Talk:Ambegaon and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between pages

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg HagermanBot]]Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

March 14

Norse Gods' Symbols

Hi, I'm researching the symbols for some of the main gods and mythological beings. Here's my list (I've filled in what I know):

• Thor - Mjollnir his hammer
• Odin - The valknut
• Baldr
• Eir
• Freyja - Hildisvini, her boar
• Loki - Possibly the snakes at Urnes Stave Church but only from this site.
• Tyr - T rune (Tiwaz rune
• Sol (goddess) - S rune (looks a bit like Σ)
• Mani (god) - possibly mannaz rune (mani and mannaz are quite similar]]

Can anyone confirm or deny any of the above? Thanks, Bioarchie1234 07:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bioarchie, there may be some confusion between Freyja and her brother Freyr, who also rides a boar, by the name of Gullinbursti. Although Freyja is associated with Hildisvini, her sacred symbol appears to be the cat, whereas Freyr's symbol is the boar. Tyr's symbol is the spear, an attribute of justice as well as a weapon. Sol carries the shield Svalin. I do not think that Baldr has a sacred symbol. Perhaps is should be mistletoe? Clio the Muse aka Loki 08:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a one-to-one correspondence between each god(dess) and a symbol attributed. "Symbolism" could be interpreted broadly, and some god(desse)s would likely have had more than one, some might lack them completely. I also am puzzled by the selection. How come you've included Eir, Sol and Mani, but not, for instance, Heimdall, Bragi and Iðunn? What do you need this information for? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Loki is associated with the serpent of midgard or Fenric the wolf.--Lerdthenerd 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just for personal research. I included Mani and Sol so I have all the days of of the week (minus Saturday because that's Saturn's day). Mani's is Monday, Tyr's is Tuesday, Odin's (or Woden's) is Wednesday, Thor's is Thursday and Freyja's (or possibly Freyr's - I'm not sure) is Friday. Sol's is Sunday. Also I included Eir because I thought there might be a particular sign for her - she's a healing goddess so I thought the sign might have been thought to protect the wearer. I left out Heimdall, Iðunn and Bragi because they're not days of the week. But I included Loki because although he's not strictly a god, I like him. He is a bit mean at times though. Although Baldr only appears primarily in his death-story (or so I've been told), I like that story so I included him.

Lerdthenerd : Thanks for that, I should have thought of that (after all Jormangund, Fenrir and Hel are Loki's children!) Also, thanks to Clio the Muse for the help with the symbols. You're all very knowledgeable!Bioarchie1234 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the English word "Friday" actually is named for Frigg. Crypticfirefly 04:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from the Old English frigedaeg-the day of Frigg-, Cryptic, but in the other Germanic languages the Goddess in question is Freyja, though the two are frequently identified with each other. Clio the Muse 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your corrections! Bioarchie1234 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Algernon Sidney(1622-1683) involved in the constitution of Pennsylvania or not?

Hallo, sorry for my bad English. Most of the webpages SydneyHistory.htm,1911encyclopedia and algernon.shtml mention, that Algernon Sidney was involved in working out of the Pennsylvania constitution, but NNDB writes: "... (Algernon Sidney) was warmly supported by William Penn, with whom he had long been intimate, and to whom he is said (as is now thought, erroneously) to have afforded assistance in drawing up the constitution of Pennsylvania. " So, what is right, what is wrong? It is for a german writing competition in Wikipedia. Article about Algernon Sidney is here in work. Thanks in advance -- Jlorenz1 08:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jlorenz, I've had a close look at the articles by Ficalora and Baker (your first and third links), and the one simply duplicates the information given in the other. Both read like hagiography, and what is worse there are some gross errors of both fact and interpretation. The NNDB article is considerably more detached and scholarly, and I personally would place far more reliance on what it has to say on the matter. Incidentally, this is a restatement of the 1911 edition of Britannica, which does not support Sydney's involvement in the Pennsylvania constitution, as your arrangement of sources would suggest. You should try to dig out, if you can, The Life and Times of the Hon. Algernon Sydney by Alexander Charles Ewald, published in two volumes in London in 1873, and the only full-scale account of his career ever written. I imagine you will only find this in a good research library. More accessible, and considerably more up-to-date, is Algernon Sydney and the Restoration Crisis, 1677-1683 by Jonathan Scott, published by Cambridge University Press in 2002. You should also look at Charles the Second by Ronald Hutton, published by the Clarendon Press in 1989. Clio the Muse 09:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Clio the Muse, thanks for your answer, but your suggestion isn't a solution, because NNDB is from 2006 ("(as is now thought, erroneously) " and the other sources are older. I've written Jonathan Scott and Thomas G.West, but I've no hope to get an answer. Thanks although Johannes -- Jlorenz1 10:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Look again, Jlorenz: the wording and is now thought erroneously refers to the suggestion that Sydney was involved in drawing up the Pennsylvania constitution, not to the encyclopedia article (I repeat, the NNDB is simply the same information presented in the 1911 edition of Britannica). In other words, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that Sydney collaborated with Penn on this document. In my estimation the articles by Ficalora and Baker have little in the way of practical value. If any of what I have written here is still unclear to you I will be happy to offer further explanation. Clio the Muse 11:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a letter of William Penn's dated 13 October 1681 which talks of talking with Col. Sidney and drafting ideas on constitutions although Sidney said William's ideas were little better than Turkish government (i.e. despotic). This is quoted in William Penn and the Founding of Pennsylvania: 1680-1684 but it says that it could be referring to Henry Sidney, Algernon's brother who Penn certainly wrote to. It may be that there is more evidence to prove it wasn't Algernon: there is an article about it in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography "Who Was 'Colonel Sidney'?: A Note on the Meaning of the October 13, 1681, Penn-Sidney Letter," by Peter Karsten [1]. Or he may not be regarded as having a major part in the drafting as his views were so at variance to Penn's. meltBanana 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To add further confusion:

Penn looked for help to his old friend, John Locke, lately engaged on a similar task, and to Algernon Sidney, for whom he had recently undertaken the rough and uncongenial work of a contested election. The original manuscript of the Framework of Government for Pennsylvania preserved in the archives of its Historical Society is written in Penn's hand, and contains interlineations and notes in the handwriting both of Locke and Sidney. Leighton, Clare (1930). The Making of William Penn. p. 348.

However, this and the letter given by meltBanana above are referring to the first Frame of Government, repudiated by the Colonial Assembly and substantially revised before approval in 1683 of the second Frame of Government and first constitution.—eric 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Source of the Arabic phrase "لا مؤثر في الوجود إلا الله"

Hey all. I'm doing some study on a poem in which it would behoove me to find out the source of the following Arabic phrase: لا مؤثر في الوجود إلا الله. The meaning is basically "none but Allah has dominion over creation", and it is used primarily in reference to tawhid, or the unity of God in Islam ... however, I'm curious about the source of the phrase. Does anyone happen to know? Is it from the Qur'an, from the hadith, from somewhere else? I haven't been able to find an exact-word Arabic Qur'an or hadith search online, and googling the exact phrase didn't help much either (largely because I don't actually know Arabic). Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. —Saposcat 13:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain that the phrase indeed has a source rather than being the creation of the author of the poem? What I mean to say is that the phrase seems to be a rather natural interpretation of the basics of Islam as written in the texts you mentioned. For example, consider the Christian hymn: Jesus loves me, yes I know, for the Bible tells me so. This phrase obviously has no Biblical source, rather it's obviously the creation of the author, as how s/he naturally interprets the Bible. I hope I'm being helpful as it's starting to feel like I'm just taking shots in the dark! Loomis 12:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The poem itself, by an Ottoman Turkish poet, does not use the phrase. Rather, the poem uses the compound "جاروب لا" (which means, literally, "brush of lâ". As I did some research on this odd compound, I found that it is used as basically a shorthand allusion to one of two phrases, both of which actually refer to the same idea (namely, the unity of God). The first phrase it refers to is the one I'm wondering about; the second phrase is the well-known "لا إله إلاَّ الله" ("there is no God but God"). Insofar as both phrases are presented in my source (a Turkish-language dictionary of Sufi terminology which compiles all sorts of info from much older such dictionaries) as clearly phrased givens, I'm under the impression that it's a set phrase culled from somewhere. I could be wrong of course, but the likelihood in this case—given the way that information is presented in the dictionary I mentioned—seems low. Thank you, nonetheless, for shooting in the dark; I appreciate it.

I wonder if anyone might know of an Arabic-script, Arabic-language Qur'an and/or Hadith search tool out there on the Internet anywhere. I've looked and looked, but ain't found one yet, and it seems such would be a good place to start. Cheers. —Saposcat 13:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The ethics/laws behind rewards for partaking in experiments/studies

(ramdbling) Hypothetical question here: Ive heard of these studies that go for approx 30 days and pay a pretty good lump sum (Ive seen one at $6000) once complete. Now, I remember from my undergrad days there was tons of psych students doing their thesis experiments or whatever and offering little prizes or rewards for partaking. After, further discussing with one such psych student they told me that it was part of the "ethical code" to reward the participant regardless if they finished the study or not. So, this leads to my question. Could one not complete one of the major studies (a study along the lines of the one I mentioned in the beginning) and still must be awarded, by some ethical guidelines laid out by the APA or soemthing, the compensation money? Whats the word on this?

Thanks!!! 65.200.190.242 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)moe.ron

This is pure speculation, but i'd have to assume that in any situation like this there is some kind of contract or other agreement made by both parties, and whether the 'subject' receives compensation for not completing the study would be determined there on a case-by-case basis. The nature of the experiment also probably has something to do with it — if it's something with no risk (like a simple survey), it makes sense to me that they'd get no compensation if they don't finish. If it's something else that could possibly impact a person's health or whatever, it seems more likely they'd be compensated even if they quit early. Obviously if somebody gets sick because of the experiment and they have to quit, they're not gonna be left with nothing to show for it. ~ lav-chan @ 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(famous?) seminude woman in lima with flag painted on her body

Hello,

I just saw a weird short fragment on television, involving a woman in Lima who was almost completely naked, and who had a flag painted on her body. She took a shower in a fountain. Her action had to do with Chilean occupation of land that used to be Peruvian. Can anyone tell me who she was and what exactly she was trying to do? Thanks,Evilbu 15:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens, are people still protesting about the outcome of the War of the Pacific after all these years? Surely it's time to move on? Clearly not, at least judging by the outbreak of the recent Maritime Dispute. Clio the Muse 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

According to this newspaper, which also has a videoclip, her name is Reina Loo, and she is a Peruvian topless model. She'd had the Chilean flag painted on her body, and protested by washing it off in a fountain in Lima. The reason was said to be an on-going dispute over territorial borders (the one linked to by Clio). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of better understanding latin american politics I watched the vidclip of the naked chick in the fountain. For a partial explantion to her publicity stunt see here. meltBanana 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that, my heart goes out to my Peruvian friends plight. I think it important, now, my Chilean friends reply in kind DDB 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Idylls of the King Help

I'm reading Alfred Lord Tennyson's Idylls of the King, and in need of some help. For clarification purposes, this is NOT homework, I'm curious of other people's ideas, and wish to better understand the work.

• First, the article on the Idylls of the King is in need of, and currently undergoing, major revisions and Sparknotes does not cover the Idylls. In lieu of this, are there any other cites worth recommending covering the Idylls both in plot, background information, trivia, and comparison to other Arthurian works?

• Secondly, I came across a Biblical proverb reference that I don't fully understand: "there is a lion in the way" (The Holy Grail, line 642). Please explain.

• Thirdly, my professor mentioned that as Tennyson made King Arthur as a metaphor for Prince Albert, and because in the Balin and Balan Idyll, the emphasis on minor (e.g. lower class) characters can be on some level a socio-economic reference to Victorian England. How far can this be applied, and how true do you think this to be?

• Fourthly, Tennyson changes the character of Arthur to be reflect the character of Albert, how far do these changes go, and do they disrupt the legends?

• And finally, is there anything you feel I should know and understand about the works thus far? I fear my professor is not doing a good job explaining this peice as much as I would like.

Thanks in advance, Zidel333 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but if you are studying this under a professor then it sounds like homework to me even if you are not going to be marked on it. I did not know what "there is a lion in the way" meant but I looked it up on this thing called the internet and read a bit of the bible (not too much so it didn't hurt) and understood it. Searching for "Morte d'Albert" may explain some of the supposed allegory. Any good edition of the work should have an introduction and notes. F. E. L. Priestly's Tennyson's Idylls and The Fall of Camelot: A Study of Tennyson's Idylls of the King by John D. Rosenberg are two fairly modern studies. meltBanana 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, this is NOT homework. My professor does not assign homework, nearly all our grades are dependent on class partcipation, and exams. Also, homework implies grading or at least verfication that it was done; the info I requested is not specific to any assignment, but rather pretains more to my general understanding of the work, and (quite frankly) my curiosity. Secondly, I'm a Wikiholic, and the fact no real resource is availible to me online bothers me. My mind is usually swimming with random info, and questions, and usually I just look it up and move forward. In this case, I could not do it, so I figured I should ask.

If you're going to claim not to be rude than don't be rude, and than insult me. I'm not stupid, please don't treat me as such. Zidel333 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not think I insulted you, I am sorry for any accidental insult given. I did not say I wasn't going to be rude just that I did not mean to. Your questions are of such an epic nature that it is difficult to tackle them without over summarising. "How does it reference victorian socio-economic stuff?" "How does a link to Albert make it different to previous version?" that is an awful lot of study. As I said searching for "Morte d'Albert" will tell you it was a charge levelled at the work by Algernon Swinburne and not a particularly substantive criticism. As for "there is a lion in the way" it is from Proverbs 26:13 and is a silly excuse used by a sluggard for not going out and doing anything which Lancelot suggests he has been like. TTFN meltBanana 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a fascinating set of questions, Zidel; but it is also one that has all the potential to elicit an answer of immense proportions, and I am not really sure that I am able address it with the fullness and adequacy that it deserves, especially as its a while now since I studied Tennyson's poetry. At best I can only provide some partial answers, but which may help to place some of the epic themes in context.

I remember writing an essay on the Idylls on the theme of 'celebration and regret': celebration of past and present greatness; regret for loss and decline. Tennyson started to write the Idylls at the peak of British economic and political success, so it seemed natural to celebrate this by comparing it with the legendary greatness of Arthurian Britain. But the Industrial Revolution, upon which Britain's new golden age was based, left little room for romance; so a mood of celebration was also combined with one of nostalgia, a desire for the past, not just the distant past of Arthur but, in Tennyson's scheme, and as the time of composition grew longer, a more immediate past in the person of Prince Albert. For Tennyson Albert did, in a sense, become the new King Arthur, and his death marks the passage of the golden age of empire, the passing of Camelot. This was so marked at the time of publication that critics refered to the work as the 'Idylls of the Prince Consort' or 'Le Morte D'Albert'. I do not know if it's fair to say that the Poet's tribute to the Prince disrupted the legends; but it certainly gave them a highly contemporary feel and significance.

I'm not quite sure I fully accept the interpretation your professor places on the theme of Balin and Balan, though it is not entirely without merit. Balin the Savage seems to me not to denote lower-class elements, but something far more fundamental and transcendent. To my mind the two brothers represent, at the simplest level, the spirit of order and the spirit of chaos. Balin, in particular, stands for the destructivness, and self-destructiveness,that always stands in the shadow of civilization. Balan is receptive to the order and refinement of Arthur's court, but Balin remains marked by his bestial nature. Order manages, to a degree to restrain chaos, but does not fully understand either its nature or its source. You may recollect the lines where Balan, about to embark on his quest, says to his brother;

Let not thy moods prevail when I am gone

Who used to lay them! hold them from outer fiends,

Who leap at thee to tear thee; shake them aside,

Dreams ruling when wit sleeps!

But Balin's fiends are not outside: they form part of his being. And in a deeper sense they form part of the being of Camelot itself. Balin feels inferor, an outsider in the midst of law and perfection; but the affair between Guinivere and Lancelot blows away the artificial symmetry, the hollow sham of courtly order. Balin flees into the wood to embrace his own true nature;

...here I dwell

Savage among the savage woods, here die

Die: let the wolves' black maws ensepulchre

Their brother's beast, whose anger was his lord.

No false manners, no lies, no hypocrisy. In the encounter that follows in the wood between Balin and Balan, order battles chaos, and both are reconciled in death;

Balin answered low

'Goodnight, true brother here, goodmorrow there!

We two were born together and we die

Together by one doom' and while he spoke

Closed his death-drowsing eyes, and slept the sleep

With Balin, either locked in either's arm.

Finally, the biblical reference is to the proverb of the lazy man, who makes excuses for his inaction by claiming that there is a lion in his way. I cannot recollect its use in the context you mention, and therefore can offer no meaningful explanation. Anyway, my answer is less than immense, but more than I desire! Clio the Muse 02:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychological characters

Hello, I remember there have been several books written on the different types or stereotypes of personalities and psychological characters found in human societies. I know there has been several of them written at the end of the XIXth, begginning of the XXth Century but I guess there might be some more recent ones too. Could anyone point to the references of some of these books. Thank you. 81.241.155.171 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Beliefs similar to the somatotype theory? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What immediately leaps to mind here is Carl Gustav Jung's 1921 classic Psychological Types. Clio the Muse 05:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Origination of the name "Goth"

The first Avignon Pope was Clement V. His real name is "Bertrand de Goth", which I assume is Bertrand of Goth. Goth apparently is a region or type of people. What does this mean exactly, that of "Goth". How did that become a part of his name? --Doug ^talk 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked out Goths? They were a Germanic tribe. Sacked Rome and all that. Pretty important from the 4th through the 6th centuries. Bertrand there was probably descended from a few of them; for a period a branch of them (the Visigoths) had control of lots of France, including the region of what would later be Bordeaux, where Clement was (much later) born. That the last bits have any connection to the name is pure conjecture on my part, though. --24.147.86.187 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The fullest information I could find on Bertrand was in the Catholic Encyclopedia, where he is referred to as 'Bertrand de Got', but even that offers no explanation for the origin of his name. The Goths did occupy Gascony for a time, though by the late thirteenth century, when Bertrand was born, they had left little trace of themselves. The name suggests a link with a place called Got, perhaps in the neighbourhood of Villandraut; but I, too, am speculating. Clio the Muse 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The family name is often spelled Gouth. In the Nobiliare de Guienne et Gasconne (p 355) I see that Bertrande de Gouth, daughter of Bernard de Gouth, married in 1573 Thomas de Pontac. The earlier form of the name was de Agathis (Jean Justin Monlezun, Histoire de la Gascogne, p. 98) or perhaps Gouth de Agathis; the family held the Château of Villandraut, (Image:Plan.chateau.Villandraut.png illustrates a groundplan, from Viollet-le-Duc) as Clio notes, near Bazas, and claimed noble descent since the 1100s. The connection with Goth is purely coincidental.--Wetman 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good research! --24.147.86.187 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. The family name of "Gouth" history of Wetman seems to make the most sense to me. I have some good information to follow up on now. --Doug ^talk 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Blank in revolvers

There was a tradition to put a blank in your 6 shooter in the XIXth Century. Is this correct and what purpose did it serve? 81.241.155.171 22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard that the guns' constructions made them prone to misfire. If all six bullets were loaded in the gun, a shot was liable to go off by mistake and wound the owner. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmh ... why put in a blank then not just an empty cartridge. 81.242.185.120 16:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that the chamber under the hammer was sometimes left empty in case the revolver went off by mistake, but not that a blank was used, which would have been pointless. -- Necrothesp 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

To avoid damaging the hammer, an empty cartridge was commonly left under the hammer. So, if it misfired, it would have something to smack against. However, this was only for freaks that walked around with the hammer cocked. A normal person would keep his shooter in a proper holster with a hammer-guard strap. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was taught to leave an empty chamber under tha hammer when carrying a revolver, because if the gun were dropped on a hard surface it might fire a cartridge under the hammer, even if not cocked. In a big ol' western style shootout I might have opted for having the extra shot available. For target practice, safety would be better served by the empty chamber. Edison 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

sir andreas de harcla

sir andreas de harcla was born around 1276? in northern england. He served under king edward the second as a soldier doing battle with the scottish forces along the northern border. He was knighted for his courage and valor; however he and his brother john were beheaded for political reasons and their heads ended up hanging from the london bridge. my question is; were the de harcla family of noble heritage before andreas became famous? and was the harcla castle (in cumbria)built long before then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.42.52 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

This mentions his father, "Sir Michael de Harcla, sheriff of Cumberland", the same office that Andreas held. Clarityfiend 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle, was the son of Michael de Harclay, who was Sheriff of Cumberland, an important political and legal office, from 1285 to 1298. Although the family was of noble origin, before Andrew it did not rank amongst the higher nobility of England. The Wikipedia article says that he was born about 1276 at what was to become Hartley Castle, though the manor was in the possession of the Clifford family at that time, and was only granted to Andrew around 1315 after it was confiscated from Roger de Clifford. It was only fortified in 1323, from which time it was referred to by its present name. Andrew was among the most loyal of the followers of Edward II, occupying a number of important posts on the northern border, and serving in the Scottish wars. But it was for his role in defeating Thomas Earl of Lancaster, leader of the English baronial opposition, at the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322 that he was created Earl of Carlisle by the grateful king. However, increasingly conscious that the northern border was almost impossible to defend against repeated Scots raids, he entered into secret negotiations on his own initiative with King Robert Bruce, with the intention of securing a return to some kind of normality, particularly important as Edward seemed to have lost all interest in effective defence of the north. When Edward discovered this Andrew and his brother John were arrested and condemned as traitors. Both men were hung, drawn and quartered-the ghastly penalty for traitors at the time-and the title forfeit to the crown. People who are interested in the history of warfare might care to note that the tactics used by Harclay at Boroughbridge-dismounted archers supported by spearmen-were to form the prototype of those later used at Crecy and elsewhere, and allowed England to dominate the battlefields of Europe for over a century. Clio the Muse 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

James S. Pitkin Quote

I found the following quote attached to someones email and would like to find more about James Pitkin and the book/letters/manuscript that was written. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Quote follows:

"And then again, when you sit at the helm of your little ship on a clear night, and gaze at the countless stars overhead, and realize that you are quite alone on a great, wide sea, it is apt to occur to you that in the general scheme of things you are merely an insignificant speck on the surface of the ocean; and are not nearly so important or as self-sufficient as you thought you were. Which is an exceedingly wholesome thought, and one that may effect a permanent change in your deportment that will be greatly appreciated by your friends."- James S. Pitkin

Thanks, Darrell P.S. can't find anything on internet, google, yahoo, quotes etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.104.31 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I can find no reference to this person anywhere, Darrell. Are you sure the name is correct? Clio the Muse 02:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Clio, no I am not sure this name is correct but that is the name attributed to the quote in the persons email. I asked him and he had no idea who or where he found the quote. I have also tried to search using parts of the quote and cannot find it either. I am at a loss that why the question here. Thanks for trying though.

Just to check, I googled the phrase "permanent change in your deportment". Sure enough, all three results (only three!) list the exact quote above, and list James S. Pitkin as the author...and mention, as well, a ship called the "Flying Pig". A subsequent search of "James Per$ Flying Pig" does reveal a man named James Perkins who may have been associated with a ship called the Flying Pig -- but the trail stops here, and I can't connect Perkins with the quote at all. Can someone pick up the trail? Could this man be known ONLY for the quote? Did someone fabricate quote and man, and pass it along to two others and no more? What does Occam's Razor say here? Jfarber 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

First, let me thank Clio and Jfarber for the help. I found it! The book name is "The First Book of Boats" published in 1947 by Anchordown. It looks like the book is a series of essays/short stories which includes "Something to Remember" by James S Pitkin. Can't find anything else by Pitkin so I guess I'll purchase this and add it to my sailboats library. Should make for an interesting read on the next overnight passage. Again thanks. Darrell

Well done, and greetings from a fellow sailing enthusiast! Clio the Muse 06:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

March 15

Book list (not a reference question.)

{{spoiler}}

(WARNING: the following will reveal the plot of a film and might spoil sitting through it. Do not read if you have not yet seen the 1960's film The Time Machine (1960 film).) At the end of the 1960’s film The Time Machine Filby comments that someone like George would not go back to a virgin future and start a civilization from scratch without first having come up with a plan. Looking at the library he sees that there are three books missing and asks what three books George would have taken and the film ends there. So it got me to wondering, what three books would be the best candidates to take into a virgin future to start a civilization from scratch? Diligent 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note the defined purpose of the Wikipedia reference desk:

The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Users leave questions on the reference desk and Wikipedia volunteers work to help you find the information you need.

We'd be happy to help you with any reference questions you might have. If you're looking for opinions, might I suggest an Internet forum?Jfarber 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can be a little more generous than that, Jfarber. We're often asked for things that are not factual, and happily oblige - such as yesterday's thread An intellectual reading list for a Christian man, which has many possible answers, none of them necessarily right or wrong. I'd be interested to hear some opinions about what the 3 books would be. JackofOz 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough. I'll start, then, as pennance:

1. The largest University-level collection of international short works of literature and poetry I could find.

2. The OED

3. Walter Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word

I'd also have taken all back issues of the Whole Earth Catalog I could get my hands on, but I don't suppose that counts as a book...

Jfarber 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, do you mean books available to us now, or in 1900, where the three books were taken from? I wouldn't take a poetry book myself, but that's because I'm not a big fan of non-free-style poetry for the most part. I wouldn't take the Bible either. OED isn't a bad choice. A book besides for the Bible that teaches morals, and last I'd choose one that'd teach imagination, so probably just an entertaining book. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The time period is not important but rather the limitation of only three. Diligent 08:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that choosing books on technology would be a mistake. The reason it that a brand new civilization would undoubtedly start at a fairly primitive level. Having the specs for a jet engine would at best be useless and at worst be harmful. Besides a prospering culture could reinvent technology relatively quickly. I would instead try to pick books that would get a culture of on the right foot.

1. Elementary Principles of Agriculture, by A M Ferguson MSc
2. An illustrated dictionary of medicine, biology and allied sciences by George M Gould
3. Du Contrat Social by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Of course if I regarded the whole new civilization thing as a sociological experiment, I would be tempted to mess with the people’s minds. In that case I would choose.

1. The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter by Tere Stouffer
2. Kiss Dieting Goodbye: Embracing a Whole New Way to Lose Weight by Elliott Young
3. Making Artisan Cheese: Fifty Fine Cheeses That You Can Make in Your Own Kitchen by Tim Smith

Best! S.dedalus 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"technologizing" is about the way that writing formalizes language, and how that in turn changes culture drastically -- it's there on the list as both cultural theory and as a way of framing the issue of having printed books in the first place. Unless you think of writing itself as a technology (I do), the Ong book isn't about "technology" as you probably imagine it. Instead, it covers ONLY those technologies which would have been necessary to produce...the books you brought, and thus would say what was necessary about the cultural and social contracts, assumptions, and other contexts which would help any culture make sense of "what biases and mental frameworks would a book-producing culture have assumed", so that this theoretical "virgin culture" could decide whether they, too, wanted the fundamental mindset trade-off that writing brings. Most folks consider Ong the predecesor to McLuhan, and Neil Postman, and to cultural studies in general.

Rather than "get a culture off on the right foot", the point here is to let the culture know through the very presence of these texts that it is up to THEM...so that they can feel free to reject books, and in doing so, be deliberate about what THEY think their foot should be, and how to...er...get off on it. After all, our predecessor societies invented technologies on their own, but without knowledge of how technologies necessarily both change and fix the culture in various ways. Why assume that a virgin culture would make their own/ want their own if given the knowledge to make the choice we could not make, without the knowledge of irreversible hindsight.

All the more reason not to hand off religious texts, in other words, or texts of technologies, or of anything other than codecs and myths-of-a-distance -- it does a disservice to any culture to pretend that we can help shape them, hence my attempt to choose only those texts which would both help them best choose how to shape themselves, in part by giving them texts which are designed to be rejected once their knowledge has been understood, and thus texts which would be utterly useless as seminal texts for a future's foundation. Jfarber 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) It's an interesting question. Myself, I would lean towards works of fiction, although there are certainly great benefits associated with the dictionary of medicine, etc. suggested by S. dedalus.

1. Ensaio sobre a cegueira by José Saramago (perhaps in translation, although perhaps not)
2. V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and David Lloyd
3. The Once and Future King by T.H. White

Perhaps a little slanted to the modern era, but it would be interesting to see what kind of society would develop with those works as its foundation! Carom 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine it would depend on what you wanted to achieve. If I wanted to arrive in a completely wild world, with people who have little knowledge of medicine etc, and survive for a long time, I would probably want to take:

1. Some sort of practical, illustrated medical guide, per dedalus
2. Some sort of herbal, preferably up-to-date (this is assuming plantlife of the area has not greatly changed in the time)
3. Possibly some work on basic engineering principles, maths,etc.

I would assume that between them and me, we'd know most other important things. I'd, of course, have to learn their language, teach them mine, pass on my knowledge and the ability to read, etc. And get them to accept me. If, however, I wanted to be regarded as a god, I would take:

1. An almanac containing tables of eclipses and other details of celestial movement

in place of the book on engineering, and aim to arrive in time to predict one. In that case, I'd probably also want to take a large supply of matches, fun snaps, lighter and fuel, etc. Skittle 23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As per A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court? :-) S.dedalus 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"New York" and "York" (Toronto)

Is there any definite connection between the names "New York" and "York" (Toronto)? Both were supposedly named for different Dukes of York, but adjacency of New York and Upper Canada, and fact that New York even had a claim on that region before the Quebec Act, makes me wonder whether the second North American "York" wasn't something of a replacement for the lost first one (which, by the way, was often just called "York" historically)?--Pharos 03:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. The first North American "York", New York City, was so named in 1664. The second one was York, Canada, so named in the 1790s. The first "York" is still called New York. It was never "lost". Can you elucidate your question? JackofOz 03:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant "lost" to the British after the American Revolution. Clio, below, has my meaning right.--Pharos 04:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(After ec) You are quite right, Pharos: the dukes in question were two quite different men. New York was named after James, Duke of York, brother of Charles II, and York is named after Frederick, Duke of York second son of George III. Since York was founded not long after the loss of the Americas your conjecture has some merit. It's doubtful, I suppose, that this particular name would have been bestowed on the new settlement if the British retained control of all of North America. There again, just how many towns are there in the world with the name York? Clio the Muse 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How many? See York (disambiguation)! --Anon, March 15, 2007, 23:54 (UTC).

Yes, a lot; just as I had assumed! Many thanks. Clio the Muse 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pharos' conjecture is very plausible, because many of the United Empire Loyalists who settled what became first York and later Toronto would have come from nearby New York state. Marco polo 12:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When were women first allowed to serve on the jury?

This is related to history. I could not locate the answer through search. I would like to know when (exact date if possible) women were first allowed to serve on the jury in court. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.164.228 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

What country are you interested in? --Charlene 06:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a question difficult to answer with any exactness because it varies so widely between, and even within, countries. It should have followed with the granting of female suffrage, but this was not always the case, and it had often to be fought for as a basic civil right. Clio the Muse 06:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In England, women were excluded from juries until 1919. Indeed, the famous legal scholar Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that women were rightfully prohibited from jury service because of what he labeled the defect of sex, which made them incapable of the intelligent decision-making required for jury duty. In 1898, Utah became the first state to allow women to sit on juries in a state court, and a few other jurisdictions followed suit. But it was not until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which gave women the right to vote, that women's representation on juries was more than sporadic. After 1920, women's organizations such as the League of Women Voters and the National Women's Rights Party took up the jury issue. They attempted through lobbying efforts, legislative reform, and court challenges to increase women's participation on the jury. However, as late as 1966, three states—Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina—still prohibited women from jury service. By 1972, women were eligible in all federal and state courts in the United States. On the other side of the Atlantic, in England and Wales a property qualification for jurors effectively excluded most women from jury service until its repeal in 1972. Hans, Valerie P. (1986). Judging the Jury. p. 52.

—eric 06:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a lawyer in NY. Many years ago when I was in law school (1970's) the last remnants of so-called protective legislation that barred women from jury duty were being held held unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Men argued that women were too delicate to serve on juries and, whether or not they had children, should be home for the children. Women who wanted to serve on juries were forbidden to so by these laws.75Janice 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)75Janice 16 March 2007

Quote

Hi, I’m looking for a few lines taken from poetry, literature, or philosophy that contrast mortal love with the horrors of war. I intend to use the quote on the title page of a string quartet I just finished, so it must be public domain. Any suggestions?

By the way, awhile ago several editors were kind enough to help me find a poem to “set” for choir. I promised I would follow up on that and eventually post what I decided on. It took longer than I thought it would, but I eventually settled on Rhapsody on a Windy Night [2] by T. S. Eliot (which is in the public domain.)

Thank you for your help. S.dedalus 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, S.dedalus. I'm not sure if this will be of much help to you but there is a letter that seems to me to unite the tragedy of war with feelings of transcendent love. It was not written by a poet, a novelist or a philosopher, but by an ordinary man, a soldier on the eve of battle. His name was Sullivan Ballou, writing in the summer of 1861 to his wife, Sarah. I was in my teens when I heard it recited on a documentary series shown by BBC Television in England about the American Civil War. It's too long to reproduce in its entirety, but here are the parts that moved me the most;

I cannot describe to you my feelings on this calm summer night, when two thousand men are sleeping around me, many of them enjoying the last, perhaps, before that of death--and I, suspicious that Death is creeping behind me with his fatal dart, am communing with God, my country and thee...

Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.

The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most grateful to God and to you that I have enjoyed them so long. And hard as it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when God willng, we might still have lived and loved together, and seen our sons grow up to honorable manhood around us. I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me...that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not, my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it will whisper your name...

But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth to flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the garish day and and in the darkest night --amidst your happiest scenes and gloomiest hours--always, always; and if there is a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath; or the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.

A week after writing this letter Sullivan Ballou was killed at the Battle of Bull Run. The recital on TV chased me off to my bedroom, where I wept buckets!

Anyway, I would like to pretend that this response is being sent by a certain L. Bloom, but I am in fact Clio the Muse 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that you need any permission for a "quote on the title page" of a "few lines," just because the source text is still protected by copyright. I don't think my opinion requires a very expansive view of fair use either (though certainly too expansive for the stingy preferences of many publishers!). Wareh 14:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Age of Consent on the internet

I have a question, Whats the Age of Consent on the internet (EG the Federal state statute, v. state statutes), if the AIM server is in the same state as the 2 parties ('minor', aged 16-17. and 'adult' 18-19)? Would the state law override the federal law?

--The preceding comment was added by 128.206.136.77 (bot didn’t catch this?)

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS

Sorry. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, big type! I didn’t know you could do that. . . but I’m a bit new here. S.dedalus 07:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely age of consent applies to sex, and without some amazing new technology you can't actually have sex over the internet. So it's a bit of a strange question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Teledildonics. --Carnildo 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to give a no legal advice message in such disproportionately large letters? We frequently tell new people here not to use caps. because it looks like shouting. This is not shouting; it's bawling. Clio the Muse 09:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it counts as statutory rape if the "minor" is only 2 years younger than the adult. --Candy-Panda 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The laws on this vary from state to state, and if the internet is involved, federal law might be invoked because of the potential for interstate relations. But only a lawyer would know for sure. Marco polo 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If a person violates the laws of a state, ask your legal advisor if that person subjects himself to the jurisdiction of that state. Then ask if that state may then choose to proceed against that person accordingly, even if he never set foot within its territorial boundaries. You may get answers that do not involve federal law at all. You may also find (Personal jurisdiction; United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996); cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 74 (1996) ) worth consulting. dr.ef.tymac 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A mere statement or reference to statutory law is in no way a "legal opinion". A "legal opinion" consists of a professional lawyer's "opinion" and assessment of a certain legal situation.

For example, I'm a non-practicing lawyer. I've earned both a an LLB (Common Law) and a BCL (Civil Law), yet never having applied for the bar in any jurisdiction I'm forbidden from giving "legal opinions" per se.

Nonetheless, if I were to state the fact that, for example, the age of consent (for sexual activities) in Canada is 14, or that the Income Tax Act of Canada says such and such or so and so, I'm in no way violating my restriction about giving "legal opinion". All I'm doing is stating facts. Similarly, if one were to ask if there exists some sort of "age of consent" for the internet, if I had a statute in front of me stating the answer (which I don't!) that too would in no way be an act of giving a "legal opinion". Rather, when the state of the law is raher murky as to its application to a specific, unique situation, and if I were to say "my legal opinion is that you're indeed not breaking the law in taking this or that action", now THAT is what would qualify as the giving of a "legal opinion", and so, not being a member of the bar, THAT'S the type of advice that I'd be forbidden from giving. Loomis 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I think the main issue is that Wikipedia does not give legal advice. It's not whether any particular user, such as you, might be in breach of something by providing what some third party authority considers to be legal advice. If Wikipedia's policy did not prevent it from giving legal advice, and you answered a question with a legal opinion, you might still end up in hot water with the Canadian bar (or whomever) due to your never having applied for the bar. JackofOz 02:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia's policy is "Do not request medical or legal advice". But there's a difference between the giving of legal advice and the stating of legal fact. The OP doesn't seem to be asking for any sort of legal advice at all. Rather, s/he's simply asking a question about the state of the law. Though I'm not qualified to answer this particular question as to the state of the law (not for fear of breaching the law in any way, but simply because I don't know the answer!), if I were to answer "according to the ABC act, the age of consent for usng the internet is X", that would in no sense be considered "giving legal advice".

If the asking for mere legal facts, such as is what the OP is doing, were indeed captured by the guideline: "Do not request medical or legal advice", then by implication, it would be against wiki policy to ask the question: "Is there a universal voting age in the US? If so what is it?" Further, it would be inappropriate for me to respond: "Indeed, the 26th Amendment guarantees the right to vote to all US citizens who are eighteen years of age or older". Yet these questions are asked routinely here on the RefDesk, and, at least in my opinion, cannot possibly be deemed "requests for legal advice". Loomis 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that the Wikipedia can institute and define whatever policies it chooses since it is paying the bill (albeit from user donations) of the web space but let me make this clear anyone can give any advice they want so long as they do not charge money for it. This is in fact where the old saw "Its worth exactly what you paid for it." This included advice with an attached disclaimer that the advice may be no good. So long as you don't charge you are free to say what you please in the United States of America at least if no where else. I told um dear. Now can I go back to sleep? 71.100.9.74 07:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you may have confused legal rights with the right of a community to determine acceptable behavior. The former is what allows you to give all the darn advice you wish; the latter is what allows Wikipedia to decide that a) we do not give or support the giving of advice of certain types, and b) egregious dismissal of our community parameters, or inappropriateness after being informed of those rights, will have consequences within that community, up to and including banning. In short: you have the right to advise in the culture at large, but we do not have to allow you to exercise that right here in this context; a given group or community has the right to say that, if you insist on doing so, you will no longer be welcome. Jfarber 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "right of the [Wikipedia] community." Instead there is the “left of the administrators.” which often do not include anyone's point of view other than their own much less the consensus of all users. Banning has merely had the effect of instilling this knowledge in the culture at large, which now believes the Wikipedia to be a one sided, self serving and opinionated IRC boys club that is pointless to edit. Many are dam tired of getting a hit on a Wikipedia article whenever they do a search and have blocked the Wikipedia no different than any other web site that sells porn. Banning for expressing opinions in Wikipedia discussion groups which disagree with administrator's own opinions is school boy stuff and is a practice frowned upon by the culture at large. The hidden common denominator of certain Wikipedia administrators has by such actions been slowly, but nevertheless, revealed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.4.188 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

All communities require administrators, even in real life. It is the job of those administrators to administer, manage, and evoke the will of the community. If we are to ensure that a community has standards at all -- indeed, if we are to make a community out of chaos -- flagrant disgregard of or denial of community policies (in this case, an erroneous belief that Wikipedia spaces which are not intended for discourse are discussion groups), and insistence that there is some sort of culture at large whose policies somehow protect you from behavior which is not acceptable within this or any voluntary community, will not, not and should not protect you from the consequences of flagrant anti-community behavior, and, further, does not somehow offer evidence that there is a cabal. Sorry to disappoint. Jfarber 13:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because a host holds an open house does not give him the right to rape and pillage his guests after they arrive, sell off any possessions they may leave behind or confiscate their brains before they come in. Replace the word "editor" with the word "administrator" in the text of there is a cabal and you may be getting closer to the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.4.188 (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Meaning of the word "Publius"

Noticed in many Roman names (especially someone of rank) (i.e. Scipio Africanus) that they use first the name "Publius" which I noticed sometimes when the Latin name is shown as just a "P." for the word "Publius" (like in Scipio's example). Is it a similar meaning as the English word "public". In the case of Scipio, it then becomes "P. Cornelius Scipio", where Cornelius (family name) is before the given name (Scipio). Can I get a better explanation on this, thanks.--Doug ^talk 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My latin dictionary says that it is just another first name (note that Romans used funny first names like "secunda"). It looks like publicus (public), but the two are not the same. C mon 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(written during edit conflict)"Publius" is actually Scipio's given, or personal, name. It was a common given name among Romans in the ruling class. Given names often do not really have a meaning, even if they once did. What, for example, would you say is the meaning of "John" or ";Fred"? Even if an etymological dictionary provides a meaning for these names, for most people they are just names. As for "Publius", it does seem to come from the same root as "public", though what this meant to Romans, if anything, I'm not sure. Perhaps it originally meant something like "of the people", "popular", or "destined for public life". "Scipio", by the way, is this person's cognomen. (See Roman naming conventions.) Marco polo 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And "Africanus" is his agnomen. This is why Julius isn't Julius Caesar's first name. (Had to get him in here somewhere, given the date). --Charlene 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Doug. Roman names came in three basic parts: the praenomen, or personal name; the nomen, or family name; and the cognomen, used to dfferentiate people within a particular family still further. The name Publius was one of a very limited number of praenomen, and would have been used only by the immediate family. It does indeed mean 'public' in Latin. The eldest son usually took his father's name. Praenomen were commonly abbreviated in inscriptions. Clio the Muse 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great answers, thanks! --Doug ^talk 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are the Junius and Julius nomens related, or are they just superficially similar? Corvus cornix 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They are only superficially similar, Corvus, belonging to quite different nomen. Clio the Muse 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio. Corvus cornix 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of Jerome to Eusebius

Jerome attacks Eusebius as "prince of Arians" in a letter to a friend. (Could I get a better explanation on this). In Jerome's De Viris Illustribus of Chapter 135 where Jerome gives a short autobiography, he says he is the son of Eusebius; however this article does not seem to represent this. Are we talking about two different "Eusebius" or is the meaning of the word "son" here something different (perhaps 'student' instead)? --Doug ^talk 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are referring specifically to Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian of the early Christian church, then, yes, in doctrinal terms he had been heavily influenced by Arius and Origen, stressing the subordination of the Son to the Father. Jerome is grossly overstressing his significance, though, because Eusebius made no original contribution to Arian theology. Although he was nearly excommunicated for heresy he finally submitted to the Nicene Creed after the Council of Nicaea. Clio the Muse 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these great answers. So then to just clarify to make sure I have it correct; Jerome was not physically a son (family decendent) of Eusebius being his physical father (blood relation). In the Jerome article it even says that Jerome was from Christian parents, not actually giving their names. His blood relation father then was not Eusebius then, but then more on the order of a "teacher". It looks like to me then that it is closer to a "teacher" to "student" relationship between Eusebius and Jerome then an actual physical blood relationship as in genealogy. --Doug ^talk 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerome was called Eusebius himself, and it is quite possible his father also had the name Eusebius. Both men were not Eusebius "Pamphili", the bishop of Cæsarea, who died a couple of years before Jerome was born.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, that clears it up. Thanks for this additional answer. That helped alot. --Doug ^talk 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Arabian Mythology

Hello. My name is Birgitte Thomsen. Im from Denmark and my email adress is <removed to protect poster from spambots> I have read in an artikle on the Internet, that the arabs used to worship the jinns, before they became muslims. Does anyone know, what kind of jinns, they worshipped, what their names where and how they worshipped them?

With regards Birgitte Thomsen

Denmark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.83.66.115 (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Before Islam, some Arabs were Christian or Jewish. Others worshipped more than one god, such as Hubal, or other gods listed in the article Arabian mythology. They also believed in genies, or jinn, although they did not generally worship them. Marco polo 15:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Arabic deities included Allat, a goddess. I know that's not the point of the question but I thought I'd add it here anyhow .82.32.238.139 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Brigitte, Jinns exist in both the Islamic and pre-Islamic Arab tradition, but it is not, I think, correct to suggest that they were ever worshipped as such in pagan times. Rather they were perceived more as spirits of vanished races, as spirits of negation and sometimes as outright demons. The page on Genie will give you some further information, but you should also read the wonderful Tales of the Arabian Nights. Pagan Arabs worshipped the astral dieties in the main, especially the sun god, the moon god and the god associated with the planet Venus. You will find some more information here [3]. Clio the Muse 15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This page [4] points out that pre-Islamic religion was a combination of Bedouin polytheism, Judaism, and Christianity. --Charlene 03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Patriot Act

How many terrorist acts have been prevented due to the Patriot Act?

Estimates would be speculative, and, more importantly, the relevant facts are mostly classified. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an utterly impossible question to answer. Perhaps a thousand, and perhaps none. It's like asking how many murders have been prevented due to any particular jurisdiction's prohibition of murder in it's Criminal Code. For example, if some individual was arrested and detained as per the Patriot Act and then cleared and released due to lack of any concrete evidence, who's to say that that individual was indeed innocent, or whether he was a part of some terrorist cell whose terrorist plot was forced to be scrubbed due to the fact that the arrest and detention of that individual ruined their plans? In short, no one will ever know.

What we do know, however, is that similar security measures defitely were key in stopping the shoe bomber Richard Reid, from blowing up the the plane he was on, or whatever terrorist mischief he had planned, as well as the fact that once again, similar security measures prevented that other foiled terrorist attack on that plane that I believe was headed from London to New York. Though as I said, there's no way to prove it one way or the other, these two foiled terrorist attacks would seem to indicate to me that at the very least, some terrorist attacks have been prevented by the Patriot Act. Loomis 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, nothing like the Patriot Act prevented Richard Reid. He was allowed to get on a plane and was thwarted because they happened to catch him trying to set his bomb off. I don't see anything like the "similar security measures" in the Wikipedia article on it — the "security measures" seem to have been a flight attendant who found him trying to light his shoe on fire and told him that it was illegal to smoke on the plane!! And the London arrests seem to have been a British deal — again nothing like the PATRIOT Act and all of its ridiculous provisions. --24.147.86.187 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst a poor measure you could compare terrorist attacks in the 4 years prior to the act and the years since. This is unfair as the act was a response to attacks (so the pre automatically has some prominent attacks), but at a high-level that is one of your best comparatives. As others have noted it is almost impossible to say with any degree of accuracy because there are 1000s of factors at play. This act is but 1 policy in the continued attempt to minimize terrorism. People are perhaps more vigilant, it is more high-profile than before, we have more stringent security (in many countries anyway), changes in culture for and against the country (which alter the chances of being attacked), technological advancements. Pretty much everything could be attributed to have any effect. Still there will be instances where they have reprimanded somebody using the act who could 'plausibly' have been 'expected' to have gone on to committ a terrorist attack, and thus they could be 'counted' as things saved by the act. ny156uk 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How were the measures used to stop the shoe bomber,Richard Reid, similar to the Patriot Act? 74.61.20.254 01:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Tamalegirl55

They weren't. Loomis is mistaken. --24.147.86.187 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the Reid incident. Apparently it was indeed mere luck that led to the foiling of his plot. However the foiling of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot was indeed attributed to enacted UK law very similar and apparently just as controversial as the Patriot Act. For example, according to the article, "Lieutenant-Colonel (ret.) Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer with decades of anti-terror and explosives experience...suggested that the plot was an invention of the UK security services in order to justify wide-ranging new security measures that threaten to permanently curtail civil liberties and to suspend sections of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act of 1998".

Sound familiar? In any case, if you have indeed read the text of the Patriot Act and aren't basing your judgment of it solely on rumour and left-wing hype, please tell me just which provisions of it you consider to be ridiculous. Keep in mind, though, that just as any other Act of Congress, the Patriot Act is subject to judicial review if and whenever it's deemed to violate constitutional rights. Apparently ss. 505 and 805 have been struck down by US courts as being unconstitutional. So you can't include those. Which remaining provisions do you consider ridiculous and/or a violation of Constitutional rights, provisions that the ACLU with their considerable legal resources haven't deemed to be unconstitutional enough to be successfully challenged in court? Loomis 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cases dealing with the constitutionality of the Patriot Act are still winding their way to the Supreme Court. I am a New Yorker, who lived, worked, dated and played one and one half blocks from the World Trade Center. Half of my neighborhood fire department members never returned. Until I die, nothing will surpass the horror of that day. When you live in NY, it is sometimes difficult to separate Hollywood-style hype from real life, real life happened. I am also a lawyer dedicated to retaining U.S. civil rights and civil liberties. If we give up one right in response to the terrorists, the terrorists win and we lose. I am proud to be a member of the ACLU. People active within the ACLU don't agree with all the ACLU does. I know, however, that a potent fearless force for civil rights and civil liberties is essential if we are to retain those rights. I don't see George Bush pondering the constitutionality of his acts. Perhaps it is the nature of the process and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers that the executive must be decisive and the judiciary reflective. I treasure my rights more than ever- now that I've flinched at every plane going over my head, managed major anxiety attacks in Crusader office buildings and other fun stuff. The balance between security and liberty must be maneuvered forever.

Very well said. I often find myself playing "devil's advocate" to what I consider to be those arrogants who feel so strongly about subjects they hardly understand. YOU obviously understand. YOU'VE been there. YOU know the tightrope your government is walking in on the one hand, trying to protect its citizens' civil rights, while on the other, trying to protect their lives. Certainly I'm uncomfortable with those "rights" being sacrificed for the safety of your people. I'm by no means "totally OK" with something like the Patriot Act, any more than I'd be "totally OK" with the forceful shipping of promising young men to Normandy only to shot down like fish in a barrel en masse by Nazi machine guns. Of course it's a really, really tough call, and I'm by no means "happy" about the Patriot Act. I actually think it's a very unfortunate measure to be forced to take. But to refer to it as "ridiculous" and "useless", the way I see it at least, is both ignorant and disrespectful to those who were lost that day. I remember 9/11 too. My brother is an American and lived in the East Village. I realize the East Village isn't quite as close to ground zero as where you were, nonetheless, when I simply heard that "the towers have collapsed"...hey, I'm no architect, I assumed they fell like dominoes. I truly wasn't sure if my brother was alive or dead. Luckily he was out of town that day, safe and sound. I really have no point to make here I guess, except that I'm rather irritated by those who don't realize that we're all walking a tightrope here, and who simply ridicule the Patriot Act as being "silly". It may be right, it may be wrong, it may be too much, it may be too little, but it certainly isn't one thing. It certainly isn't "silly". Loomis 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda in elections

Can anyone tell me about the propaganda used between the years of 1946-1952. I already am aware of the proganda used in the election of 1948, but I'm having difficulty finding other examples.

For which country/ies? USA? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

yes the united states

Do you mean propaganda in the literal sense (information meant to influence people) or the pejorative sense (information meant to mislead people)? How do you want to differentiate between the two? If you are not careful with your definition then every election campaign becomes an exercise in propaganda. --140.247.242.84 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

propaganda that was meant to mislead the people

Not necessarily used in an election campaign, but I'm sure some of this helped some politicians gain power:

• [5]
• [6]

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK but who decides whether it misleads and how? None of the Civil Defense posters are incorrect from any technical point of view (whether they "mislead" is a purely political argument), for example, and ditto with the anti-Communist literature. I'm not defending this stuff, I'm just point out that what is "propaganda" and what is just "getting the truth out" is often in the eye (and the political beliefs) of the beholder in many of these cases. It is pretty rare to have outright deception involved, though if I do say so the present administration appears to have done a bit of that (and been willing to do quite a bit more if necessary). --24.147.86.187 01:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are 10 TV ads from the 1952 presidential campaign: http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?nav_action=election&nav_subaction=overview&campaign_id=165. You can judge for yourself whether they are "propaganda." There's also Richard Nixon's infamous 1950 campaign for Congress against Helen Gahagan Douglas. -- Mwalcoff 03:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You might try the book The Making of the Cold War Enemy by Ron Robin. It's more about the propaganda designed by Americans for use in Korea, but it does touch on some things that might be relevant for you; it doesn't have what you want, its bibliography probably does.--ragesoss 03:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

What was the fashion in Sydney ,Australia in 1999? Also what would be a cd that came out in 1999 in Sydney, Australia?

Please hurry I need this by 5:30 at the latest.

From Haley

Perhaps, Category:1999 in Australia and Category:1999 albums would help you. It's 5:06 here though, so I don't know if you'll be able to find what you need in the next 24 minutes. You did assume that we're in the same time zone, you and everyone else, right? Dismas|^(talk) 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A record called 180 degrees LP (Patsy/Radio One, 1999) by the band Ninetynine probably was released in Sydney during the year 1999. I’ll keep looking for something on the fashion.S.dedalus 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you in Sydney?82.152.251.86 13:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

March 16

Modal logic

What quantifier applies to the subject of statments that are indeterminent at all possible worlds ? " Possible - possible " , or " necessarily - possible " ? Thank you. 206.74.74.42 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Willie

Ths question is better posed at the Mathematics reference desk. If you post it there, could you explain what you mean by "indeterminent"? In usual modal logic possibly possible = possible (⋄⋄p = ⋄p, using the duality between ⋄ and □ and axiom 4).  --Lambiam^Talk 09:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to FIND something IMPORTANT!

I need help on,how to go about getting a birth certificiate from Germany!My boyfrind/finacee' is trying to get his birth certificiate,now residing in Nw Orleans,LA.He lost it-do to Katrina!If any-1 can help me,PLEASE DO!I have all his information,just like he has allmy information!I am the only one here for him!

                                  Thank's,
         
                                    Lexie

You might try the German honorary consul in New Orleans; you can find contact information here. However, you may get a better result by contacting the consulate general in Houston. That contact information is available on the same website. The consulate should be able to provide you with the information you need. Carom 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For a minute I thought she was looking for her boyfriend's fiancée's birth certificate. The Jade Knight 10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If your boyfriend's parents were in the military then the US Department of Defense will have a birth certificate for him. Getting it can be quite a trial though. 161.222.160.8 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Predicting the future

Suppose on March 11 2008 I´m walking down the street and a car hits me. I pass out. I get brain damage and amnesia: due to the accident, I lose all my memories from the last year and there is no way I can get them back. When I wake up in the hospital I see a doctor and he asks me "what day is today?". I say "March 11 2007".

Everybody knows that a whole year has passed, but what it looks like to me is that I was calmly doing whatever it was that I was doing on March 11 2007 and suddenly I´m a hospital and this doctor tells me I jumped a whole year, just like that.

Since March 11 2007 has passed and none of this happened to me, no doctor appeared out of nowhere and I didn´t wake up in a hospital, can I then be sure I will not get involved in such a car accident on March 11 2008? A.Z. 06:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No more daytime tv for you, for a start... --Wetman 06:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I need you to repay the $67,000 I lent you in 2000, with interest. 71.100.9.74 07:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is stay inside that day. Clarityfiend 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't be sure. Of course you didn´t wake up in a hospital, but that is not because the accident will not happen, but because it did not happen yet. Nothing in your experience contradicts the hypothetical scenario. The memory loss you will suffer is of memories you actually built up during the year, including your memory of posting this question on a Wikipedia reference desk.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lambiam, thanks for the answer. But it still looks to me like my experience contradicts the hypothetical scenario, even though (I know) my future memories are "built up during the year". Using your own words, the fact that my future memories are actually built during the year does not appear to contradict the fact that I already know I will not lose my current memories in the future. A.Z. 04:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that you're currently unconscious or dead and that reading this page is your afterlife, or just part of the wondrous imaginative powers of the brain or some devious machine. Watch Vanilla Sky or The Matrix if you want to waste some imaginary time in an agreeable manner. --Dweller 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the answer, Dweller! I watched The Matrix already and I really liked it. A.Z. 04:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No you a no more wise now whether or not you will have an accident on 11th March 2008, short answer. I cannot even see any logical reason that would suggest that somehow something that may happen one year later would have an affect that day. If you have an accident on 11 Mar 2008 it will still be 11 Mar 2008, irregardless of whether or not you remember what happened for a determined time before the accident. ny156uk 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing you've protected against is that you won't have an accident that is exactly a year long amnesia. You could very well have a accident tomorrow with shorter period of amnesia. -Wooty Woot? contribs 18:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. I am actually protected against many kinds of amnesia, for instance a two year long amnesia from an accident less than two years from now. But, yes, I can get other kinds of amnesia like a twelve hour amnesia starting 24 hours from now. A.Z. 05:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

how are they protected against 'exactly a year long amnesia'? Apart from the likelihood that amnesia isn't going to be so kind as to be exactly a year. Sorry don't mean to be rude, just i feel like i've missed something in the original question, as from what i've seen it seems a really strange question. ny156uk 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The question simply assumes that if remember something now, you are guaranteed against forgetting it in the future. Therefore, if you remember walking around right now, you are guaranteed against some event in the future causing you to forget today. Because the assumption is wrong, any attempt to answer the question is futile. The assumption should be addressed first. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the car accident is going to happen and I am going to lose my memory and forget this very moment right now. Then, you would be able to say next year: "Look, I was right! You said on March 16 that you could not forget that moment, yet you did forget it, you forgot all that Reference Desk stuff you wrote!" However, this is only what it would look like to you. To me, it would look like I was on March 11 2007 and suddenly out of nothing the next thing I would see would be on March 2008 and there would be a guy telling me it was 2008 and I had done some stuff back on 2007. I would only be aware of what I did on March 16 2007 because you told me. But I am sure now that this did not happen. I am sure the March 11 passed and the next day was a normal March 12, with no time lapse other than the normally expected. If I were to be in a car accident one year from then which would cause the described damages to my brain, it would seem to me that I jumped one year. It does not seem that way to me, so I did not get involved in the car accident. Now, I perfectly understand there is something in my argument which I don´t understand yet. Maybe the answer is in the commentary above, but it has not solved the problem to me. A.Z. 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this question already asked about a year ago? ---Sluzzelin talk 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

lol... you're so mean =P --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to feel that your question is a paradox. It is merely a false assumption. No matter how much you believe March 16, 2007 did not happen, it doesn't change history. You don't have to believe that history took place for it to have taken place. You don't have to remember something for it to have happened. If fact, most things the Universe happen without your knowledge or memory or, if you are one of those "science is evil" people, without your belief. So, I hope you can see that the false assumption is creating what you feel is a paradox. Perhaps it is easier to see with a silly assumption. How do hedgehogs keep from popping all the balloons at their birthday parties? The answer is that I made two false assumptions. First, hedgehogs don't celebrate their birthdays (every day is eat-poop-sleep day). Second, hedgehogs will pop balloons regardless of what day it is. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I really want to understand what you´re saying. Unfortunately, I did not learn anything from your answer yet. I want either to agree with you that I made some false assumption or disagree with you and be able to show the arguments that support my disagreement. But I don´t get what you´re saying. You said before that "the question simply assumes that if you remember something now, you are guaranteed against forgetting it in the future." But I don´t see how the question assumes anything like that. It actually seems to come to that conclusion based on the fact that people who have amnesia will experience something like what I described, i.e., a "jump in time". That conclusion ("if you remember something now, you are guaranteed against forgetting it in the future") does not apply to other people. I can´t be sure that you are not going to lose your memory just because you appear to have your memory now. But I can be sure I wont lose my memory because I know I did not experience something like a jump in time so far and that´s what my life would look like if I had lost my memory the way I described: I would have gone directly twelve months into the future. That would be my experience. Now I´m just repeating myself. You said "No matter how much you believe March 16, 2007 did not happen, it doesn't change history. You don't have to believe that history took place for it to have taken place. You don't have to remember something for it to have happened." How does it apply to my question? When did I ever say the contrary? What is the thing which I don´t remember and because of that I think that did not happen? Even if I had lost my memory of March 16, I would still believe March 16 happened, even if I didn´t remember it. Please, help me here. Just explain your argument better and apply your conclusions to the scenario I created. If you can, of course... A.Z. 04:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question comes close to the Grandfather paradox. Our article describes the paradox: “Suppose someone traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveller's grandmother. As a result, one of the traveller's parents (and by extension, the traveller himself) would never have been conceived. But this would imply that he could not have travelled back in time after all, which in turn implies the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveller would have been conceived, allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather.” Although as Kainaw points out your question is not a true paradox, you may perhaps find this real paradox informative and intresting. S.dedalus 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that paradox already. It´s very paradoxical. I don´t really know whether my question is a paradox or not, neither do I know if I care. I just would like people to answer it or acknowledge the fact that they can´t. By the way, I really like your favorite quotes on your user page.A.Z. 05:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2007 and 2008 are two different years no matter if you are conscious or not. The events will not repeat themselves in any way.Also you are in hospital AFTER the car accident and thus would miss the time frame anyway.hotclaws**== 06:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

China autonomy/democracy question

Generally speaking, people fighting for Tibet are generally foreigners, but people fighting for Taiwan are mainly Taiwanese and people fighting for democracy in Hong Kong are almost always Hong Kongers. Why? 203.109.167.159 09:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that part of the reason is that the Chinese 'occupation' of Tibet has often been brutal, particularly during the Cultural Revolution, whilst the same cannot be said about Hong Kong and Taiwan. In addition, prominent figures such as the Dalai Lama have provided a lot of publicity about the issue. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand the terms of your question. In the first two examples you give what exactly do you men by 'fighting', and who are the 'foreigners' fighting for Tibet? What exactly is it, moreover, that the Taiwanese are fighting? Officially Taiwan is part of China under the One-China policy, and indeed continues to refer to itself as the Republic of China. There are certainly moves towards full political independence, though the government in Beijing has indicated that it will take a very serious view of any move in this direction. I have never heard of 'Hong Kongers', other in relation to an organisation called the Hong Konger Front. The people of Hong Kong are, in the main, ethnic Chinese, and the whole territory is now under the overall authority of the People's Republic of China, though it continues to enjoy a high degree of autonomy under the One country, two systems policy, introduced by Deng Xiaoping. There is an active pro-democracy movement, made up, well, to use your neologism, of 'Hong Kongers', which is really no great surprise. It might help me give a more detailed and precise answer if you could make your question a little more specific. Clio the Muse 10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Papal Infallibility

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Pope is infallible on matters of religion and morality. I don't understand. As a Christian, I've already known that it is the Bible that is infallible. So I have three questions:

1. The reason that Christians claim that the Bible is infallible is because it comes from God and Jesus Christ. So by saying that the Pope is infallible, are Catholics saying that the Pope and the Catholic Chucrh itself is as much of a source of divine revelation, inspiration, and communication as the Bible?

2. If that is so, then do they have any evidence to prove it?

3. If the Pope is infallible, then the claims and teachings of the Pope should not, or perhaps never, contradict that of the Bible. But are there any teachings of the Pope which are discovered to contradict that of the Bible? If so then what are they?

4. Are there any statements and passages in the Bible saying that the Bible itself is the only and only necessary source of divine revelation and inspiration, and that we don't also need somebody or something else like the Pope to tell us from God what we need to know about Christianity and Christian ethics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.166.182 (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Have you looked at Papal infallibility? I'm not intimately familiar with the dogma of the Catholic Church, however, I can give some quick answers.

1. Yes, Catholics generally see the Church as equal to the Bible.
2. Catholics view the Church as directly and linearly descended from Jesus' Apostles, particularly St. Peter, who they view as the first Pope.
3. I'm sure pretty much anything a Pope has said could be interpreted as contradicting the Bible - you aren't going to have much luck getting an objective answer on that.
4. No there isn't anything in the Bible that says that - the Bible doesn't reference itself, since it took hundreds of years for the Biblical canon to be firmly established. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The concept of Papal Infallibility is one that non-Catholics, and those actively hostile to Catholicism, almost invariably-and wilfully-misunderstand. It might be best if I quoted what the Second Vatican Council had to say on the subject:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogitive of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on the matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith.

Infallibility (NOT impeccability) belongs to the Pope as head of the bishops, and is based ultimately on Christ's mandate. The doctrine promises that the Church as a whole will never fall from Christ's teachings, even if individual Catholics do. The Pope, as such, has no special grace, and the truth is not whatever he cares to preach. Infallibility, in other words, is not a substitute for theological and biblical study. It might help you to understand the doctrine as a whole if you read all of the information given here [7]. Clio the Muse 11:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The pope is only supposed to be infallible when he presents argument a certain way. I understand the expression is 'speaking ex cathedra' In times gone by, the pope would transmit messages to clergy by way of the papal bull. The word bulletin is derived from this.

It is not correct to say the Christian Bible is infallible, according to mainstream theology. The bible is cannon to Christian belief, but that does not mean the text is a road map. Indeed, it is limiting the value of the bible, and the sincerity of the faith of the individual worshipper, to ascribe meaning beyond those claims ascribed to god. Infallible is a concept irrelivant to faith. DDB 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogitive of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. I don't understand this bit at all. How can mere humans proclaim that Christ doctrine is infallible. That's pure arrogance!

That's like saying "although ten year old kids do not enjoy mathematical competency , they can nevertheless proclaim their Math Teachers mathematical teaching to be infallible. How would the ten year old kids know this? Let me guess, because all the adults told them so! Therefore the Math Teacher must be mathematically infallible. That's just pure blind trust without evidence. See Lie to children . 220.239.107.13 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You misread the statement. The word "infallibly" is an adverb, modifying the verb "proclaim", not an adjective applied predicatively to "Christ's doctrine". In other words, if the Holy Church proclaims in a certain matter that it is Christ's doctrine that such and such (for example that people of the same sex can or cannot be joined in holy matrimony), then this proclamation cannot fail to correspond to the true intent of Christ's teaching. The Bible itself can be and is interpreted in multiple ways, allowing some doubt about what it is that is supposedly infallibly true, and according to Christian doctrine the old covenant no longer applies ("invalidating" large parts of the Old Testament), so an infallible authority has some utility to an organized religion. Also, people have different opinions regarding which books are canonical, and presumably you don't believe that non-canonical books are infallible.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

hallucinogens and truth

what does a person on hallucinogens feel 'philosophically' usually?... that truth is absolute or do they feel the 'relativity of trut' ? I on't have any experience w/hallucinogens that's y I'd apreciate answers from ppl that do have it. thanx in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.142.36.108 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

The few times that I have been on hallucinogens, I was not generally thinking in philosophical terms. That said, I remember thinking to myself, while on acid at Burning Man and seeing some unbelievable sights, that I could not trust my perceptions, since I was on acid. So, I guess that would be the "relativity of truth". Marco polo 21:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, wonderful, Marco, it's time for personal confessions! My experience, if I have to think of it in philosophical terms, was of the dissolution of a world of solid certainties and rational constructs to something fluid and sub-rational, exhilarating and frightening at one and the same time. I threw me afterwards into a brief flirtation with existentialism, especially as it is mediated through the novel Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre: The essential thing is contingency. I mean that one cannot define existence as a necessity. To exist is simply to be there; those who exist let themselves be encountered, but you can never deduce anything from them. I believe there are people who have understood this. Only they have tried to overcome this contingency by necessary, casual being. But no necessary being can explain existence: contingency is not a delusion, a probability, which can be dissipated; it is the absolute, consequently, the perfect free gift. All is free, this park, this city and myself.

There is also a rather vivid image in the book of walking through a strange kind of forest, but I'm not sure I really want to go into the specific details! Now, please do not let mummy know about any of this! Clio the Muse 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been told that an effect of heroin is similar to that first time one feels love for another, in puberty. I'm also told that the effect becomes less over time. Desirable, but never to be recaptured. DDB 22:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodwill Ambassador

Hi all... I was today curious about how Goodwill Ambassadors get appointed, anyone know? Goodwill Ambassador does not have any info. And neither do any of the articles linked in. Thanks. --Spundun 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

March 17

Did Alexander really weep?

Is it really true that Alexander the Great wept when he had no more worlds to conquer, or is this just another urban myth? His article dosen't really mention this, and I can't find much online other than a site which references the "Alexander wept" quote to some of John Milton's writings...can anyone help? Icanhearthegrassgrow 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This alleged quotation is, I think, a distortion of a passage from Plutarch- Do you not think it a matter worthy of lamentation that when there is such a vast multitude of worlds, we have not yet conquered one? Clio the Muse 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The literal truth of the tale is less important than its nature as a literary trope. Alexander cultivated a following of court "biographers". His personal charisma was left unblemished by his dying young, at the height of his powers; his legend expanded in the Hellenistic age that followed, when "events" like the episode of the Gordian knot first surfaced. Read Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great, where a fine historian tells a great story. --Wetman 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wetman, it is indeed a fine piece of work. But I would also recommend Alexander the Great of Macedon by Peter Green. And if I were not Clio, I would be Diogenes! (On reflection, I think I am far closer in temperament to Messalina!) Clio the Muse 01:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your intriguing answers... its funny how the truth can be so distorted by time. I will definetely be seeking out those sources you recommended! Icanhearthegrassgrow 12:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why people like violence?

Is there an explanation as to why people enjoy seeing violence? Think of horror movies, bad news. I'd like some biological or psychological answers as to why. (Also, I'm not implying everyone likes to view violence) PitchBlack 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the copy of an answer I gave earlier this month on this very subject. Clio the Muse 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a paper by Victor Neil in the August 2006 journal Behavioural and Brain Sciences which may be pertinent to your inquiry. The full title is Cruelty's Rewards: The gratification of Perpetrators and Spectators. In essence it is an overview of cultural practices from the earliest times, focusing on the vicarious enjoyment of cruelty and pain. The capacity for cruelty, and the enjoyment of the suffering of others, is a constant if latent feature of the human psyche. Think of the spectators at the Roman arena; think of the pleasure derived from cinematic violence. It is possible to extend this analysis to look at the problem of evil and sadism in more general terms. The monstrous, in other words, is not abstract or 'other', but an immediate, internalised danger. Humanity's baser impulses have been superficially channelled and controlled by personal socialisation and the super-arching structures of morality and law. These can, however, disintegrate, both at an individual and collective level. We know all to well from both contemporary politics, and from modern history, that cruelty and indifference, once released, can have devastating consequences. Clio the Muse 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a neuron (Premovement neuronal activity) that specifically fires when a person sees another doing something. If we see someone smile, these reflective neurons encourage us to smile. If someone sneezes, we too, sneeze. Violence is conflict. In a gladatorial fight, the viewer can be victor and vanquished, which is a huge rush. There is the relief that one isn't as hurt as the loser. There is the release from the cultural penalties attached with committing such an act. I'm not into such things as boxing, but the incidental things that make up a school teacher's life leads me to this view DDB 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From an evolutionary viewpoint (speaking strictly as a layman), an organism that didn't take an interest in violence, especially intraspecies, would be less likely to survive. It's a short step from 'interest' to 'like'. Clarityfiend 05:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see what individual or group might have the inverse reaction to watching violence and have a total aversion to it. My hand is up but I think it is mainly from overdosing from it. Keria 13:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-religious marriage

In what ways can you have a non-religious marriage? No churches or priests. PitchBlack 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Most marriages in Australia seem to be like that. Although many get married in churches, and often take vows, many laugh at both activities. I've known couples to marry, using a civil celebrant, on a boat or in a park. Once, in a back yard. The legal status is important, all suffer when they divorce, such is the price of legal protection :D DDB 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The type of civil wedding available varies from country to country; in some places, the mayor or a civil authority performs all civil ceremonies at City Hall, and in others marriage commissioners may perform the ceremony in any location the couple desires. In some countries (France and Monaco, notably) all couples must have a civil wedding. They may have a religious wedding as well, but without the civil wedding they are not legally married. So it depends on what country you're in and who you're asking to perform the ceremony. --Charlene 06:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of atheist and humanist groups offer wedding ceremonies that don't go into all the religious blah. I guess they would emphasize more the social and human aspect. I can't provide any link though but have a look a your local level. Keria 13:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're saying, Charlene. I would imagine that just like here in Canada, in pretty much every country, even those having a religious wedding must somehow have it registered by the secular authorities in order for it to be recognized by the state as a "marriage". I'm curious, how is it different in France? Loomis 13:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Prose work shorter than 1000 words

Our article on short stories says they are, "in contemporary usage, ... no shorter than 1,000 [words]", which seems a little dubious to me. What term would describe a unit of prose fiction shorter than that? Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A short short story. --Wetman 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hip Band

i bought a new pyjama (hosiery material) whose hipband is very tight. i just want to loosen it by 2 inches. do suggest me the various ways by which the elastic can be loosened. Thank you. bye - shivaram —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.30.111 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC).