but in fact George Washington had issued his Proclamation of Neutrality a fortnight before Edmond-Charles Genêt arrived in Philadelphia. Genêt hadn't hurried to get there. Also, US-British relations were, relatively speaking, warm - the Jay Treaty was signed in 1794. Finally, in 1793 the French revolutionary government looked anything but stable, beset by enemies foreign and domestic. In the spring the main French field army had been soundly drubbed at the Battle of Neerwinden. The French really didn't look like winners in 1793. And as you say, the government of 1793 had little in common with that which had assisted the US, for its own ends, in 1778. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sjmcfarland. I am not familiar with the terms of the 1778 Alliance agreement, but I assume that it was defensive rather than offensive in nature? What I mean by this is that the United States, in seeking French aid against the British, did not at the same time commit itself to going to a future war initiated by France? This would make no political or strategic sense, especially for such a young nation. It was France that declared war on Britain in February 1793; so I imagine Washington, and every other leading American politician, quickly decided that it was not in the nation's interests to become involved in a purely European conflict. The treaty itself remained in force, though, even after France became a republic in 1792, but Genêt's lobbying, and his encouragement of American privateers, was not welcomed by President Washington, who had the minister recalled in August 1793. By that time France was falling under the control of the Jacobins, the Communists of the eighteenth century, and I simply cannot imagine any American administration ever going to war on their behalf.

On your wider point, treaties of alliance in the modern world tend to transcend changes of government, unless one of the parties decides that it is in their interests to withdraw. The Bolsheviks withdrew Russia from the First World War, in defiance of treaty arrangements with Britain and France. The circumstances here were, of course, somewhat unique. For treaties to be abandoned simply by a change of government, and only by a change of government, you really have to go all the way back to the Middle Ages, when alliances and agreements were between kings and princes, rather than nations as such, tending to fall with the death of one of the contracting parties.Clio the Muse 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It looks to me that the 1778 treaty applied only to the war going on at the time and was not intended to be permanent. -- Mwalcoff 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It actually continued to 1800, when it was finally abandoned by Napoleon at the Convention of Morfontaine. You will find the details, and more besides, here [3]. Congress had attempted to annul it in 1798, though the French refused to recognise this. In practice it was only ever effective from 1778 to 1783. Clio the Muse 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

March 30

Help Before I Lose Everything

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My husband and I have spent a tremendous amount of $$ for our son's legal fees and are behind on everything, including the mortgage. Does anyone know of a lender for people with bad credit. We are desperate and have looked all over the internet, but companies will not help us because we are behind on the mortgage. For crying out loud, we wouldn't be behind if someone would refinance our home. Our credit isn't good cause things have fallen behind. Any help would be appreciated ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.150.231.15 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

How much was a gram of gold worth in Europe in May of 1961?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Any time I type in "historic gold prices" on Google I get a bunch of websites talking about investing in gold. Toko loko 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Toko, it seems to have been about $35 an ounce in the early 1960s. You will find a lot of detail on historic trends here [4]. I will leave you to work out the price in grams! Clio the Muse 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bush v. Gore per curiam

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know for sure who wrote the per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore? --zenohockey 06:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Selling at a loss

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If selling a product at a loss is illegal under antitrust laws in many areas (such as California [5]), how are games console manufacturers such as Sony and Microsoft able to sell products at £100-200 below their break even point? Wouldn't they be very vulnerable from a competition/monopoly point of view? Laïka 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=118988495"