Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

October 6

Attributive Monism & Pantheism

Is there a relation between the two ? And to what extent is attributive monism actual --Hhnnrr 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) ?

Something is either actual or it isn't. I can't see how it could be a matter of degree. JackofOz 01:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but if you asked me "to what extent is the danger of drowning in a bath actual" and I replied 100% you might get the wrong impression even though it is literally true. BTW the Monism#Monism, Pantheism, and Panentheismdescribes the relationship between Monism and Pantheism. -- Chris Q 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume either there is such a thing as "attributive monism", or there is no such thing. If it exists, it's 100% actual, but if it doesn't, it's 0% actual. JackofOz 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help about the UN!

With 191 member states and a bureaucracy built over 60 years, but with waning support, is the United Nations still a viable organization? --Longhornsg 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it ever was. Look at its track record for starters. Most of their missions are too late or don't accomplish anything, as in Sudan, Rwanda, and North Korea. The fact that each nation in theory has the same voting power (excluding the veto powers) means that Luxembourg (population of 465,000) has the same votes (one) as India (1,103,371,000 people). Does that make sense? I don't think so.

Most of the time the UN just debats things but doesn't come to a resolution as in the case of the Israel - Hezbollah war this past summer. In fact, I remember reading that the US of A doesn't even pay their membership dues anymore. Most countries just use the UN as a political forum to attack each other. --The Dark Side 02:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Support is only waning from those who disagree with whatever decision the organization has just made. One year the U.S. can call it a hopeless bureacracy while Venezuela issues statements of praise, and the next year the opposite can happen. Over the whole history of the UN, I believe Indonesia is the only country that has ever voluntarily withdrawn (and they were back a year later.) If it was really faltering, we'd already have a rival organization in Caracas or Khartoum. As for the missions it undertakes, they are generally successful, in my opinion. The failures (eg, Srebrenica) get all the news, while the thousands (if not millions) of lives and several nations saved aren't boisterously trumpeted as successes. Although many Americans hate it, I, at least, actually see it as reasonably successful and still viable (and much better at resolving conflict, than, say the Arab League or the Non-Aligned Movement.) After all, Seoul, Monrovia, and so on might not exist without it, and maybe neither would the U.S. and (former) U.S.S.R. Picaroon9288 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The UN is a damn site better than the League of Nations and kicked ass in the Korean War. The veto power given to the World War II victors is getting kind of stale, like if the 13 original US states of 220 years ago could veto any legislation at the federal level or any Supreme Court rulings. The US has right wingers who have wanted us out of the UN for 50 years. They fear One World government, where Cuba or Somalia has the same vote as the U.S. and a majority of itty bitty dictatorships or puppet states could vote to take away our wealth and give it to third world countries. The world economic system is currently accomplishing that, as witness how much of the U.S debt is held by China, and how many jobs in the U.S are held by Mexicans or Indians (via telecommuting). The U.N is still presently the best alternative to naked aggression and might makes right, via collective security. Edison 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys seem to think the UN is only about military intervention. That would be the US, not the UN. :) The UN is about loads of things, mostly creating international cooperation with (among other things) the goal of preventing armed conflicts from starting in the first place.

About all members having the same voting right, that indeed makes no sense for an actual government (such as in the UK with its counties and the US with its states), but this is not (yet!) a government. It's a cooperation between indxependent nations. If the US want more voting right they should split up into separate countries (a move I would truly applaud for its improved democracy among other things). DirkvdM 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that it was only about military intervention; UNICEF (apparently) works pretty well also. Then again, how many UNICEF missions would you estimate have gone to their warzones/faminezones without weapons? Zero, methinks! (Oh, and I second that thing about breaking my country up. I'd applaud it too.) Picaroon9288 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As the greatest empire, regarding international impact, ever known to mankind, history teaches us that the country quite possibly will break up by itself sooner or later... All great empires before it has collapsed... 惑乱 分からん 00:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The worst part about the UN is how it refuses to act until it's too late, as in the Rwanda genocide. In the case of the Iraq Oil for Food program, the UN seemed mainly interested in enriching it's officials (like Kofi Annan's son) by violating the agreement. StuRat 01:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Rwanda is probably UN's biggest failure in modern time. The appearance of the Bosnian camps also was a failure... 惑乱 分からん 10:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling Rwanda a UN "failure" is one hell of an understatement, considering its magnitude (800,000 dead) and relative preventability of it, in comparison to certain other far less bloody, far more complex and far less clear-cut instances of the failure of a third-party to prevent a tragedy from occuring, where some of the figures involved were indeed charged by some to be war criminals. Some would go so far as to charge Kofi Anan as a war criminal for his deliberate inaction, if only the political sensibilities of the powers-that-be were any different. Loomis 12:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I once heard someone call the Israeli-Palestinian issue the "UN's baby". It's one of the first things they were involved in, and they have passed many resolutions on it. Rwanda, Congo, Darfur are more neglected children.

I think (but who am I :)) the main problem is that the UN not only needs to decide on doing something, it needs people to execute an order, and therefore a country sending troops. I think many politicians see a UN mission in a dangerous region like a game you can only lose. Ask a random Belgian about the Rwanda genocide. The first thing he might say is "10 Belgians soldiers got killed there?", ask him how many Rwandans died and he probably won't know. So (but again that's what I think) that that is why many nations either send no troops, or troops with a pretty worthless mandate. Evilbu 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, they would have had to take offensive action, and perhaps kill a few thousand people to save the lives of hundreds of thousands. This is not something the UN seems ever willing to do. StuRat 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is changing in the Congo, though, where the guy in charge of the UN forces (a Dutchman - forgot his name) has decided to not wait for orders and go head to head with any destructive forces, at the same time giving them an option of amnesty (a stick without a carrot, but not too spiky a stick either). The UN aren't too happy about it, but they're not stopping him either. Probably to see if his approach will be more successfull. Like I said so many times before, the UN is a worldwide social experiment. How can you expect it to work instantly? And in historical terms a century is pretty instant for such a major change to take place. Those who think peace through worldwide cooperation could work (maybe even in our lifetimes!?) might be dreamers, but those who are not willing to try it are cowards who don't care about their offspring. DirkvdM 06:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So just how many centuries (and Rwandas and Darfurs) should we give the UN before we give up on them and put our trust in something like NATO, which has actually shown the ability to act, as in the former Yugoslavia ? StuRat 00:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shhhh, Stu! NATO's operation in the former Yugoslavia was against international law! It was WRONG! And Slobidan should still be in power, albeit under the most strenuous of UN sanctions. What better way to let a dictator stall for eternity while his people suffer?

Ok, here's a compromise: How about we let the UN last until WWIII, the same way we let the League of Nations last until WWII. Seems fair. No? Loomis 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of the UN is that it is neutral. Several languages. They've got their own stamp. Their (I can't believe I just wrote that:( )headquarters is technically not in the USA.... NATO was established to counter the USSR. It doesn't even try to appear neutral. And are you all that happy about NATO bombing Serbia? Milosevic was a dictator and he was ousted after the war. If you are saying NATO helped doing that, then that can only be interpreted as saying their "collective punishment" was a good strategy. Leskovac might prove that.Evilbu 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Being neutral on genocide is not a good thing. Since the UN is unable and unwilling to do anything to prevent genocide (except pass resolutions and weak sanctions), an organization that will do what it takes is needed. And yes, war can be called "collective punishment". When the citizens of a country decide that conquering their neighbors and engaging in genocide is a good plan, then nothing short of the collective punishment of war will likely convince them otherwise. If you think UN sanctions would have stopped Serbia, or the Rwandan genocide, or the Cambodian genocide of Pol Pot, you are utterly wrong. StuRat 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NATO is the old way. That has been tried for centuries (milennia, millions of years?). It obviously doesn't work to stop wars, because they are still being waged. If we have any desire to stop wars, then complete international cooperation has to be the only way (a world dictatorship would not last long enough). And the UN is the only working example of that at the moment. Given the milennia (or whatever) that the old way has had its chance, half a century is a bit short to call this off, isn't it? And the Congo example shows the UN is flexible enough to learn from its mistakes. DirkvdM 06:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"[NATO] obviously doesn't work to stop wars, because they are still being waged". You're forgetting that NATO is only a regional alliance. NATO is great example of effective international cooperation, for, unlike the UN, to my knowledge there has never been any war between NATO members. A conflict in say, Darfur or Rwanda is way outside of NATO's self-proclaimed mandate, but well within the UN's. Loomis 09:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, because NATO is smaller and more regional, as you say, they are more efficient, but less "fair" and therefore less accepted as a neutral power that can intervene. By the way, while NATO members don't go to war with each other... Imia/Kirdak was pretty close.Evilbu 11:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's that ? StuRat 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

name of a music

what is the name of a music that in the music video of this music, there is bow wow, and another boy and that call lingerie womans to dance, and they see they dancing.

I will certainly watch for it.Edison 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the rapper "Bow Wow"? 惑乱 分からん 07:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, they are going to school and after they leave the car of their mom, they go to many places of the city (but not to school) to have fun, so when they see lingerie store, they think about writing on papers, to lingirie girls to come to a studio to see they see the girls dancing in lingerie. I think that the music is remix of another music.

Actually, I prefer Bow Wow Wow... ;) 惑乱 分からん 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ido know which you mean but I don't think it was Bow Wow but a remake of an old song. the song+artists are:

Max Graham Vs. Yes - Owner of a lonely heart. Graendal 17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (PS: you are right that didnt is bow wow??? I have to see this music movie again again.) yes its bow wow, i saw the video again.

Musical Coincidence?

Is it just me or does the song When A Man Loves A Woman by Percy Sledge have a uncanny similarity with A Whiter Shade of Pale by Procol Harum? The bass in When... kind of matches up with the piano in Whiter... RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck

It's not just you. Both songs are in D major and are played at the same tempo, so they sound similar. Your sig is waaaay too long, btw - try to keep it to one line. See WP:SIG. Natgoo 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The similarity in chord progression is noted here. Unless you wrote that line, there's someone else out there who too noticed this.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Knife Law in California

Hello,

I am 17 years old and I live in Sunnyvale, California. My friend (18) gave me a CRKT folding knife with a 3.5" blade. It is not a switchblade - I'm pretty sure those are illegal anywhere in CA.

The knife has a belt clip. My friend told me that the knife is not considered a concealed weapon as long as the clip is hanging out of my pocket (i.e. looking at my pocket, you can only see the belt clip of the knife — the knife itself is concealed).

As much as I'd like to carry the blade for self-defense, I would like to know: a) is it really considered unconcealed if the belt clip is showing? b) is it legal for me to carry the knife as a minor?

I would appreciate any responses. Thanks, K. --24.6.242.154 05:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal advice. That said, you could contact the local police and ask them - what weapons are legally carryable, and by whom, are a topic of considerable interest to them and it's consequently an area of law on which they're likely to be expert.

Beyond that, might I gently suggest to you that whatever the legality of carrying your knife, it's a very bad idea. Even ignoring my personal belief that the general carriage of weapons makes a community more prone to violence, knives are not particularly useful self-defence weapons. From what I've read, pepper spray is a much more effective self-defence weapon. It may not be quite as manly as carrying around that big knife, but if your purpose is really self-defence rather than intimidation or impressing your buddies, I'd go with the spray, not least for the reason that because it's not likely to kill or maim your attacker you're not likely to hesitate when using it. --Robert Merkel 07:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see karate.--Shantavira 08:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In California, there are a wide range of places where it is illegal to carry a blade longer than 2.5". All schools at every level, for example. Government buildings of various sorts. Don't bother with a knife for self defense unless you've been trained at using it. There's the no rules in a knife fight scenario, too (see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for a practical demonstration.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Using a knife as selfdefense can make the situation unnecessarily escalete. If you are worried about your security try avoiding dangerous places or other forms of preventive measures. In many states, if you kill someone despise of having the chance to run, you can end up some years in prison.

And if a person gets killed or seriously wounded in the process, and you get caught (because of witnesses, surveillance, DNA or whatever) I think you'd have to prove that the measures were necessary for your own safety. (I.e. you were at risk to be murdered, raped or something to that extent.) I think that would be hard to prove in court, generally. 惑乱 分からん 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: is Sunnyvale so a dangerous place? Have you ever thought of other selfdefense methods? (spray, special shoes, carry-on alarm)

If it's a typo for Sunnydale, California, you'd better carry a stake. ;) 惑乱 分からん 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As a professional chef and an escrima student, I'll tell you right now that the idea of self-defense with a knife, in untrained hands, is moot from the get go. Ask any chef apprentice or house wife how many times they have cut themselves in the kitchen before 'knife awareness' starts to develop. It took me about 3 months of cutting 10 litre buckets of chicken stock veg, and 25 pounds of frozen squid tubes, 6 days a week, before the various scars on my hand healed up fully. Relating this to my escrima training, I can't count the many times I have fell on, or struck myself, my own rattan stick, which is representation for an actual machete or knife. Under the best of circumstances and controlled environment, such as a kitchen, you're going to cut yourself. Placed in a chaotic situation such as a knife fight on the street, and you're as likely to have your own knife stick into your gut. Take Robert Merkel advice and either use pepper spray, or don't place yourself into those situations in the first place.--Ctdahl 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of all the above, be sure and show your knife to your friends, and let them handle it. Having an extra set of fingerprints or two on it will be useful.

Just make sure you don't hand it to them sharp-end first.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the Aleutians Islands

Is there a conflict concering fishing rights in the Bering Straits by indigenous (Inuit?) people who do not recogonize this international border that is causing friction throught a U.S. and Republic of Russia treaty?

I'm not sure about friction or a treaty, but the indigenous people of the Aleutian Islands are the Aleuts. Marco polo 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest city in the Aleutian Islands is Unalaska, so that article might mention fishing rights. StuRat 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

actually the indigenous people there indeed do not recognise the borders but they are according to the common international fishing treaty's (almost exactly like the EU's one) they have their own fishing right to completely self-supply and have some surplus for trading. the area inbetween the two countries after their Economic Exclusive Zone and Territorial Waters are free to be used by any country.

Beastie Boy's music

The beastie boys are my favorite group ever but, alas, they have a finite amount of songs. If I like the Beastie boys, what other groups do you think i should try out?

Which of their songs are your favorites? 惑乱 分からん 09:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

well, I can suggest trying www.pandora.com for some intel about their exact style and some similar groups and the songs. its a pretty useful thingy and best of all its free.Graendal 09:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Another useful site is this one. Type "beastie boys" into the box and you get a bunch of similar artists. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Wakuran's question above, depending on which songs you like, i might recommend anything from Galliano over Red Snapper (band) to Motörhead. You might like to check out early Red Hot Chilli Peppers (and maybe also early Faith No More) stuff, they sometimes come pretty close to the Beastie Boy's blend of Rap, funk sounds and heavy guitars. Oh, and for a quick laugh, have a look at Lords of the Rhymes - they do a pretty good job of sounding like the Beastie Boys, and their lyrics are hilarious -- Ferkelparade π 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly recommend Rip Slyme. I'm a huge BBoys fan too, and although I'll be the first to admit that in general Japanese music is lacking a lot (mainly originality), Rip Slyme is great. They're a little bit too much like the BBoys at times, but they're fun, the music is really well written, and they actually write themselves, something that is way too rare over here. Their best of album Good Job! (グッジョブ！, gudjobu) is a good place to start.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is it about the Beastie Boys that you enjoy? If you can explain what sort of style it is that you enjoy then more bands/artists may be applicable.--droptone 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Live plasma. Much more cooler site than the one given above. CG 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that it puts Neil Young as the closest match for the Beastie Boys makes it a lot less cooler than the ones given above. They're just trying to get people to link through to amazon.com.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right, but I like the design. CG 08:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Poem by W B Yeats

The subject of the poem is or are Yeats' critics. He compared them to fleas on a dog.

See Wikiquote: To A Poet, Who Would Have Me Praise Certain Bad Poets, Imitators Of His And Mine

You say, as I have often given tongue

In praise of what another's said or sung,

'Twere politic to do the like by these;

But was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

This it? ---Sluzzelin 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Which one is Sima Zhao

I found this picture. Obviously it's an illustration from a Qing Dynasty edition of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Can somebody tell which one of the two depicted persons are Sima Zhao, and which the other guy might be? Thanks, Sarazyn • TALK • DE 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sima Zhao is the guy sitting and pointing to the young boy. He was known as an usurper of imperial power. The boy is probably Cao Mao, or possibly Cao Huan, two emperors of the Wei dynasty. Both emperors reigned as boys or teenagers, and both were puppets of the Sima family. See the Sima Zhao article. Yeu Ninje 10:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanitation and hygiene throughout history

Lets just narrow this down to Europe for simplicity's sake.

When did people start regularly showering? Brushing their teeth? Wearing something like deoderants? I think a read some where that in the Middle Ages only the elite did these things regularly (though I don't know whether it was daily like today) but the commoners could go weeks or months without a shower. When did it all become common for everyone? The 18th century would be my totally random guess.

Also, what about the toilet? The most I now is that in the 19th or 18th centuries people went to an outhouse to their business. I wonder where they got rid of their rubbish? In a river, I bet. I think I read once that people threw their crap (literally) out the window and the people below could get in on the head if they weren't careful. I don't know whether there's any truth to that. Pyro19 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a large topic. I wrote a doctoral dissertation on a small part of this topic (the introduction of modern water supply and sewerage systems). I know less about other parts of this topic, but I will give it a shot.

On personal cleanliness, some of your questions will be answered by [[1]], which also discusses the development of toilets.

Going back in history, medieval Europeans typically did not bathe much. As you say, they often went weeks or months without bathing. When Europeans were exploring the world in the 16th century, other peoples often found them filthy and stinky.

Incidentally, this was not true of people in other parts of the world, nor was it true of ancient Romans and Greeks. See Public bathing. My understanding is that public baths developed a reputation for sexual vice in the late Middle Ages at a time when bourgeois standards of propriety—which encompassed sexual continence but not yet personal cleanliness—began dominate European urban culture. The result was the shutting down of public baths. The necessity of hauling water by hand from wells and then heating it with expensive firewood in order to produce a warm bath made bathing a luxury that few could afford to indulge often. Since it was not socially expected, few did.

This began to change in the mid-1800s among the bourgeoisie. Much of the rise in hygiene can be tied to the rapid and substantial growth in urban population, which led to an increase in overflowing outhouses, chamber pots being tossed into the gutters or ditches that ran along streets and served as open sewers, except that they only “flowed” in a heavy rainstorm. When rainstorms washed the gutters, they washed them into rivers, except where solid waste caused blockages to form, behind which pools of sewage would form. The result was the spread of cholera. Under the prevailing miasma theory of disease (or under our own germ theory, for that matter) the city’s stinking gutters and fecal pools demanded a response.

Educated people reacted to the spread of disease in part by bathing more often, which they thought would help to prevent contagion by reducing miasmas. Urban water supply systems were built both to supply homes and to wash out miasma-producing gutters. However blockages continued to plague open gutters, which collected trash as well as sewage.

One response was to build sewers. Sewers had been built in Roman times, but they came into widespread use in Europe only after the mid-1800s. Another response was to push for the use of toilets connected to sewers, and bathtubs connected to the new municipal water supplies. A third response was to introduce municipal garbage collection, which kept streets clear of obstacles blocking the way to the new storm sewers.

Showers are an even more recent development. The first modern showers were installed in Prussian army barracks in 1879. They began a slow spread into private houses, but did not really replace baths until the 1900s. In fact, in the United Kingdom, showers remained somewhat unusual until the 1970s or 1980s. Before this, people took baths to clean themselves.

Before the spread of toilets, outhouses, sometimes placed over pit latrines, were a common place for relief, although chamber pots might be used indoors and tossed out windows into gutters. In rural areas, the contents of chamber pots or latrine pots might be tossed onto dungheaps, which were allowed to compost and used as fertilizer.

As for household waste, there wasn’t much of it until the 1900s. Food wastes were generally collected by farmers and butchers and composted, fed to pigs or chickens, or rendered into soap, tallow, glue, or other useful products. Rags were used and reused for quilting, patching, and cleaning. What was left might be collected by rag and bone men.

Marco polo 19:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

I don't see the connection between hygiene and deodorants. Showering probably started with the invention of the waterfall. :) When people moved to cities that was lost and it was only recently reinvented. However, if you mean bathing, then it started with the invention of the river (and living next to it) but that was lost again wit the rise of cities leading to a lack of clean rivers. People probably still bathed, though less frequently and in bathtubs. Aas the article says, the Romans were fanatic bathers and I believe it was something for all (even the only place where people were 'the same'), but I'm not sure about that. Teeth brushing became really necessary when people started eating refined sugar and that was only a few centuries ago and even then only for the rich. But the rotten teeth that resulted from that were an indication of wealth, so it became fashionable to blacken one's teeth (sort of like having a white skin or ling fingernails were an indication of wealth - until the poor started working in factories and the rich started going on holiday in southern Europe, which turned that around). That said, people have always and everywhere chewed sticks to clean their teeth. The right kinds of sticks then formed brushes at the end. DirkvdM 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So when dignitaries met at the Palace of Versailles in the 17th century can we assume it smelled pretty bad? Or did people wash themselves for such functions? - Pyro19 19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rank had it priviledge, and the priviledged were truly rank under the perfume.Edison 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you like excrement being thrown out of windows or defecated directly out of the window, I can only recommend Jabberwocky (film) by Monty Python. About Versailles, I heard that even the king barely washed himself. They used lots of perfumes to cover that up. I've also heard stories about the wigs being meant only to cover up the horrible mess that was their real hair, and "comfort stops" behind a staircase :| ...Evilbu 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard that Versailles had no washrooms. Gross. - Pyro19 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To be picky, I must remark that Jabberwocky was no Monty Python film, although Pythonians Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin were involved in it. 惑乱 分からん 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even today in France and Germany a daily shower is not necessarily the norm. These are densely populated countries with limited water resources, so when I was there the American custom of daily showering was considered wasteful. Durova 02:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'm originally from Israel and everyone showers daily there even though the country is very small and lacks much water. Hmm, maybe the difference in climate is the reason. - Pyro19 03:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's different in Israel due to close cultural ties to the U.S.? The feedback I got from French and German people was that it was considered an inappropriate waste of water. I spoke fluent German so language wasn't an issue. It was actually rather embarrassing for both of us when my German hostess complained after I showered four days in a row. Durova 06:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could also have been the length of the shower. A one minute washdown is quite enough if yo do it every day. And water temperature also matters. Having a ten minute shower every day with really hot water is indeed extrremely wasteful. Some people even shower twice per day. A morning shower makes no sense unless it is a quicky with cold water to wake you up or if you've had some sort of exercise in bed ... :) DirkvdM 07:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Showering daily is only a very recent North American tradition as well. But not having a full bath every day doesn't mean not washing; it's been a long tradition to wash the bits that get dirty more quickly with a soapy washcloth. Anchoress 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To Pyro19: I am German and I do shower every day as probably do most Germans. However, if someone is not the kind of guy who sweats a lot, I doubt that one would notice or even smell if he showered only every other day. Remember that our climate here in Northern Europe is much colder than you have it down in Israel. As far as I'm concerned, I only sweat at all when doing sports, on very few midsummer days or when on summer vacation in the South. Simon A. 21:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Analyzing Piano Pieces

Hi everyone,

My first question: I'm wondering if anyone knows where to find some compositions that are harmonical and/or structural analyzed, eg: the first three notes are part of the I chord, the right hand plays a broken F Major chord, etc.

Some website/book/resource that has the above would be very helpful.

Specifically, I'm looking for some analysis of the following pieces:

Bach's Prelude and Fugue No. 9 in E Major, book 1

Beethoven Pathetique Sonata, 1st and 2nd movement

Chopin Nocturne in E minor, Op. 72 No. 1

Debussy's Clair de Lune

Bartok's Roumanian Folk Dance Suite

My second question: Does anyone know of any books/references that help with harmonic and structural analysis? Such as those for an piano theory analysis exam.

Thanks in advance! Alex Ng 23:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

there is a seemingly endless number of books analysing pieces of music. look on amazon, or better, use musicroom.com (it's a Uk company i think but then once you've found good books you can buy them somewhere else) or sheetmusicplus.com --81.111.18.84 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

October 7

types of espresso drinks

There is a type of espresso drink made by the usual method, but the barrista yanks the receiving cup off the machine halfway through the normal volume of flow. Frequently this would be ordered as a double, probably to provide adequate volume (the normal volume of a single). I think the intent is to have a better-tasting result, based on the idea that the first part of the flow tastes better than the latter. Does anyone know what this is called? I used to get requests for it 25 years ago when I worked in a cafe'. Thanks for your help!

71.236.231.238 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See Ristretto.

Average age of goverments, based on goverment form

Think I read something about how long different goverment forms survives on average, but didn't manage to find back to it. I'm wondering how long do different goverment forms survive on average? That is how old is the average democracy, autocracy, monarchy, junta, etc, when it's changed to a different goverment type? And more genereally: are some goverment forms more "stable" than others? And by how much? I think maybe democracies are most stable, but I dont have the numbers.

Wondering because if:
1) democracies are more stable than others, and new goverments are just as likely to be democratic as something else.
2) democracies never or almost never go to war against each other
3) democracies never or almost never suffer famine

Then:
1) someday every country will be democratic
2) we will have world peace
3) and no hunger

By calculating creation/upheaval of democracies it would then be possible to calculate apporximatly when world peace will happen. So when do we have world peace I guess is my real question? :) --Kristod 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You think the U.S. has no hunger?! Clarityfiend 02:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're damn right. Compare tables for starvation rates in the United States and in other countries. —

Hunger in the sence of famine. --Kristod 10:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Democracies go to war with eachother. The Kargil War was between democratically elected governments, I believe. Plus, those ancient Greek city-states had elected governments that fought eachother, If I recall correctly. And I'd bet that, on average, juntas have the shortest lifespan, with Burma (and yes, I called it Burma) being an exception. Picaroon9288 02:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also the case of the War of 1812, between the more-or-less democratically elected governments of the US and the UK, or the cases in which the United States overthrew or helped overthrow democratic governments, as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and in Chile in 1973. Marco polo 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon and Israel are both democracies. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

World Peace? Next week sometime, I think. White Guard 03:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel and Lebanon are both democracies, but as far I understand it, the war was against Hezbollah, not Lebanon. I don't think any Lebanese soldier participated in the fighting.Evilbu 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is an official, legal, democratically-elected participant in the democratically-elected government of Lebanon. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There's an article on Democratic peace theory... AnonMoos 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that-even if the theory that democratic countries never go to war with each other is true- there could still be war. Think of Spain, France (with Corsica).. and yes : Belgium. Who says everyone within that country is happy with its structure?Evilbu 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Civil war? 惑乱 分からん 15:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be a long list of democratic countries that have experienced famine and gone to war (the US was of course the first example given, but it is by no means the only one). But you seem to assume that 'once a democracy always a democracy'. Now democracies probably have a pretty strong staying power, but don't let that lull you into too strong a feeling of safety. Don't forget Hitler came to power by democratic means. In a democracy, if the people want war and denial of basic rights they will have it. Just look at what is happening right now. They think the state will only misuse its powers against other people. That's what they thought in Germany in the 1930's too. When they realised they had given away too many of their rights it was too late. DirkvdM 07:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this astute observation, Dirk. I think that all three of Kristod's assumptions about democracy are doubtful, including especially the assumption that democracies are stable. In fact, historically, democracies in general have been very unstable. When democracies fail to contain public unrest, or when they hamper military or other elites in the pursuit of some agenda, they tend to fall, often in coups. Marco polo 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Historically, the least-stable form of government is a junta or other power-sharing dictatorship, while the most stable are kingdoms and other hereditary governments. Elective democracies tend to fall somewhere in the middle of things. --Serie 23:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
I do not believe "world peace" will happen soon or even at all. The question was maybe a bit to controversial to get a reasonable answer (but did encourage debate...). I do not either believe that democracies are "unstoppable", contrarily, they change quite often (Thailand coup), but some of the oldest continuous governments are democracies (US, UK). And I think the numbers would be quite interesting. For the hunger and the war, ok that is quite controversial. Let's just say it would happen to a lesser degree:

• Compare hunger in communist China with the more democratic India, for instance Amartya Sen[2] has written some books on this.
• Wars between democracies so far are few and mostly borderline cases. List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory for a full discussion.
• Civil war is of course possible in democracies to, but again there is less large scale violent conflict and genocide in democratic countries (Russian gulags and Pol Pot come to mind)

I'd like any sources to the statistics of what percentage of new governments are democracies, and how long they on average last versus other forms of governments. I think maybe it would be possible to calculate a rough estimate on the eventual democracy/non-democracy ratio. This would be quite unscientific, even if these number were possible to find, they would still change with time and technology (for instance monarchies dominated the world 200 years ago, but not any more). --Kristod 08:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The numbers on democracies v non-democracies change on the basis of broad-brush ideological factors, and so are difficult to draw inferences from. Over the 20th century, the ratio of democracies changed as follows: the breakup of European empires (up); the Great Depression and the rise of Fascism (down); the end of African and Asian colonialism (up); the gradual establishment of one-party states in those newly free colonies (down); and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the End of History (up). So we can't calculate an eventual democracy ratio without predicting big future changes like that, which is very difficult indeed. Freedom House has a historical database of which countries are 'free', though I have severe problems with their POV. Hornplease 10:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Vaughan

What style of jazz did Sarah Vaughan do? Keep the answer simple i.e. 'swing'.

This sounds like homework. John Riemann Soong 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt some teacher asked of her students "what style of jazz did Sarah Vaughan do?" This may be related to a musical biography of Sarah Vaughan, but I don't believe it is a homework assignment in itself. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why else would a simple answer be wanted? What use would that be? I could envision this as part of a fill in the blank question. John Riemann Soong 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dont be so cynical, if you're goin to be like that about things just about everything on here could be homework. Its perfectly reasonable for someone to wonder what sort of style of jazz a song is, and if that song is by Sarah Vaughan so be it. We do not need a backstory. And anyway the rule is we dont do peoples homework for them, i.e. if posted with homework we dont do it, not that we dont help people with homework, i.e. if they have done all they can, then used wikipedia as a resource, then come to the refdesk if the article is not adequate, then we do help. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the OP seeks a short phrase to describe her taste in music? Even if it was a fill-in-the-blank question, the no homework policy is intended to discourage users from asking lengthly homework questions, like Describe the impact of Sarah Vaughan's vocal style on the jazz movements of the 1950's. How do modern artists also affect their respective genres of music? rather than fill-in-the-blank trivia. Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

IT IS NOT HOMEWORK. I just can't seem to find out what kind of style she does (if it was homework, it would already be due).

Death penalty

I always hear that there are prisoners who are murders.Criminals who murders another person goes straight to the death penalty or has life in prison. How does that work? How does one decide if it should be life in prison or death? For example a man explained and admitted/caught that he killed a man like he was getting a glass of milk from the frigde, like it no big deal and he gets life in prison.

Depends on the nature of the offence and the laws of that particular country. Suggest you read Wikipedia's article on the death penalty.--Shantavira 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

French distrust

Where does the distrust of the French in the US and UK come from? — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)10:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• French perfidy - Nunh-huh 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are articles on Francophobia and anti-French sentiment in the United States... AnonMoos 14:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The most recent incident was when the French campaigned for Israel to stop their fight against terrorists (Hezbollah) in Lebanon, with the promise of a robust UN peacekeeping force in it's place. Then, they only initially volunteered a pathetic token force as their own contribution. From the US, it would appear that they are working in support of Hezbollah. StuRat 19:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Before that it was the French opposing the unilateral invasion of Iraq. Damn these French, always trying to prevent wars! DJ Clayworth 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And before that, there was Philippe Pétain, opposing any war between France and Germany. You're right! Damn those French for always trying to prevent wars! Loomis 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a long, long history of rivalry, warfare and mutual mistrust between the UK and France, which really only came to an end in the early part of the last century, when Germany began to be preceived as the greater threat. The rapid collapse of French resistance in 1940 and the subsequent hostility between the Vichy authorities and the British government created a new mood of resentment. This was compounded after the war by General de Gaulle's distrust of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US, which caused him to veto British entry into the European Union. White Guard 23:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

He also called for Quebec independence from Canada. On Canadian soil. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ssssshhhh .... Canada is not the US. Better run before a bunch of Canadians jump on your neck. DirkvdM 07:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, Zoe is right. DeGaulle was a prick when he came up here to Montréal. "Vive La France, Vive Le Québec, Vive Le Québec LIBRE!!!!" Oh shut up Chuck. Leave your brown French nose where it belongs. Loomis 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the question again. It's about the UK and the US, not Canada. DirkvdM 06:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It also, if I'm not incorrect, seems to involve France a bit too, n'est ce pas? :) Loomis 09:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oui, la perception des Francais dans les États Unis et le Royaume Uni. Pas dans Canada. (Excuse my French.) DirkvdM 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, excuse my French but "You've got no fucking idea what you're talking about"! :-) Ok sorry, I just couldn't help it. I'm not sure if it's the same in Europe, but in NA when someone is about to swear, they often preface it by saying: "Excuse my French". I've never really understood how that's originated. En tous cas, Zoe a introduit le Canada et le Québec. Je pense que j'ai eu le droit de repondre. Loomis 06:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a follow-on to There is a long, long history of rivalry, warfare and mutual mistrust between the UK and France. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is not much of a problem with distrusting the french in the UK, though some of their mannerisms and things cause an above normal level of people to think they're assholes, I think when push came to shove, people would trust them. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer these questions

• 1.Name of Muslim women belongs to Iran recently visited space.
• 2.Name of person recently won the noble prize in Physics belongs to America
• 4.Next Hockey Cricket and Footbal world cups will held in which countries
• 5.Name of first noble prize winner form Asia
• 7.Name of Thai General who took over the powers in Thailand
• 8.Name the Planet recently discovered which replaced Pluto
• 9.Name Richest person of world
• 10.The powerful candidate for next UN secretary general belongs to China name
• 11.When National security council was established in Pakistan
• 12.Macmohan line is boundry between.........and ...........
• 13.International litracy day is celebrated on............
• 14.Name the Chinese Ambassader to UN
• 15............ is called land of rivers
• 16.Who is Pakistan's Ambassader to UN

thanks

This would appear to be a quiz. Do your own homework! (Try searching at Wikipedia and Google etc. for a start...) By the way, which were questions 3 and 6? 惑乱 分からん 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, some thoughts, but check the answers.
1.Name of Muslim women belongs to Iran recently visited space.

Anousheh Ansari

2.Name of person recently won the Nobel prize in Physics belongs to America

John Mather and George Smoot

4.Next Hockey Cricket and Football world cups will held in which countries

perhaps someone who cares will answer

5.Name of first Nobel prize winner from Asia

probably Rabindranath Tagore in 1913

The first Asian scientist to win the Nobel prize was Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman, 1930

7.Name of Thai General who took over the powers in Thailand

Sondhi Boonyaratkalin

8.Name the Planet recently discovered which replaced Pluto

nothing replaced Pluto; Pluto became a dwarf planet, and so did Ceres and Eris. Of these, only Eris was recently discovered (2005).

9.Name Richest person of world

William Gates III, according to Forbe's Magazine

10.The powerful candidate for next UN secretary general belongs to China name

Ban Ki Moon is the Secruity Council's nominee; he is Korean, not Chinese. China had pushed hard for an Asian; tradition dictates that the Secretary General not be from any of the five veto-holding security council members, so a Chinese candidate would be unlikely.

11.When National security council was established in Pakistan

National Security Council of Pakistan 2004

12.Macmohan line is boundry between.........and ...........

India and China

13.International literacy day is celebrated on............

8 September

14.Name the Chinese Ambassador to UN

Yingfan Wang?, Liu Zhenmin?

15............ is called land of rivers

India, but so are other places, historical and present: Nairi, Jotbath, Kerala....

16.Who is Pakistan's Ambassador to UN

Munir Akram?

- Nunh-huh 10:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The next IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship will be held in Russia in 2007, if that's what you mean... but by grouping it with cricket and football, perhaps you mean field hockey, in which case our Hockey World Cup article doesn't say. It's not until 2010 so maybe they haven't picked a country yet. The 2010 FIFA World Cup will be in South Africa, and the next Cricket World Cup will be in 2007 in "the West Indies" in general, not one specific country. Adam Bishop 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

About france

1. Which Place in France is Known as little Venice?
2. The players of french football team wear a little emblem on their Jersey,What is it?
3. Who decreed that January 1 shud be the start of the new year?

Please sign your questions, with ~~~~.

1. Don't know
2. France national football team
3. Gregorian calendar (what's that got to do with France?)

--ColinFine 12:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite popular belief Gregory didn't decree that January 1 was the beginning of the new year in 1582. I think Nunh=huh is right that whoever asked the question is looking for Napoleon, but as a point of reference Julius Caesar did declare January 1 to be New Year's Day back in 45 BC, just after he conquered Gaul. --70.72.19.133 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Colmar; 2. the Coq Gaulois (Gallic rooster); 3: well, most recently, Napoleon I when he abolished the Revolutionary Calendar, which had a year that started in September. - Nunh-huh 12:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Search

Several years ago Good Housekeeping published an article on what one should read to be considered "well read." It gave book titled to be read over 10 or so years. Can you help me with the article?

No, but I bet someone on the Good Housekeeping Messageboards can. Try posting your question there. Anchoress 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, please do not rely on Good Housekeeping or any other such source to determine for you what it is to be 'well-read'. This is not a recipe, for goodness sake. To be truly 'well-read' is to be beyond any such guidance or manipulation. White Guard 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that what being "well-read" means is determined by others, or in accepting guidance from them towards the goal of becoming well-read one's self. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not Good Housekeeping is a source of enlightenment or not, here's a list of must-read literature I picked up many years ago:

• Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
• The Aenid
• Age of Reason
• Alice's adventures in Wonderland and Through the Lookingglass
• All quiet on the Western Front
• The American
• Andersonville
• Animal Farm
• Anna Karenina
• Arrowsmith
• Babbit
• Bell Jar
• Beowolf
• The Bible
• Big Sky
• Billy Budd
• Brave New World
• Brothers Karamozov
• Caine Mutiny
• Call of the Wild
• Candide
• Canterbury Tales
• The Castle
• Catch-22
• Catcher in the Rye
• The Chosen
• Complete Stories of Edgar Allen Poe
• Color Purple
• A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
• Count of Monte Cristo
• Crime and Punishment
• Cry, the Beloved Country
• Daisy Miller
• Darkness at Noon
• David Copperfield
• Death Comes for the Archbishop
• A Death in the Family
• The Dollmaker
• Don Quixote De La Mancha
• Dracula
• Dune
• Emma
• Ethan Fromme
• Fahrenheit 451
• A Farewell to Arms
• Farewell to Manzanar
• Fathers and Sons
• The Fixer
• Flowers for Algernon (David & Lisa)
• For Whom the Bell Tolls
• Frankenstein
• French Lieutenant's Woman
• Germinal
• Giant
• Giants in the Earth
• Go Tell it on the Mountain
• Gone with the Wind
• Good Earth
• Grapes of Wrath
• Great Expectations
• Great Gatsby
• Great Short Works of Joseph Conrad
• Geeen Mansions
• Grendel
• Gulliver's Travels
• Heart is a Lonely Hunter
• Hiroshima
• Hobbit
• House of Seven Gables
• Hunchback of Notre Dame
• I Heard the Owl Call My Name
• I Never Promised You a Rose Garden
• The Iliad
• In this Sign
• Invisible Man
• Ivanhoe
• Jane Eyre
• The Jungle
• Jungle Books
• Kidnapped
• The King Must Die
• Kristen Lavransdatter
• Last of the Mohicans
• Little Women
• Look Homeward Angel
• Lord Jim
• Lord of the Flies
• Lord of the Rings (toke a spliff or two)
• Madame Bovary
• Magic Mountain
• Main Street
• Mayor of Casterbridge
• Metamorphosis
• Mill on the Floss
• Les Miserables
• Moby Dick
• Moll of Flanders
• Le Morte D'Arthur
• Mutiny on the Bounty
• My Antonia
• Native Son
• The Natural
• Nausea
• 1984
• Nectar in a Sieve
• Northwest Passage
• The Odyssey
• Of Human Bondage
• Of Mice and Men
• Old Man and the Sea
• Oliver Twist
• On the Beach
• The Once and Future King
• One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
• One Hundred Years of Solitude
• The Oxbow Incident
• Painted Bird
• Pearl
• Le Pere Goriot
• The Picture of Dorian Grey
• Pilgrim's Progress
• The Plague
• Portrait of a Lady
• Portraid of the Artist as a Young Man
• Power and the Glory
• Pride and Predjudice
• Quo Vadis
• Rabbit Run
• Rebecca
• The Red and the Black
• Red Badge of Courage
• Red Pony
• Return of the Native
• Robinson Crusoe
• Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry
• Saturday Night Fever
• Scarlet Letter
• Separate Piece
• Shane
• Sherlock Holmes, the Complete Stories
• Siddartha
• Silas Marner
• Sister Carrie
• Slaughterhouse-Five
• Song of Roland
• Sons and Lovers
• Sound and the Fury
• Star Wars
• Stranger
• Sun Also Rises
• Tale of Two Cities
• Three Musketeers
• Time Machine
• The Tin Drum
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• To The Lighthouse
• Tom Jones
• Treasure Island
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
• Turn of the Screw
• 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
• U.S.A.
• Ugly American
• Uncle Tom's Cabin
• Vanity Fair
• Walkabout
• War and Peace
• Wind, Sand, and Stars
• Winesburg, Ohio
• Women in Love
• Wuthering Heights
• The Yearling
• You Can't Go Home Again
• Zorba the Greek

Ah, yes; the perfect list for the aspiring autodidact of today. It must have taken so much time and effort to compile; I'm impressed. Now, get going. Questions will be asked. White Guard 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez, that was a huge list. I've only read about a fifth of them. 192.168.1.1 8:55PM, 7 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

Have you read Star Wars? What was it like?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even heard of most of those titles. And Star Wars is a must read? That has to be a joke. Of course that is all matter of taste and anyone who would take this list seriously and starts reading all the books should think about getting a mind of their own. That said, I do recommend reading 'Brave new world' and '1984' in tandem. It's a great comparison. DirkvdM 07:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, all the above are novels it seems. What about some works of science? 'The origin of species' is a classic. DirkvdM 07:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all are works of fiction: the list comes from the local public library system here, and is a list of all those works of literature you should have read in school but didn't. That's why it doesn't contain any non-fiction or scientific works. I do have a list of recommended books on the history of science somewhere, I think. (Oh, and yeah, I slipped a couple ringers in there too... I wouldn't seriously ask anyone to read The Aenid. It was late when I typed it, and I'd been sipping a nice single-malt Scotch.) -- 192.168.1.1 9:45, 8 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

Why not the Aeneid? I personally think it should be required reading for any educated person. At least more so than most of the books on this list. It was extremely influential (especially among poets) and will add greatly to one's appreciation of later literature — Dante's Divine Comedy in particular, another work that is conspicuous in its absence from this list. --dm ^(talk) 05:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oil Painting by Alexandre Jacobs

When I search for Alexandre Jacobs, the result is Marius Jacobs. I am searching for the painter. I am wondering what an oil painting by him would be worth.

Leslie

Any work of art is worth only what someone is prepared to pay for it. Since your Alexandre Jacobs seems not to be well known, it would be best to take the painting along to specialist.--Shantavira 18:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Name this song & artist

I'm trying to remember the artist in this song. It has a male singer during the chorus singing in a somewhat high-pitched voice to start something along the lines of "hold me close love, its all me, its all me... gotta ask yourself one question, where are you now?"... Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC) isn't that the song with which James blunt broke through?dont remember the exact name Graendal 17:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be Wisemen (song). High-pitched voice, hah. Hornplease 10:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nostalgia Collection

I posted this on miscel. earlier but didn't get what I wanted. I am looking for an audio or video file containing famous quotes or scenes from history, movies, and/or television. For example an audio file with "No, I am your father," "To infinity and beyond," and "E.T. phone home." I just want the most famous scenes from the most famous movies and TV shows all in one place. Or perhaps small clips of famous music. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of New Artist Stub 'Lee Woods' Artmaid 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Artmaid

I've returned from holiday to find my first contribution to Wikipedia deleted by User 'SiGarb'. The article was about Plymouth born (UK) artist Lee Woods and the reason cited by 'SiGarb' was the absence of any reference to a critical review in a national newspaper of this artist which, it seems, would alone justify inclusion in Wikipedia.

I have a background as a lecturer in art history at undergraduate and post-graduate level, with a particular interest in artists of the 20th century, specifically those from the South West of England area; (St.Ives school, Newlyn School etc). Lee Woods is generally acknowledged as one of the most significant 'popular' artists currently hailing from this area of the UK and is one of the founder members of the new 'folk-art revival' movement which has been sweeping the UK since the early 1990's. I avoided the inclusion of such primary research (which I intend to include in a book I'm having published next year), however, all of the remaining information contained in the article is already very much in the public domain. The widespread nature of Lee's 'genetic zoo' series for example can be verified simply by searching the terms 'lee woods' and 'genetic zoo' together in google, or any other search engine. Prints and posters of his work are on sale from Vladivostock to Vancouver! As for the only other piece of information which might be percieved to be 'contentious' and need substantiation (the mass media coverage of the first genetic zoo exhibtion) one only need do a simple search of the reuters and associated press database for the date given in the article to verify the plethora of articles that this exhibition generated across the world.

The whole point of artists like Lee Woods and other members of the 'folk art revival' is that they are often self-taught, POPULAR artists, who paint and sell direct to their public and therefore frequently do not register on the established, public-subsidied art radar! They would not be the original, cult, folk-artists that they are if they received 'high-art' critique in national newspapers!

My Question is, how is wikipedia ever going to become an authoritative source of information if the submissions of interested academics like myself are so easily and speedily deleted by people of unquantifiable background knowledge, apparently limited ability to research and who are able to invoke/ invent apparently arbitrary and -in my opinion -ill-informed inclusion criteria? I have tried to contact the user 'SiGarb' in order to put these questions but he/she has chosen not to give a valid email address. How can this article be re-instated? If it can't be, I see absolutely no point wasting my time making future contributions. Yours Artmaid 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Artmaid

The reference desk is the wrong place to deal with this sort of issue. Try Wikipedia:Deletion review. —Keenan Pepper 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I agree that the speedy deletion was out of order, and I can make the deleted text available to you if you'd like. —Keenan Pepper 22:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, ArtMaid. I suspect the problem was that you were not around to argue the case. I have several times proposed articles for deletion, even on subjects I am not knowledgeable on, on the basis that the article as it stood did not give sufficient reasons to continue to exist. I'm not sure that deletion has resulted even once - what it has done is stimulated discussion and, hopefully, caused the articles to be improved. People do not usually reveal email addresses on Wikipedia: the way to contact SiGarb is by posting on his talk page User talk:SiGarb. --ColinFine 17:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Conjoined twin autobiography

Has a member of an unseparated pair of conjoined twins ever published an autobiography (or diary or journal or whatever)? —Keenan Pepper 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you count A Few particulars concerning Chang-Eng, the united Siamese brothers : published under their own direction., New York : J.M. Elliott, 1838? - Nunh-huh 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC) - And Daisy and Violet Hilton wrote an autobiography in 1942. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Germans had won WWII and the Final Solution had been completed

Do you think there would now be peace in the Middle East and worldwide, in terms of Islamic terrorism? Just playing devil's advocate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.142.31 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No. What effect would a German conquest of Europe and elimination of the European Jewry have on Sunni vs Shiite violence? Moderate Sunni vs Islamist Sunni violence? Muslim vs Christian violence? It would have no effect on such things. And all of these conflicts have created Islamic terrorism; therefore, the world would still have Islamic terrorism, even if there was no Israel. Picaroon9288 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis would then move on to killing all the Muslims. They had no objection to killing off anyone who gave them trouble (even if only in their fevered minds). StuRat 03:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But would they really turn on their good friend, the Grand Mufti? (Actually, I expect so.) Picaroon9288 03:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. So many Native American tribes were eliminated from this planet. Life goes on. Nothing is the end of the world. -- Toytoy 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure to the Native American tribes that were "eliminated", there certainly was an "end of the world". I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that statement.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If Hitler made it, in a few years, people would visit Berlin as if nothing had ever happend. They would not be unlike people who visit today's New York, Boston, Los Angeles ... . History is written by the winner. -- Toytoy 03:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

True. It depends on whether you think that Hitler and those who followed after him would have continued to be as ruthless as they had been during the war, and after his death reflect on the atrocities that had been committed during his reign. Free society is not an inevitable precipitate.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

World peace in terms of terrorism (islamic or otherwise)? Terrorism is negligible compared to the destructive power of wars. Don't believe the hype. DirkvdM 07:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism has been practiced since the 19th century by dissident groups too weak to field an army to achive their aims. The Germans called the European Resistance movements terrorism. It is not purely a muslim invention or phenomenon, and while it was used by jews in the formation of Israel before they had an army, it wasnt invented by them either. So if you imagine a history as radically different as one in which Germany won WWII, you can spin any story you want about which group that might be today's terrorists in an alternate universe. alteripse 14:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I have to agree with Alteripse, I would like to point out that guerilla warfare is a form of terrorism and has been and still is one of the more ffective techniques. Graendal 17:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "terrorism" has always been extremely difficult to define. Many, like alterprise, assert that the Irgun was a terrorist organization. To me, I define "terrorism" as the gratuitous killing of innocent civilians. I just can't equate the Irgun's retaliations against Arab attacks and its attack on the British "military, police and civil headquarters" at the King David Hotel, with the attacks on the entirely civilian WTC on 9/11. Note that I'm not quite sure if I'd regard the attack on the Pentagon as "terrorism", as the Pentagon, being the headquarters of the US military, is a bona fide military target. An attack on a bona fide military target is to me an act of war, not of terrorism. Loomis 22:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The person who asked this question seems to assume that the root cause of unrest in the Middle East and Islamist terrorism is the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. If this were all or most of the cause, the questioner might be right that the Middle East would be at peace. But I would suggest that a leading cause of unrest and Islamism in the Middle East is the effort by western nations, and particularly the US and the UK, to control the region's oil and oil wealth, which has required repeated military intervention, sometimes with Israel serving as a US surrogate. Now, let's suppose that Hitler had conquered the Soviet Union and forced the UK to surrender and pledge neutrality or join the Axis. His next move would likely have been to take over the countries under French, British, or Italian influence or control that then covered most of North Africa and the Middle East, in order to secure their oil supply. He would probably also move to bring Iran under his control. This would have put Germany into conflict with Muslim (and perhaps Islamist) resistance and into conflict with the US and his erstwhile ally Japan. Or suppose that Hitler had somehow subdued the US as well. Germany would still face conflict with the Islamists and Arab and Iranian nationalists, as well as Japan, which would want to break the German stranglehold on oil supplies. It is hard to imagine Hitler agreeing to share Middle Eastern oil with Japan freely. Although he agreed to partition Poland with the Soviets, this was tactical and not a long-term commitment. Marco polo 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Another point: To be successful with the Final Solution, meaning eliminating all Jews, Hitler would have had to conquer most of the Muslim world, at least from Morocco eastward into Persia, a region of the world where thousands of Jews lived. How would Islamic Salafists and other fundamentalists have reacted to Christian/pagan/infidel Nazis conquering the Muslim world? Not with flowers and kisses. dm ^(talk) 05:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He could have just asked,most of the Muslim countries would destroy their own Jews for him.There was no need for him to conquer any of Muslim countries,because they hate Jews more then he did.

Um, yes. Sure. Good to know that even after the Holocaust, casual racism is still cool. EamonnPKeane 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

October 8

Phone Q

On my cell phone, there is an option for a 2 second hard pause and a 5 second soft...what do these mean? Thanks, ChowderInopa 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A pause tells your phone to wait when dialling a stored number, rather than sending off all of the numbers in one continuous stream. It's useful for dialling phone extensions, or for navigating phone trees if there's something you usually do frequently. For instance, you can store a friend's work number as 123-4567p#890 (where the p is a 5 second soft pause) and you'll dial their main switchboard (123-4567), wait for the automated system to pick up and say "Hello, welcome to XYZ Corp. If you know the extension of the party you wish to call, press pound now.", then press pound and dial your friend's extension (890). Normally, a hard pause requires you to press a button to continue, whereas a soft pause just waits the number of seconds indicated and then goes ahead. --ByeByeBaby 04:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Thank you for calling the Last National Bank. Warning, our menu system has just been changed..."

"Beep !"

"You have selected to donate all your assets held with the bank to St. Periwinkle's Home for Wayward Hedgehogs. That transfer is now complete. Thank you. Have a nice day." :-) StuRat 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Characterization of the Oxford Philosopher J.L. Austin's work

I believe that your characterizations of Austin's How To Do Things With Words is very misleading. All of the terms which Austin introduced are germane only because Austin projected extant speech situations and all possible (especially educational) speech situations in How To Do Things With Words. If you formulated your posting in consideration of Professor Searle's publications you err. Parliaments, Congresional functions, concerted and cooperative endeavors (note the well-organized intelligence work on the Normandy Invasion.. he was fluent in nine languages ...if I remember correctly too)

I went cover to cover on Collegiate dictionaries and lived with the O.E.D itself when I did my graduate paper on How To Do Things With Words.

Austin wasn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater when he featured the much vaunted Illocutionary Act.

I do not wish to wedge my comprehension of How To Do Things With Words here. Suffice it to say Austin craced the crib of the reality of speech in the world. Searle shows no appreciation of the universality of How To Do Things With Words.

I look forward to any questions or probes on this from your quite valuable and much honored work at Wikipedia. Oh I did get copyright usage clearance on How To Do Things With Words.. (many years ago when doing the graduate research thesis work on this.

Robert J. Myers, (street address removed to prevent mail bombs) [email address removed to stop spamming] thank you for the time here.

It is not quite clear what "your characterizations" refers to and in what way they are deemed misleading. There are references to How To Do Things With Words in our articles Carlo Penco, Illocutionary act, J. L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, Logical argument, Meaning (linguistics), Performative, Performativity, Philosophy of language, Pragmatics, and Speech act. Is it claimed somewhere that Austin introduced germane terms (germane to what?) for the wrong reasons, or that he performed ejection on infants in state of ablution? Could you be more specific?  --Lambiam^Talk 05:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is only one article on Wikipedia that includes the word "germane" and a reference to J L Austin: Analytic Philosophy#Ordinary language philosophy. Note the cleanup tag.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Myers, you are addressing your comments to Wikipedians at large (or rather, those who look at the Reference Desk), most of whom have probably never looked at J. L. Austin, much less contributed to it. Please improve the article yourself, or if you think discussion is required, a posting to the article's talk page Talk:J. L. Austin will engage the people who are most interested in the topic. --ColinFine 17:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No age limit for drinking alcohol in Australia

Is it true that there is NO AGE LIMIT to consuming alcohol in Australia.

I was told that there are alcohol laws in Australia but they only talk about buying/selling alcohol and road laws. Anyone of any age can consume any amount of alcohol provided they are not doing it on public land.

Is it true? If so I'm flying down to down under for a very alcoholic holiday.

No it is not. The age limit for legal drinking in Austalia is 18. See Legal drinking age. You might, however, want to book a trip to Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Nigeria, Portugal, Soviet Georgia, Thailand or Vietnam. See here--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Georgia? You're assuming he has a time machine? DirkvdM 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't he? Too bad then. In present day Georgia, you can drink, but not buy alcohol legally. --thunderboltz^(Deepu) 08:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Na. Na. Na. You are wrong. Minors can legally drink alcohol in Australia. To paraphase:

Laws Relating to Minors

There are several provisions in the Liquor Licensing Act which protect minors, primarily in Part 7. The Licensing Court can take disciplinary action against a licensee who breaches the Act and can fine or reprimand the licensee, change the licence conditions, suspend or revoke the licence.

Under section 107 of the Act, a licensee is guilty of an offence if they employ a minor to sell, supply, or to serve liquor on the premises, unless the minor is a child of the licensee or responsible person and is aged 16 years or more, who is resident on the premises, otherwise licensing authority approval is required.

Where can a minor legally drink alcohol?*

1. At their own home or someone else's - regardless of whether an adult legal guardian or spouse is present.

2. In public places that are neither licensed premises, regulated premises nor dry areas (e.g. a family barbecue in a public area such as a park) provided they are in the company of an adult legal guardian or spouse.

Where can a minor NOT legally drink alcohol?*

1. In regulated premises including licensed premises (e.g. a restaurant, hotel, premises with a limited licence or reception centre) - a minor may be present at these venues (before midnight, or before 9.00 p.m. at premises with an entertainment venue licence), but may not buy or drink alcohol.

2. In a public place unless in the company of an adult legal guardian or spouse.

In summary, minors:

• can consume alcohol provided it is not in a public place or regulated premises
• can consume alcohol in a public place under the supervision of an adult legal guardian or spouse provided that it is not a dry area, regulated premises or in or near to prescribed entertainment such as a dance
• can generally be on licensed premises before midnight (before 9.00 p.m. in an entertainment venue) but cannot obtain or consume alcohol
• are not allowed in areas of licensed premises declared out of bounds to minors, or in gaming areas
• are not allowed on licensed premises between the hours of midnight and 5.00 a.m. unless in a designated dining area, a bedroom or an area approved for minors

Examples:

1. If at the clubrooms, a football coach gives the team some beers to celebrate a win, and some of the team are under 18, that is an offence (supplying liquor to a minor in regulated premises, section 110 & 114 of the Act). However, it would not be illegal for the coach to invite the team to his home for drinks.

2. At a wedding reception held in a licensed restaurant, a hotel, a wedding reception centre or public hall, it is illegal if a minor drinks a toast containing alcohol to the bride and groom (selling/supplying alcohol to minors, sections 110 & 114 of the Act).

URL: http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=124

URL: http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/main1.cfm?categoryid=3&topicid=252&infopageid=517

URL: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/drugs/alcohol/youth/law.htm

If you go through the expense of flying to Australia, don't waste your time there being drunk all the time. Like the people who visit Amsterdam, are stoned all the time and can't remember a thing of the city or its people. Being drunk or stoned can be nice, but visiting another coutry and broadening your horizons will in ht eend be much more rewarding. DirkvdM 07:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are American kids, you may think that "Cool! Aussie kids can legally drink alcohol in the comfort of their own home. They must be living in paradise." Please think again. The reality is quite different.

If you drink alcohol in your home without your parent's permission, you will get a whack from your dad for stealing his alcohol. If you insists on your legal right to drink, he will tell you to do it outside his property.

If you are outside your home, you have two problems.

1. If you drink on public land, the police will arrest you.

2. Eh? You do not have any alcohol. And it is illegal for anyone to sell alcohol to minors.

So you go to your friend's house right? Opps, same problem. Your friend's parents will NOT let your drink their alcohol. So you sit there in your friend's house while your friend is drinking alcohol but you can't. Your friend's parent will not give you alcohol for fear of "Giving alcohol to a minor". They are happy to provide their own children with alcohol, just not to you. Ohanian 10:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The situation is much the same in the UK. We have an age limit for drinking alcohol - of five years [[3]]. In practice I was lucky to get more than a sip of sherry at Christmas and then only when I was about 12 years old! -- Chris Q 12:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it called mizuhiki (water pulling)? history? process?

I know that mizuhiki is the Japanese art of knot tying using several strands of wire-like paper that has been covered with tiny ribbons of metallic foil & that it is used widely for decorating gifts. What I don't understand is why it is called literally "water pulling". Does this have to do with the process by which the paper strands are made? Is it describing the process of tying the knots using the material or is it just arbitrary? The last possibility seems unlikely in light of words like "origami" (literally 'folding paper') & "kirigami" (literally 'cutting paper'). I would also like to know more about the history of mizuhiki & the process by which the strands are made. Please help me answer these questions. Thanks.

jaWiki isn't very helpful on this. It basically says that mizuhiki originated as a type of gift in the days of Ononoimoko, but not where the actual name comes from. Try asking the jaWiki users on chatsubo.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Metallic blue ribbon may look like water. StuRat 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think they had that in the 7th century CE!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

women having sex

when women have sex, I assume their breasts become enlarged. What I want to know is that whether their nipples also enlarge? I also would like to know whether breasts harden while in erection or remain soft. Since I am 23 years and no experience in touching a women, I am interested in asking this. Thankyou

You will be disappointed to learn that there's no significant change in breast size regardless of level of excitement. In the nipples, you may expect a change, generally a hardening and constriction rather than enlargement, analagous to "gooseflesh" in the rest of the skin - the same change that occurs in response to a cold environment. Men's nipples do pretty much the same thing, so it shouldn't be that far outside your realm of experience. - Nunh-huh 09:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you were thinking of the pupil... ;) The clitoris gets somewhat of an erection though... 惑乱 分からん 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

for some reason, our sexual arousal article has "increase in breast size". that article may be in need of some fact-checking. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that personal research is banned... ;) —Daniel (‽) 14:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to have performed enough field research for sufficient statistical data. Could you honestly claim that? ;) 惑乱 分からん 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As a 14-year-old male, I'd have to say... no. ;) —Daniel (‽) 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In studies they use heat vision to see that blood flow increases to the chest and pelvis during arousal (as well as the lips, face and neck). I would assume the increase in blood flow would cause a small increase in size. Though the change would probably be less that what is normally experienced during the course of a menstrual cycle and definitely much less that the changes that the breasts go through during pregnancy. Nowimnthing 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the size of a womens breasts do increase when they aroused but the degree in which they grow differs per individual case and how far they are aroused. in some cases they may swell up by approx. 25%. oh and I could claim that wakuran. as a 17-year old male with a lot of holidays :) though actual measuring didn't really occur to me at those times . I get my intel from a book i once read about breasts.(NO NOT THE PLAYBOY BUT AN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ONE! *mumbles* damn those boilogy teachers*mumbles*) it is even possible for women to climax through only touching the breasts in the right way. but every women has their own thrills.Graendal 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What scientific book would that be? Can you link to any other sources? Boilogy sounds like fun too, but I don't see what that has to do with boobs.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Biology hereabouts also has the subject of the human body, as for the book it was simply called breasts and in it there were lots of close-ups, explanations etc. etc. the book was in dutch though. and through personal experience I can confirm the growth and climax of the breasts. Graendal 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany military achievements

I used to be quite impressed with Germany conquering all of Europe (and then even having the 'spares' to fight in Africa). Later I learned that they didn't quite conquer all of Europe. And last week I did some more reading and I now get the impression they didn't achieve much at all. Here's how I understand it now:

• Vichy (southern France), Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland were allies (of sorts - not entirely fair on the Finns).
• Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland and Sweden were neutral
• Austria welcomed the German armies
• Czechia was prettty much handed to the Germans by the international community (not too sure about that one)
• Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium thought they could remain neutral, didn't mobilise and were therefore easy conquests (also because they're small countries)
• The invasion of the USSR was a complete disaster
• The UK was never even invaded

Which leaves Northern France, which had an outdated defence system, Poland and Yugoslavia, which didn't have much of an army (and Poland was simultaneously attacked by the USSR) and Greece. I am no longer impressed. Actually, it looks rather pathetic for a country that acted like it could conquer half the world. Am I missing something? DirkvdM 11:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Blitzkrieg tactics were quite shocking at that time. It seems Hitler more and more got into a state of hubris, but after the failure of the USSR invasion, and US joining the allies, things turned bad for the Nazis rather quickly... 惑乱 分からん 11:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That only makes it worse. They ignored the 'gentlemanlike' custom of 'properly' announcing when you attack someone, which gave them an important edge. And still they didn't conquer much - just four countries, none of which put up much of a fight. DirkvdM 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DirkVDM, I thought of this too when discussing the movie "Der Untergang". In fact, you could even add some more elements to that, weakening their accomplishments :

- they conquered a lot while they were still respecting an agreement with the USSR. Note that in a sense they conquered some parts of Europe "together" with the USSR. There are pictures of Soviet and German soldiers happily chatting. - they had a pretty big population! - they had a huge ally in the East : Japan (and Japan sort of had Thailand as an ally as well). While Japan is quite far away, Japan didn't keep lots of USA soldiers busy.~ Evilbu 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

About the German and USSR soldiers happily chatting, I read a short story by a USSR soldier that ever now and then they would stop fighting to have a 'smoking break', sitting donw close to each other. Maybe that is what you saw on those photographs. I'm pretty sure the two armies never fought side by side. They just happened to both attack Poland. DirkvdM 07:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, although they perhaps didn't conquer much, at least they had huge parts of Europe under their command... 惑乱 分からん 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, you simply decided to ignore the fact that the German army attacked with fewer troops and fewer tanks two of the (then) Superpowers (the large British empire and France and all its colonies) and crushed them in northern France (and they were prepared and ready for the Germans). You also simply added Vichy as an ally of the Axis, but in fact it was simply a puppet regime under German rule like the puppet-goverments in Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands, etc (besides handing all the French Jews over to the Germans they did almost nothing). The invasion of the Soviet Union ended in a complete disaster, but the initial achievements were considerable (more than a 1 million Russian POW's at the end of the 1st year, and the German armies were mere 50 (even closer?) KMs from Moskou). You have forgotten that almost all of the German European allies were mostly useless (except the Finns, but these were very few) and that the Japanese were simply too far away to help the Germans, and vice-versa.

Let me put the whole issue in another perspective: How incompetent were the Allies, that it took them 6 full years to crush the Axis powers (and they had to ally themselves with Stalin to pull it off) ?

They could decode almost all the German orders sent through the Enigma machine (read:Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, and in the case of the Japanase it was somthing quite simlar (read JN-25. They controlled almost all the Sea trade (despite the best efforts of the German U-boots), with all the resulting war material, and supplies lines (like Petrol and Gas, but also Coal and Iron) and were from the start heavily supported by the USA (despite all initial claims of "neutrality"). They had simply a better technology than the Germans (better Radar, Sonar, planes, the first computers, and they were even making the A-bomb). The "big" German population was around 60 millions (I am not very sure of this figure and am ignorant of the Japanese numbers) while their opponents had how many? 400 million (adding the USA and the USSR), perhaps even more? You are also ignoring that Hitler in order to help the incompetent Mussolini and his secondrate Italian troops from another trashing (the 1st being North Africa), this time from the Greeks, had to quickly invade Yugoslavia and Greece and the Germans did it in only two months despite all British and Greek opposition. Put all the Allied countries (counting the population, and please notice the war production figures) next to your list and then ask something smart. Notice that everything seems very predictable, simple, and easy to an amateur, but solely in hindsight. Flamarande 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading about Vichy started me thinking. It seems they had a government that was of the same mind as the nazis. This is where the word collaboration came from. Of course, this is why the Germans didn't need to push through in France. The French themselves were doing their job for them. And about the UK, like I said, they never conquered that. They didn't even try. And they won some battles in the USSR, but lost all that in the same year, with the campaign never conquering any of its major goals (Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow), so that wasn't much of a military success. Quite the opposite. The goal of war is to conquer and hold, so you can reap the harvest of your investment. That their allies weren't much of a help is not relevant to what I meant. They never conquered those countries. The only serious opponents they conquered were Northern France and, to a lesser extent, Greece (who put up a bit of a fight because they had help from the Brits).

You do seem to have a good point concerning the achievements of the Allies. But as I understand it, the principal goal of the military conquests was economic, through the Arbeitseinsatz. This assured that they could manufacture loads of weapons on the spot (in stead of importing them from across the Atlantic). And they were pretty good at inventing new technology too, such as the V1 and 2 and the nuclear bomb, although they never managed to finish it. (The USSR used Germans to develop it further, just like the US used a German to develop their space rockets.)

The Germans also invented the Blitzkrieg, thus totally changing the way wars were fought. Part of the lack of success of the allies lay in the supply lines becoming too long, a problem the Germans also suffered from. The distance from Stalingrad (the furthest the Germans came) to Berlin is about 2500 km. The USSR army covered that distance in less than a year. That is roughly 10 km per day on average. Pretty fast for an advancing army. The Germans had done it in stages, but did the last push in less time. Come to think if it, the achievements in terms of speed were pretty impressive on both sides, considering they had to invent this type of warfare as they went. The western Allies were doing a worse job of it, though.

But my point is that the Germans didn't do all that much impressive stuff militarily, espcially considering they had all these advantages. Such as not even needign to conquer many countries because they had no desire to fight them and even partly fought at their side. It seems the lack of opposition to the Germans was caused at least partly because nazism and similar ideologies were pretty popular at the time, probably largely as a reaction to the rise of socialism and especially communism. That is also why the pope never really condemned the Germans. He didn't like Hitler, but he hated the commies even more and Hitler was helping him in that respect. Another case of one extreme leading to the opposite extreme. DirkvdM 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what happens when you have an idiot at the helm, somebody who thinks he's right all the time, considers dissent to be traitorous, and won't admit he can make mistakes. Wait a sec... Clarityfiend 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you're not serious, Clarity, please. Right or left, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, if you actually believe there's shred of reality in that comparison, well, you've basically just destroyed all that remains of your reputation. Loomis 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He didn't make any comparison at all. If, despite that, you see a similarity to someone else, then therre must be some truth in it. :) DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first part seems to me to be a fairly accurate description of Bush. And yes, I do believe there is a "shred of reality" there. The two have the serious character flaws I listed in common. I forgot to mention his willingness to distort the truth for his own ends (dozens of Nobel laureates have condemned the Bush administration's politicization of science; the WMD's; Saddam's "connection" to al-Quaida). Show me where I'm wrong.

Although, come to think of it, he's so incompetent, he's more like Mussolini than Hitler. Clarityfiend 00:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I know many (most!) people here who aren't fans of Bush, and I respect their views. At the very worst, from what I've heard here so far, Bush may be an incompetent moron. Or worse, that he's a greedy oilman who ran for president only to enrich his family (and friends') fortune. I find these accusations ridiculous, but I'm offended by none of them.

But none of them would EVER compare Bush to Hitler, as you have. Bush=Hitler has got to be the most disgusting comment I've ever heard here on Wikipedia, EVER. I've lost family to Hitler. Bush, even if you consider him an idiot (which is your prerogative), is no Hitler. Your comment is disgusting. Please don't backtrack and compare him "more to Mussolini". Even Bush=Mussolini is a disgusting remark. It's ok not to like Bush, but remember, it wasn't ok not to like Hitler or Mussolini! Your comments are disgusting to myself and the memory of the family that I lost.

Have you lost family to Bush's gas chambers? Have any of your family been cooked in any of Bush's ovens? Be a man and apologize. Loomis 04:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to equate Bush with Hitler. That would be stupid. If I gave you that impression, certainly I apologize. I was merely pointing out that they share certain personality flaws. If I had noted that Charlie Chaplin had the same moustache, would that mean that I think the comedian and the dictator were equally bad? Please do not put words in my mouth. Clarityfiend 05:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"I was not trying to equate Bush with Hitler. That would be stupid. If I gave you that impression, certainly I apologize". Apology accepted. I'm not one to hold grudges. :-) Loomis 09:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you're not suggesting no-one lost their families to Bush? In Iraq alone over 100 000 dead. Surely, they had family? DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Given: if A then B; if B then C

Correct conclusion: if A then C

Faulty conclusion: if C then A

Bush's conclusion: if C then D Clarityfiend 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Every premature death is a tragedy of equal proportion. Yet not every premature death is the result of the same degree of inhumanity. As I've said below, yes, innocent civilians are dying in Iraq due to the war (yet mostly by anti-US insurgents). Would the same number of innocent civilians be killed without the war? Hard to say, but probably less. I believe that during Saddam's reign at least a good half a million or more were killed (my figures may be wrong, I'm not sure if that takes into account the Iranians, the Kuwaitis and/or the Kurds). In any case, as I said below with regards to Clinton in Serbia as well, Bush never wished these folks to die. As moronic as you believe he is, do you actually believe that he's actually evil enough to wish the death of innocent Iraqis? Hitler not only wished the Jews of Europe to be killed, but he METICULOUSLY PLANNED FOR IT. Loomis 14:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well all those countries that are allies, they're not goin to invade them just to prove a point to you are they, plus they reached stalingrad on the USSR campaign, given the huge expanse of russia, thats a loooong way. I mean the area they invaded was about the size of sweden, and the casualties they inflicted were horrendous, the article says somwhere around 2million people were killed in stalingrad, and the axis only suffered 750,000 people killed or wounded. So i think it is fair to say a lot of those casualties were russian. And since you pointed out a lot of these invasion were submissive or walkthroughs, what are the germans meant to do? Demand they fight in order for the germans to be looked back on as having invaded europe. The countries military might is not only reflected in the countries it managed to forcefully invade, but in any which the country weilds any power due to military might (i.e. its allies were allies because they thought germany would win, because of its huge armies, and the countries that didnt resist, in order to minimise casualties, due to the inevitable loss, thos are all victories because of the countries military might. ) Philc _T^E_C^I 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, read Machiavelli. The object is to avoid combat, whenever possible, to preserve your fighting force, by conquering with treaties and intimidation. Any country which tried to fight all the other countries in the world would be guaranteed to fail, so a more subtle approach to world conquest is needed. One exception was when only the US had atomic bombs. It could have conquered the world, had it been sufficiently evil, in that short period. StuRat 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm not saying they should have waged more war (that would be silly). All I mean is that I got the impression the military achievement wasn't as great as I thought it was and was now wondering if I got that right. DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

About the ability of the US to conquer the world with nuclear bombs. The two it dropped on Japan was pretty much it and no facilities to make many more fast. Mass production would have been out of the question. DirkvdM 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The US had 4 years until the Soviets got the bomb (by espionage from the US). This was more than enough time to mass produce enough bombs to defeat them, then move on to the rest of the world, if this had been the US goal. StuRat 00:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, consider that the economy of Germany was in ruins, and it suffered from massive reparation payments and hyperinflation prior to the Nazi era. They also had restrictions on the size of their military placed on them by the WW1 victors. Given these limitations, it's amazing they could conquer anything. StuRat 22:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, starting at the very latest, on August 2nd, 1934, the date Hitler became "Fuhrer", until September 1, 1939, the day WWII broke out, Hitler had just over 5 years to violate the Treaty of Versailles. Thanks to the gullibility and blindness of guys like MacDonald, Baldwin and Chamberlain, and despite the rantings of some pudgy, drunk back-bencher MP from Kent, some war-mongering, WWI has-been fool, Hitler managed to make good use of those 5 years to rebuild the German military to the point where it was just about able to conquer Europe, and in doing so, take the lives of 50 million. Loomis 23:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of my point is that they didn't conquer all of Europe. And, as StuRat pointed out, they couldn't have. DirkvdM 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the above contributors might actually benefit from doing a spot of reading on the subject, instead of speculating in such an endless and uninformed fashion. In 1939 Germany went to war with Poland and France, whose combined military force was at least twice the size of her own army. If the French had gone on the offensive Hitler could conceivably have found himself in serious trouble, having only five or six divisions in the west to face almost one hundred in the French army, with the addition later in the year of ten British divisions. The Poles-who incidentally were not attacked simultaneously by the Soviet Union-put up a strong fight, but were overwhelmed by the Nazi Blitzkrieg, most of their air force being destroyed on the ground in the initial days. The Norwegian campaign was a considerable gamble on the German side, because of the overwhelming Allied naval superiority, but one that nontheless paid off. The greatest gamble of all was the attack in the west, because the French army was still considered to be the best of its day and because-unlike the Poles-they could more than match the Germans in both armour and air power. The problem was the French were locked into a defensive mentality, and failed to anticipate the audacity of the German battle plan, which allowed them to slice across the north of the country in an advance to the sea. The French armour was also used in penny packages, rather than concentrated in the German fashion. The speed of the German advance, and the success in overwhelming all opposition, was an astonishing contrast to the campaign of 1914. France was forced to agree to an early armistice, while badly mauled British forces were forced off the continent. Incidentally, the Germans did not just conquer northern France but were well on the way to overwhelming the whole country by the time the armistice was signed. The conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece were also rapid and overwhelming, so much so that even Stalin was badly unsettled. But the greatest successes of the Wermacht came in the early months of the war against Russia. In terms of numbers alone the Soviets were superior in every military department, but by the end of September 1941 the Germans had won several huge enveloping battles that no other nation on earth could have survived. Those who are interested may care to examine the Battle of Kiev, in which the Germans took over 600,000 prisoners alone. The problem for Hitler was that, unlike his other opponents, Russia had both the space to absorb the impact of the Blitzkrieg and, more important, the reserves to make good its terrible losses. Even so, by the close of 1941, Germany and its allies controlled virtually all of continental Europe; quite an achievment for a power that in 1933 had only a 100000 man army, no aircraft and no tanks.

To conclude on a different point, I do not quite understand the intention of some of the last contributor's remarks, obviously directed at Winston Churchill. I assume some irony was intended?White Guard 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You assume correctly. I'm obviously a GREAT fan of Sir Winnie, the "old fool". I'd only hope more would learn from his "foolishness" today. I'm sure many regard me as a "fool" for my beliefs, but I'll stick to'em. What interests me about you, WHITE guard, is your unabashed pride concerning the military achievements of Nazi Germany. Curious. Loomis 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification: I share your folly. To rush to my defence, I take no pride whatsoever in German military achievments. I do take some pride-if that's the right word-in achieving historical accuracy, and some of the remarks above are hopelessly ill-informed. And please do not try to read the wrong message into my nom de guerre. I admire the work of Mikhail Bulgakov. Beyond that I will not go. White Guard 01:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! Don't bother rushing to your defence. My inference was likely offensive enough! Just watch my posts. I tend to be a bit of a hot-head. But when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I admit that my inference was quite wrong here. I apologize for that.

But you've got me interested. You say that you share my folly. I'm just curious as to what exactly you mean by that. All the best. Loomis 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do admire Winston Churchill-the old fool. White Guard 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, White Guard. About France, I didn't know the Germans faced such superior forces there. I suppose their succes indeed resulted largely from the unanounced (!) Blitzkrieg and other innovations in warfare (did you mean that they used more bombs in stead of bullets?). So it was more cunning than brute force (or rather the combination). But the invasion of the USSR wasn't much of a military success. Like I said, the goal of an invasion is to keep what you gain, and they didn't do that, so ultimaltely it was a failure (and an obvious and therefore stupid one, so they weren't so clever there, but I believe that was specifically Hitler's doing).

So I have to adapt my assumptions a bit. France was stronger than I thought and only became a partial ally when they were losing (although I already said that that was one of the bigger achievements). And Norway wasn't as easy either because of the international forces there (much like with Greece). And Germany wasn't as powerful as one might think based on its size. But other than that what I said still stands, or doesn't it? I mean, are my assumptions about the various countries correct? DirkvdM 08:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) was a strategy developed by the Germans, allowing them to use limited resources to maximum effect. It means using air, artillery tanks and infantry in close support and to maximum effect, with attacks focused at a particular point-Schwerepunkt, in German. Holes are then punched through enemy defences, and units left to the rear of the attack enveloped and destroyed. It relies upon mobility as the key element, by-passing and avoiding heavily defended positions. Tanks, moreover, are deployed in heavy concentrations, rather than widely spread as a secondary support for the infantry. Have a look at the page on Blitzkrieg for further information on the subject. The point is that most armies in 1939-40, particularly the French, were looking for a repeat of 1914, and were thus completely unable to deal with German tactics. In attacking France the Wehrmacht advanced through the Belgian Ardennes, thought to be impassible to tanks, then concentrated their attacks on Sedan before advancing westwrds to the sea, cutting off the BEF and northern French forces from the main French army in the south. The invasion of the USSR was a short-term success but a long term failure for the reasons I have given: the Russians had both reserves of space and reserves of manpower which no other country had, and Blitzkrieg was never intended for 'long-haul' warfare. However, this should not deflect from the simple fact that by the autumn of 1941 the country was on its knees; and if it had not been for Zukhov and the Siberian divisions it may very well have gone under. The conquest of Norway was in fact far easier than might have been anticipated; and that of Greece was a 'walk-over', despite the British presence. Germany was immensley powerful in 1939; and few armies today would be willing to take on the range of tasks faced by the Wehrmacht between 1939 and 1941. As far as your assessments of the various countries is concerned you are partly wrong in both detail and interpretation. The neutral countries certainly hoped not to be attacked, but they were still fully mobilised. Austria strictly speaking only 'welcomed' the Germans after her government, diplomatically isolated, was forced to give way to Hitler's demands under threat of force. The Sudetenland was handed to the Germans by the 'international community', as you put it, but not the rest of the Czech territory. After Hitler occupied Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 the British extended a diplomatic guarantee to Poland, hoping to arrest further German expansion. Northern France should not be separated from Vichy France. The whole of France was defeated by the Germans. Poland was not 'attacked' by the Soviet Union until 17 September, by which time most of its army had been destroyed by the Germans. On paper the Yugoslavs had an impressive army, as did the Greeks. Both were destroyed in a matter of days. And as I have suggested above you may wish to look at the details of the Battle of Kiev to get some insight to German successes in the east. White Guard 00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Germans were clever in obtaining Austria and Czechoslovakia without fighting. They obtained the Skoda Arms works in Czechoslovakia along with soldiers from the surrendered countries, thereby multiplying their military capabilities. Much of their army was conscripts and volunteers from the conquered countries. The last SS soldiers defending Berlin were foreign. The beaches assaulted on D-Day were defended by non-German troops in some cases. Russia had as allies their brutal winter weather and the vast geography of the country, along with a philosophy that did not shirk at losing lives to hold ground as in Stalingrad. Hitler's maniacal "Victory or Deat-No Retreat" orders and his strategic brainstorms handicapped the professional generals of the Wehrmacht. The Russians could relocate factories to the far East out of reach of German bombers. At the same time, they were at peace with Japan (until the American A bombs came along)so they did not have to fight both Axis superpowers. If Hitler could have waited , say 5 years to launch the war, he would have had a navy to fight with Instead of pocket battleships and subs, he would have the carriers and battleships which were in the pipeline. But he might have also faced US atomic bombing. There were probably several reasons he felt he had to to go to war before the nation was fully prepared. I am sure he would have been brutal (like 19th century Europe was: read how Belgium treated the Congo) in using slave labor in former European colonies to ship raw materials to plants for war preparations.Edison 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure five years would be enough time to build a navy to challenge the USN. According to Kriegsmarine, he had only one full and five auxiliary carriers under construction. That was far less than the Japanese, and they got whupped. Clarityfiend 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

USN? DirkvdM 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, the Netherlands were barely mobilised (or is that just an excuse we are told here in the Netherlands?)and Denmark didn't have much of an army to speak of. And all those wannabe neutral countries in the North West are small countries (Norway has a small population). Still, the combination of these and all the other conquered countries adds up, I suppose. But the big fish were the UK (not conquered), Spain (neutral), Italy (ally), Turkey (neutral), France and especially the USSR. Concerning the USSR 'if only' and 'they came close' just don't count. They never consolidated what they conquered. And France surrendered when they were only halfway. Whether this was because of the enormous military blow the French recieved or the willingness to collaborate (or a combination, more likely) I don't know.

So, if I may add that up, the greatest military nazi achievements were diplomacy (of sorts - although that was nothing new), the speed at which Northern France was conquered (which was totally new) and the sum of all the other conquered countries (and holding them). Is that about right? DirkvdM 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Halfway with no Allied armies in the rest of France to speak off. And 'if only' and 'they came close' just don't count. Sure, Right.

The greatest military achievement of Nazi Germany was the new use of tanks and airplanes. The effective combination of everything: Infantry, Tanks (concentrated in their own Tank divisons), Artilary, and Air force. It changed the whole concept of war; as before (not always, but almost all the time) armies tried to engage each other and to "slug it out". With the arrival of the machinegun and massive artilary these tactics were completly outdated, but fiercely clung on by traditional old generals during WWI (of both sides). Despite some battles which showed their potential Tanks were mostly dispersed, and supported the Infantry.

It was the same in the Naval warfare: the arrival of the submarine undermined the value of the battleship, the old warhorse of the Sea.

Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel (who had studied the books written by British generals, and developed many aspects of the Blitzkrieg, always defending the potential of the Tank gainst the Old Guard) and other fine young Geman generals offered a complete novel way of fighting. Never engage a heavily entrenched army, attack the soft spot, break through the enemy lines, and surround them cutting their supply lines. They must surrender eventually because they will lack their vital supplies. They might counter-attack, but then they will have to leave their entrenchments, and will engage you on your chosen ground. Avoid hard Urban combat as Tanks will always be vulnerable to properly equipped Infantry. City = enormous Trench. Tanks no longer suported the Infantry, it was the other way around: Infantry supported the Tanks. All these tactics were tried and refined by German officers in the Spanish civil war. Hitler liked his new Generals and this whole concept; it was bold, effective, and quick. Initially the allies (with all their traditonal generals and their whole "these traditional tacticts which served us soo well in the WWI" attitude were easy opponents. But they did something which Hitler did not: They learned and adapted themselves quickly. (copying the Germans, but also developing their own tactics). In the end Hitler was too obsessed in conquering and entrenching his troops inside of cities like Stalingrad and Leningrad; these were not the tactics of the Blitzkrieg anymore. He also micromanaged way too many things (he was the only person who could send some Tank divisions to reinforce Rommel at the 1st day of Normandy, but he was sleeping and noone had the guts to wake him...the rest is history.) and didn't allowed his generals to follow their own plans. Eisenhower and Churhill were the opposite: they choose their generals and told them the big target but then they gave them a relativly loose leash.

Dirk, this was really a great achievement. You seem to be obsessed with the whole issue of territory and always return to the same conclusion: They could not hold large territories . What do you want? The Nazis lost the World War II! Of course they did't held their conquests. You are ignoring the massive opposition and most importantly: the shere speed of the conquests. A couple of weeks for the whole of France. You can't compare this with the conquest of Gaul by Ceasar (widely recognized as a military strategist of the highest caliber). Ceasar took years to achieve it. Flamarande 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Flamarande I too am perplexed by Dirk's continuing contention, which seems to be that Nazi Germany lost the war, so it 'could not have amounted to much'. The point is that large-scale wars of conquest have been generally unsuccessful throughout modern history, where they have involved nation states, unlike the ancient wars against tribal regions. Consider Napoleon: he too subdued much of Europe but he too ultimately failed. So should we conclude that Napoleon 'did not amount to much'? And as far as consolidation is concerned, where today is the Roman Empire? Quite frankly this whole line of argument is becoming absurd. White Guard 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All I was saying is that the notion I had most of my life that Germany conquered all of Europe (with some help from the Italians) was completely wrong. Compared to that, what they conquered isn't much, whic is not to say they didn't achieve anything. I just wanted to check if I got it straight about what they did achieve. I suppose I should have worded my remarks a little differntly. DirkvdM 07:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, another misconception I used to have is that the German defeat was largely due to Operation Overlord (and that that was a US thing). Only later did I learn that the eastern front was at least as important if not more important and only last week did I read that Operation Bagration was the biggest military campaign mankind has ever ammassed. I had never even heard of it! DirkvdM 07:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jean Stretchers

In the 1950's there was a tool used to place inside wet, laundered jeans that kept the jeans from stretching and formed a crease down the jeans leg as they dried on the form. Are these still available anywhere?

Googling "pants stretcher" provides many links like this. --hydnjo talk 15:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

World War One

Why was the "race for the sea" inconclusive in the First World War?

--Dabc 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Race to the Sea explains it pretty well. Neither side was able to outflank the other side and gain an offensive advantage. Hence, stalemate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Does anyone know what the balance of power was like at the time, on the western front? --Dabc 17:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance of power is a political term. By late 1914 the balance of forces was roughly equal, in terms of the number of divisions deployed-hence the stalemate. White Guard 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

law

Hi i am looking for information on supreme law in the united kingdom and i am having a bit of trouble with finding anything. I was just wondering whether you could give me some information on supreme law and whether the government is the supreme law maker? Thankyou very much and i hope to hear from you soon!!

That's an ENORMOUS question! For starters I'd check out the articles on the UK Constitution, Constitutional convention, and A.V. Dicey. That should give you a good start. Once you're done, feel free to come back and ask any more particular questions you may have. Loomis 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In Britain, Parliament is considered of ultimate sovereignty. It is the only body capable of enacting laws. Governments - made up of the largest party in terms of seats in Parliament - propose legislation, but it must be ratified by Parliament. There is no written British constitution which specifically lays this out, but the uncodified constitution is made up of convention, common & statute law and "works of authority." See the Constitution of the United Kingdom and Parliamentary sovereignty articles. This is a very complex topic, and I'd personally suggest a standard Government & Politics textbook like Coxall & Robbins "Contemporary British Politics," or "Politics UK" by Jones, Kavanagh, Moran & Norton. JF Mephisto 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not forgetting that there's no such thing as "United Kingdom law". There's English law (including Wales), Scots law, and Northern Ireland law. European Union law takes precedence over local laws, but normally has to be incorporated into local law (usually by means of Statutory Instruments) in order to take effect. Most laws are passed by the UK Parliament, but the Scottish Parliament can also pass laws, as indeed can the General Synod of the Church of England for church-related matters. From next year the Welsh National Assembly will be able to pass laws, subject to veto by the UK Parliament. -- Arwel (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I have to disagree with Mephisto on some of the subtleties of his/her take on UK Constitutional Law, this very topic was discussed just recently here on September 22, so I won't go over it all once again. Although I would suggest looking it over, it was an interesting discussion.

However, I feel that I must take issue with Arwel's comment that "there's no such thing as "United Kingdom law"". There certainly is! Though many powers have been or soon will be devolved to the Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the Parliament at Westminster in London is certainly more than a parliament for England alone. First off, it's made up of representatives from not only England, but from all of the UK. The Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish all send MPs to London. But more importantly, the UK Parliament routinely passes laws that affect all of the United Kingdom, not simply England. Laws that come to mind would be laws concerning British citizenship, laws involving British monetary and fiscal policy, laws concerning international affairs, etc... Yes, certain powers involving more local matters are being devolved unto the respective Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but the UK is still one sovereign unitary state, with only one "sovereign" Parliament, in London. Loomis 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What specifically is your disagreement with my take on the UK Constitution (I think it would be misleading to refer to "constitutional law", as the British constitution isn't made up simply of law but also convention and works of authority)? I think it's pretty pertinent, as the person above is requesting help and it would be advisable to make it as unmuddled as possible. "Contemporary British Politics: Third Edition," Coxall & Robbins, 1998, states that the main characteristics of the UK Constitution are unitary government (a state that despite some constituent country powers is fundamentally unitary and not federal) and parliamentary sovereignty (the idea that Parliament's powers are fundamentally unlimited and supreme). It states that the main sources of the uncodified constitution are common and statute law, convention, the law and custom of Parliament, works of authority and more recently European Union law. Are you in disagreement with the broad thrust of this description of the UK Constitution, and, if so, in what way? JF Mephisto 23:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My disagreement with you was very subtle compared to my disagreement with Arwell. By that I mean that I think that s/he was REALLY wrong, compared to some subtle disagreements I may have with you. I agree with everything you've said above, except the part that Common and Statute Law form part of the UK Constitution. There are basically three "levels" of law in any Constitutional Democracy: Constitutional Law, "Regular" Law, and Regulatory or Administrative Law. The third is irrelevant to this discussion so I'll ignore it. What we're left with is 1) Constitutional Law and 2) "Regular" (i.e. Statute and Common) Law.

My main point of disagreement is the characterization of "Constitutional law" as being derived from "Statute and Common Law". Rather, with regards to "Statute Law", UK "Constitutional Law" is that very "Over-Arching" principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. After all, what is it that gives those buildings at Westminster permission to pass Statutory Law? In the US, Article I of the Constitution grants that law unto Congress. Likewise, in the UK, that law is "granted" by the unwritten law of the UK Constitution. In other words, while I see ordinary "Statute Law" as "Regular Law", that over-arching principle that gives Parliament its sovereign authority to pass such law in the first place is what I'd call "Constitutional Law".

Likewise, I can't see UK Constitutional Law as being derived in any way from "Common Law". Rather, with regards to "Common Law" there is that "Over-Arching" principle of Stare Decisis. After all, what is it that compels the courts to pay any respect at all to precedent? I'd say that Stare Decisis is a major component of UK Constitutional Law. The Common Law, on the other hand, like Statute Law, is, to me, subordinate to that "Over-Arching" Constitutional principle of Stare Decisis.

In sum, the way I'd put it is that UK Constitutional Law is composed (amongst other things) of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Stare Decisis. These are the "Over-Arching", "Unwritten" principles of UK Constitutional Law. Statute and Common Law are merely the "regular" law that is permitted by the Supreme, Constitutional Law of the UK. Loomis 01:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, just throwing it in, but there's also all this.Hornplease 10:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is neopaganism really a religion?

I wonder if so-called neopagans really ascribe to a religion per se or just take part in ancient rituals (or what they believe are ancient rituals) because they think they are cool. I mean, do they really believe in the existence of Odin, or whatever, the same way Christians believe (or are supposed to believe) in God and Jesus or Zoroastrians believe in Ahura Mazda? -- Mwalcoff 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought believing in the efficacy of those rituals means it counts as religion, in the generally accepted use of the term. Most definitions of religion are quite broad.--Shantavira 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do all Christians believe in god the same way? Do some of them think of an old man with a beard, do others think in more general terms, "god is love"? I think it would depend on the pagan. Everyone has different beliefs. Nowimnthing 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Some neopagans probably do just think it is cool, certainly half the Goths wearing pentagrams just see it as a fashion accessory, the same as those who wear crosses and crucifixes. On the other hand some definitely do believe in it as a religion. God calls to many people in different ways. David Frawley has an interesting section on neopagans in his book "How I became a Hindu". -- Chris Q 07:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban of veil in UK Jack Straw's remarks about the veil

Why is so much row created on the ban of veils in Britain? It is against the practice of religious freedom. It clearly goes against the principles of Democracy. The females from the west are allowed to bare all in the sun in places like Dubai & Middle East, they are allowed even to wear skirts in workplaces. There is racism in the west against the browns & blacks. Is it double standards?? Whats the purpose behind lobbying against the use of veil? [kj_venus]

Veils are not barred in the United Kingdom. I don't know where you got that impression from. A Cabinet minister, Jack Straw, simply stated that he did not like women wearing the full face veil in his constituency office, and that he thought that the full face veil was a visible sign of seperation and not helpful towards harmonious commnunity relations. Other members of the Cabinet, such as John Prescott, disagreed. Furthermore, requesting the removal of a face veil is not racism - the portion of the Muslim community that wear the full face veil do not constitute a race (and most British Muslims do not wear full face veils). The purpose of opposing the use of a full face veil is because it is considered necessary in most cultures to see the facial expressions of the person one is talking to, and to oppose visible signs of seperation. JF Mephisto 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is considered necessary in most cultures to see the facial expressions of the person one is talking to, and to oppose visible signs of seperation is obvious.Places like Dubai & others are progressing and accepting the western culture and insane ways of life. The tolerance is there for every culture to sustain. The same thing is not followed in the west. There is abuse of freedom in the west. Many students from the arab world & east face diifficulties in european universties including racist remarks. While the east tolerates all acts of sexual freedom & vulgarity of the west. There is no mutual reciprocity in that respect.[kj_venus]

I think Jack Straw's statement is unfortunate, because some people will assume that his opinion somehow represents official policy - as in the original title of this item. Nobody has said whether Muslim women are allowed to wear the veil - one minister has said that he prefers that people who come to consult him do not hide their faces.

I think your comments about 'reciprocity' are misguided. Everywhere, some people mistruct and mistreat strangers, some people do not tolerate strangers' ways, and some strangers are not willing to respect local sensibilities.

Please sign your postings with ~~~~.--ColinFine 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the veil is that it makes identification impossible. For example, there have been cases in the US where these women wanted their driver's license (the primary form of identification in the US) photos to be taken wearing a veil, which would make it absolutely useless for identification. To accept this would mean to give up on being able to identify anyone, which would cause a massive security hole. Male terrorists have been known to dress as veiled women to bypass security. StuRat 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Check your facts, [kj_venus], "females from the west" have to cover their hair in many Moslem countries, let alone "baring all" sunbathing. Perhaps you refer to what goes on behind a wall in a Western enclave? Moslems are allowed to build mosques in the west, but Christian churches are forbidden in many moslem countries. No reciprocity asa Pope Benedicat has demanded.Edison 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

plodweaver

Question moved to language desk

Question about the movie Bend it like Beckham

Does anybody know what neighbourhood of London the movie took place in? Anchoress 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if anybody knows how to fix titles and redirects, the BiLB entries on WP are totally f****d up. Anchoress 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hounslow, I believe. Natgoo 22:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Woo Hoo, thank you! Anchoress 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice movie, by the way. DirkvdM 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about Germany

·I know that Hitler,Goebels,Himmler,Romel,Gering and other killed them selves.My question is:What is the highest Nazi offical that didnt commit suicide?I doubt that it was Albert Speer,because he was just a minister,but it might be him?

Thank you very much

My best guess would be Adolph Eichmann. Also, quite a few were executed at Nuremberg, so among those may be someone who outranked Eichmann, but I doubt it. Loomis 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would go with Wilhelm Canaris. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both very much.Eichmann was in the rank of Colonel and Canaris was Admiral,so it was probably Canaris.

I dont want to be boring,but just another question,because it seems like you know quite a lot about this subject:So if we take out those who commited suicide and those who got killed(like Eichmann,Ribentrop,Canaris...) who was the highest official that died in a natural way? (I believe that there were many,but I wonder who was the highest...I thought it was Hess,but he killed him self in the prison,so it wasnt him.)

Don't worry about being boring, these are important questions. By highest Nazi official I assumed you meant most prominent. Of course an admiral outranks a colonel, but I was going with most prominent and influential over highest ranking (I'm embarrassed to even say it by I've never even heard of Canaris). As for the next question, I'd say Josef Mengele, who drowned accidentally in 1979. He's certainly, once again, the most "prominent" Nazi (though I'm not sure of his actual "rank") to die in a (somewhat) natural way (neither homicide nor suicide). Loomis 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Karl Donitz was officially president of Germany at the time of the Nazi surrender; he served 10 years in prison and died in 1980. Rudolf Hess was number 2 in the Nazi party before fleeing to England; he died in prison in 1987. Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged in 1946, as were Alfred Rosenberg and Julius Streicher. Hans Lammers, Hitler's chief of staff, died in 1962. Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, Nazi chiefs in Poland and Bohemia & Moravia, respectively, were hanged. So-called Justice Minister Franz Schlegelberger lived until 1970. Economics Minister Walther Funk lived until 1960. -- Mwalcoff 21:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Great,thats about it.As for Mengele,he died in kind of natural way,but not quite.Hess would be number one choice,but he commited suicide in 1987(or he was killed,as his family claims). But,anyway,it surely is Karl Dönitz,I cant believe that I forgot him as a leader,thats probably because he wasnt so prominent as others mentioned,but it was surely him.

So having listed almost all top Nazis,it seems like none of them escaped one or another form of punishment(being killed,suicide,prison sentence,or strange deaths like Mengele and Hess).

Correct me if Im wrong,but it seems like thats the case??

Anyway,once again,thank you very much,searching for all of this would take me days,so thanks to everyone.

Doenitz wasn't a Nazi, and many of the other military officials might not have been either. They just happened to be in the military while the Nazis were in power (although of course they must have supported them, otherwise they wouldn't have remained so long, but Doenitz was never a party member). Adam Bishop 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'd say it was a pleasure, but that would sound kind of weird.:) Still, it's a fascinating topic and a great question to ask.

I'd just like to add a comment though. To me, Hitler's suicide (and the suicides of all the rest) were the furthest thing from the punishment they deserved. To me, I see Hitler's suicide as one of the gravest of injustices. Unlike Eichmann, who got what he deserved, (that being seeing scores of Holocaust survivors recount his attrocities in front of his face, and in front of the world,) Hitler never faced that sort of justice. He never faced the shame of the world. He died at a time and in a method of his own choosing, without ever having to face his accusers. To me, that's one of the worst injustices of WWII. Loomis 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't justice but to call injustice? I see Hitler's suicide as a proof of his utter cowardice and irresponsability (of not having the balls of facing the consequences of his orders and actions). Flamarande 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A good reason not to join the army. You can never know what idiot you might have to serve. DirkvdM 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As if in real wartime you have any reasonable choice, but to join the army. It is called a draft you know? Flamarande 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you live in a country that might do that, you might think about emigrating. Ok, not usuallly a reasonable ooption. :) DirkvdM 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hitler should have been subjected to an incredibly long and boring trial like Saddam's. Edison 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Saddams' trial in which two of his laywers were murdered, the first judge resigned, and the second judge was removed by the "American puppets" because he was "too nice" to the accused? The Nuremberg trials were more or less fair, but Saddam's trial is a bloody nightmare. Flamarande 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Saddams trial is a poor excuse for USA to get him killed(or as they call it "executed",like its not the same thing).No wonder that death penatly still exsits only in USA,China,Muslim countries and Lukashenkos Belorus.Another pathetic excuse for a trial was Milosevic trial,which ended in his death after four years of trial,as a result of Hagues refuse to let him get the medical care.Another example is Vojisav Seselj,who is at Hague tribunal for more then 3 and a half years,but the trail didnt started just yet!?!

If I could make a comment about Mengele - he has become very well-known outside of Germany, but he was in no way AT ALL a prominent or important Nazi. He was just one camp doctor out of hundreds. He was also only one of hundreds of thousands of men and women who actively and willingly contributed to the Nazi killing and torture machine.

I think this is important to say because so many of us forget (or have never been taught) that hundreds of thousands of people actively and willingly worked to create the horrors of the Holocaust. It's nice to think that only a few like Mengele were really 'bad people', but in reality Mengele's cruelty and evil were not unusual. There were hundreds of camps - hundreds. Each had on average a dozen or more doctors. Each doctor had assistants. Each camp had hundreds of guards. They were almost ALL were as cruel as Mengele in their own way. Anybody who wasn't cruel was sent to do other work, plain and simple.

We know so much about Mengele not because he did things that other doctors didn't or because he was more cruel than the others; we know about him because he worked at Auschwitz. Auschwitz was an enormous work camp, and many of its inmates survived to tell their stories. The same (or equally cruel) horrors went on at Sobibor, Mathausen, Chelmno, and a hundred other camps, but few if any victims from those camps survived to testify.

Mengele was evil and deserved to be convicted, but he wasn't an extremely unusual exception to the rule. Thinking that he was unusually cruel might make people feel better about the human condition, but it isn't fair to the victims of the other torturers and killers. There were myriads of men and women who acted as cruelly as he did. Charlene.fic 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A good point. but also note that this is not specifically a German treat. If you look at what happened then from our world it looks incrdible, but if people grow up in a surrounding that considers certain things acceptable then they will find that normal and will in turn find worse things acceptable, which others will interprete as that being normal, so they will start finding even worse things aceptable, etc, in a potentially never ending downward spiral. The atrocities of nazi germany didn't come falling vrom the sky. It developed over decades, with the humiliation of WWI being probably the biggest incentive. But the big lesson is that this can happen anywhere anytime. And some of it is happening right now, with human rights being officially abolished. Bit by bit. Step by step. Give Bush cum sui enough time and you'll be surprised at what we will find acceptable or even normal 30 years from now. DirkvdM 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I never studied the issue (concentration camps and the anhilation of the Jews during WWII) to a very high degree, but I think I know the basics of it. You write that there were hundreds of camps, yet in the Wiki-article List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany they are only 47 (I know that even 1 was 1 too many). Could you please explain me this big diffrence? Where you exagerating? Is the list lacking any camp? Do you want to correct your statement? Flamarande 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes,just look at Guatanamo and the torture of Iraqi and Afganistani people.But,to be honest,it is a German treat,because if you look at the World War I,you will find that Germany also did the worst crimes in it,to.So many thousands civilians got killed just because they were not German.Now its usualy to say it was Hasburg Monarhy,while in fact,all the crimes were commited by Germans...Same Germans that upgraded their cruelty (mixed with the revange for the 1918 defeat) 20 years later.

Of course, we all know that the Germans are by nature cruel, inhuman, and absolutly war-like. The Germans are different from everbody else. The Germans are guilty of starting WWI and they were the only ones who commited serious warcrimes during that war, also. Are you for real or something? All the main protagonists of WWI are guilty of starting it and commited Warcrimes. Both sides used Gas during WWI. At end as Germany had quit the fighting and was negotiating the terms of its defeat the Allies kept their Naval blockade while the German ppl was starving. Isn't that also a Warcrime? The rise of Hitler was immensly facilitated by the harsh terms of the treaty of Versallies and shows us "how do we prepare the next war".

How about the millions that were killed by order of Stalin in the Great Purge? The Armenian Genocide ordered by the Turkish goverment, the Belgian atrocities in the Congo Free State, the millions that were killed in the The Killing Fields by Khmer Rouge by order of Pol Pot, Japanese Warcrimes during WWII like the Rape of Nanking, the Indians which were slaughtered by the American troops at the Wounded Knee Massacre? The recent Rwandan Genocide? Everyone of us is capable of participating in a Warcrime (of every nation, in all armies, from any culture, and following any religion whatsoever); it only depends on the right circumstances, and most importantly, on our leaders. Flamarande 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)PS: please, SIGN YOUR STATEMENTS

Whatever,all I know is about Germans and my country...They killed more then 500.000. civilians(incuding only woman and children,not man),just in my country 1914-1918.

Off course they started World War I when they attacked my country.They were pretty bad warriors though,since they lost on Kolubara,Cer and Suvobor and their General Oskar Potjorek got expeled from the Army.So they lost couple of battle from such a tiny country as mine. But in 1915,they came back,this time with Bulgarians and they won.Since our army was forced to flee to Greece,there was no one defending civilians...They hanged,burned and butchedred more then 500.000. just in 1915-1918 time.

Now dont get me started on WW2,when they killed more then 7000 school boys in Kragujevac,IN JUST ONE DAY,as a revange for the killing of 35 Germans.German Army alone cleaned my country of Jews.Before WW2 there was about 50.000. Jews here.After it there was no more then 1000.Not to mention great WW2 concentration camps like BANJICA,JAJCI and so on and so on...

Talking about the 1999. agression and more then 1000. civilians killed,off course Germany was part of that,to.Who can explain this to the parents of 3 year old Milica Rakic,that was killed in her home while being in a bathroom? Who can explain to them that it is not a war crime?

There is not a single country that did so many war crimes during last 100 years as Germany.

XXXXXXX 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Look I won't start a fight over "which is the more evil nation in the last 100 years". Hitler with his Nazi regime and the German ppl under their command was without a doubt the most shameful chapter of Human history. But what you are forgetting is the same combination with another country whatsoever would produce similar results. Somebody like Hitler + a fanatical party + a desperate country = a big nightmare. Like Serbia (your comments seem to indicate that you are a Serb, but we can dig in the history of any nation whatsoever. You only have to dig deep enough) do you really want to start a discussion about Serbian Warcrimes? Begin with the Chetniks, then carry on to the the more recent (1990's) Serbian concentration camps and Serbian Gang rapes of female prisoners? How about the Srebrenica Massacre or the Battle of Vukovar? I certainly won't open this Pandora's box, it's not that I am personaly guilty of anything, but I am simply way too wise to fall in that obvious trap. Every nation is guilty of something. Flamarande 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Chetniks?? Are you kidding me?? Harry Truman,president of USA awarded Draza Mihalovic,the Cetniks leader the golden cross in 1948...TIME magazine had CHETNIKS on their first page as the FIRST EUROPE FREEDOM FIGHTERS...Hollywood movie from 1942. called CHETNIKS was about the fight of Chetniks against Germans and Communists...Cetniks never commited no crimes,and they were not even accused of doing so(except for Communist false charges)...My Grandfather was a Chetnik,and Im extremly proud of it,we are going to the RAVNA GORA every May 13. to comemorate the first uprising in Europe against Germans(13.May 1941)...There are over 100.000. people on it every year,celebrating Chetnik values...Not to mention that Serbian officials are comemorating it to...You can only be jelaous because no other country ever had such a brave and upstanding soldiers like Chetniks were.

Never commited any warcrimes? Never ever? How about the Bleiburg massacre (something I found in 1 min)? Ask you grand-father what he really did if he caught an unarmed and/or surrendering Ustasha or German. Did he give him a fair trail perchance? Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Battle of Vukovar,how can you even list that as a war crime,40 officiers were killed,thats the whole crime,everyone else died in the battle...You can only say that you wish we didnt win,but thats it,we win and now we are considered guilty for it?!?

"We"? Did I say that? Unlike too many ppl I believe that only the ppl responsable for a crime (those who gave the orders) should be prosecuted in a fair trail in a proper court of law and only if found guilty punished in accordance of their crime. BTW, I didn't write any of these articles. And you don't like if someone uses Vulovar against the Serbs but you find it fair to blame the "modern" Germans for WWII, a war which just ended in 1945! Nothing is forgotten, and nothing is ever forgiven, and we must blame the children for the crimes of the parents,hey? Actually I believe that we should remeber the crimes but not use them against ppl who didn't commit them (and most of Germans today were born after WWII). Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Srebrenica,there are no excuses,but thats the only time in history that crimes were commited by someone from my country(but when you talk about Srebrenica,you should forget this:KRAVICE;BRATUNAC;MULJARE and other villages whose people were burned down...more then 2500 people died in the Christamas Day 1992. killed by Muslim forces...Srebrenica was a revenge for 4 years of torture and killings done by Muslims)

The only time? Right, do you really want me to search for more articles? BTW: If the someone rapes my sister it is somehow allright if I rape his sister in return? An eye for an eye and all that? Is that true Justice? Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing,from 8000 people killed in Srebrenica,NONE were woman,NONE were kids below the age of 16(and those are Hague War Crimes Tribunal numbers...)

So if someone is a male civilian over 16 he is a valid military target? Are you male? How old are you? (don't answer these questions, they are rethorical and I only made them to show that following that logic you (or your nearest male relative) would have been killed. Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So,how can you even compare that,to what Germans have done...Germans bombed my city 3 times in last century: 1915,1941 and 1999...Every time they killd bunch of civilians...Not to mention all the other crimes in WWI and WWII(and Im talking just about in my country commited by Germans)...How can you even compare that,to Srebrenica,which was a few days event(and like I said A REVENGE,not that it is a good excuse,but its explanation....1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1999...for all those years of German crime,there is no excuse or no possible explanation...Only that its just the way they do it...German way)

 XXXXXXX 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA you know so little that it is funnny....BLEIBURG WAS A CRIME COMMITED BY COMMUNIST CROATS ON USTASHA CROATS....Theres no mentioning of Serbs there,how can there be,WHEN MORE THEN 700.000. SERBS CIVILIANS DIED IN JASENOVAC(the biggest concentration camp in Balkans ever).

As for other issues,Im not into arguing,Im just stating that fact that "modern germany"(as you called it) is resposable for the 1999. war crimes,even thought it was Shreder who made those moves.

And your question hehe ,i can ask my grandfather if it will make you happy,but I dont see your point,do you want to say that he would have been wrong if he killed the captured German????????????????????(Mind you,Chetniks were operating strictly in their own homeland)How it is wrong to kill someone who came to you country and is killing your people every day??? How is it wrong,THEY CAME HERE,SO HOW IS IT WRONG TO KILL THEM WHEN THEY ARE AGRESSIORS....Even when they are captured XXXXXXX 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And the Germans have kept their nose clean since 1945 (despite your innuendo of 1990's - I honestly don't know what you are talking about. The bombings of Nato? It was a legal military action in order to stop the local war, and as in all wars the innocents are sometimes killed - simply stating a fact). I am not excusing the Germans and blaming somebody (e.g. the Serbs) else here. I am just saying that every nations military have commited Warcrimes at some point. War is Hell! Soldiers and officers will be exposed to extremely severe circumstances (like seing your comrades blown to bits in front of your eyes, or finding a fellow soldier's tortured and mutilated corpse left by the enemy). You will slowly be brutalized and in order to cope and to survive you will adapt yourself. You will turn into a hardened killer and if you are not restrained by your officers you will avenge yourself and your comrades on the nearest "enemy" civilian population (and God helps them if the officers order it). In all wars civilians have been caught by explosions, murdered, raped, and tortured. We can and we must understand how this happens in order to prevent as far as possible and not cry out: "The other guys are all a bunch of violent warcriminals. My own ppl is completly innocent off all charges. We NEVER ever hurt an innocent.". We must establish laws preventing this and enforce them as best as possible (especialy our own side) so that hopefully at next time (in the next war) the soldiers and their officers think twice. Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you,but one thing you said is off the mark: Nato agression wasnt "legal military action",because it wasnt aproved by the Security Councel of UN(because Russia was against it). So,it wasnt just a bombing,it was an AGRESSION...It wasnt ment to stop the "local war",because it cant be a local war when it is happening in just one country...It was ment to help the Albanian terrorist to get independence of Kosovo...Nato and Al Qaida really did helped them a lot on their way...

So,you cant possibly say that Germans "kept their nose clean",because not in thousend years will 1999. agression be forgotten.By supporting Muslim terrorists on Kosovo(which is part of Serbia),and by bombing INNOCENT CHILDREN("every war has civilians dying" hahaha TELL THAT TO THE PARENTS OF 3 YEARS OLD MILICA RAKIC THAT GERMAN BOMBS KILLED IN HER HOUSE),so by doing that,Germany bombed my City and my Country for the third time in just one century,without declaring a war(similiar like in 1941). No other country did so much wrong to us and killed so many of us like Germany.

But as for other thing you said,as for preventing monsters like Franz Josif,Hitler,Shreder or Clinton to come to power ever again,I agree.

"We must establish laws preventing this and enforce them as best as possible (especialy our own side) so that hopefully at next time (in the next war) the soldiers and their officers think twice."

XXXXXXX 09:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone recently likened Bush to Hitler, which I believe was a grotesque analogy. But that whole argument was cleared up, and I bear no ill will. Now I'm no Democrat (capital "D"), and obviously no big fan of Clinton, but to mention his name in the same breath as Hitler is equally grotesque. Mentioning the phrase "monsters like Franz Josif, Hitler, Shreder or Clinton" is equally deplorable to equating Bush with Hitler. Though I may disagree with his politics, and though I believe he possesses some serious character flaws, Clinton is ultimately a good man, with only, ultimately, the best of intentions. To equate him in any way to Hitler is disgusting. Yes, innocent civilians were killed in Serbia, and now Iraq. Yet neither Clinton in Serbia, nor Bush in Iraq actually wished the death of any innocent civilian. Hitler not only wished the death of innocent civilians, but meticulously ARRANGED FOR IT. Equating Clinton with Hitler is equally deplorable to equating Bush with Hitler. Though I expect, nay, DEMAND an apology for that remark, I doubt I'll get one. Loomis 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will apologise when I hear you apologising for Nato agression,for over 2000 dead civilians,for over 80 dead kids,for 78 days and nights of bombing of innocent people,for THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND(300.000) Serbs that were forced to live Kosovo since Nato Bombing in 1999.,for over 2000 Serb churches burned since 1999. on Kosovo(Let me just mention that some of those churches are as old as 1000 years...Long before USA,UK or Germany as we know it even existed)....When you apologise for that I will apologise for what I said...

One more thing,I dont know where you got that about Bush.I HAVE NEVER SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT,how can you possibly compare Bush to Clinton???? Clinton was helping Muslim terrorists,he was(alongside Shreder) their biggest helper in Kosovo,he supported their crimes over innocent people,he supported their fight for independence(Independence of Kosovo,which was a serbian land since the beggining of time)!!! I wonder why he didnt support Chechenia Muslim terrorists...Because it was Russia,not Serbia huh....He supported people that made more then 300.000. Serbs leave Kosovo,terrorist animals that burned down more then 2000 churches...

On the other side,Bush is fighting the terrorism...While Clinton and Al Qaida were fighting side by side in Kosovo,Bush is doing everything he can to stop the Muslim beastes all over the world.You cant compare Clinton who bombed EUROPIAN CHRISTIAN country to support muslim terrorists,with Bush who is doing everything he can to stop them(same terrorists that Clintons administration supported so much). If it was up to Clinton,if he was still in office,Kosovo would have been independent already,and Saddam and Talibans would have been in power to this day....

XXXXXXX 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Help linking an article

Today I found the article about the Kanawha County textbook controversy. It's quite interesting, but I'm disappointed to see that it isn't really mentioned in any other article (see its What links here). Which articles could this be mentioned in, or at least listed under "See also"? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

About great tragedies(in both war and peace)

After getting such a great resposes to the other question,i got another one,because I was thinking about this for some time:

Is the Hiroshima bombing the event that took most human lives at the time?My english isnt the best,so I apologise for that,but I think you understand me:Was there any other event that killed more people(I mean in the whole world history,not just WW2).

Thank you

Are you limiting to events that took place in one instant or events that could have taken many years, suich as Black Death? --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well,I was aiming on events that took place in one day(not neceserly one instant,for example 9/11 attacks would be the example,but it happend in one day time).

That's a hard question to answer as I'm not sure. While an estimated 80,000 Japanese died instantly in Hiroshima, I wouldn't at all be surprised if there was a particular day during WWII where more than that were killed, whether they were executed at concentration camps or killed on the battlefield. Remember that 50 million died in WWII. A vast majority of those towards the end.

I'm not an expert on the subject but I believe that in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more people actually died after the fact from radiation and what not. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you never mentioned natural catastrophes. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake killed approximately 230,000. Though I'm not sure what portion of that were killed on the actual day of the Tsunami. Loomis 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of them. StuRat 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure Stu? I was figuring that a good portion of the deaths were due to the inevitable diseases that spread in the water supply due to decaying corpses etc. (Sorry to be so gruesome). Loomis 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

no they weren't. Diseases were kept well in check by a massive international response. Rmhermen 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More people died in the one-day conventional firebombing of Tokyo in World War II than died at Hiroshima. Rmhermen 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Death toll article also lists the Sack of Baghdad in 1258 with over 90,000 casualties in one day. Rmhermen 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

830,000 died in the Shaanxi earthquake of 1556. Most probably died on the day of the quake. Nobody's quite sure how many people died in the 1976 Tangshan earthquake; I've seen estimates that top one million, all on the same day, but the official toll is just over 240,000. Charlene.fic 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Flaming and regular

In my marching band here are many people who help us with our steps and technique etc. The two men who help with the color guard are homosexual. One of them is really "flaming" i.e. he says stuff like "girlfriend" and likes to snap his fingers a lot. The other man, however, you wouldn't think about it twice if you met him. He acts just like any other man out there. I was wondering why some homosexual men are "regular" and others are really open about their sexual preference. schyler 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a person is 'flaming' often has very little to do with their sexual preference. Some gay guys, and some straight guys like to act in a very camp manner. Others, both gay and straight, do not. You may want to read Metrosexual for information on the way many men act. --Mnemeson 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not prefer to sleep with men or women, 'regular' is subjective; it is only YOUR opinion that you define what is 'regular' and what is not, and he is not a Flamer; it is in YOUR EYES that you see him as a flamer.100110100 01:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really. "Regular" isn't really subjective; it means "conforming to a standard or pattern"[4], and surely you'd agree that people who act in a "flaming" manner do not "conform to the standard" behavior pattern for a male in our society. I think that "regular" is an accurate, if somewhat potentially offensive, way to describe non-"flaming" people. -Elmer Clark 05:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ja, really. 'Regular' is what you've been socialized to think; everyone has been socialized differently. Also, and especially, some cultures do not see see don't see that behavior as flaming, as irregular, if they even have the term. It is VERY offensive. Please shut up, to put it bluntly. Just do it.100110100 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to bite! What if this is a high school student, or someone with English as a second language? In any case it sounds like they don't know very many gay people closely, so I wouldn't blame them for being a little insensitive with terminology. It seemed like an innocent question to me. --Grace 09:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I realize it's offensive, but only because of social stigma against being considered "abnormal," not because it's untrue - very few people, I would imagine, have more experience with "flaming" (there must be a better word for this) people than with "non-flaming," so much so as to make it seem like the "general pattern" for people in society. It really confuses me that "abnormality" has become such an undesirable trait... -Elmer Clark 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It might help you to think of it as a personality difference. You probably know some people who are quiet and shy and others who are outgoing and friendly - these are all normal variations in personality, and most people, shy or outgoing, would probably say that they can't control the way they behave. Likewise, some gay men behave the way you describe, and others don't, just because they're different people. It's an individual thing - homosexuality isn't like a disease, where everyone with the same disease will have the same symptoms. --Grace 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a disease.100110100 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. "Homosexuality isn't like a disease": ie. it is not a disease. --Grace 09:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your ANSWER Grace, about it being a personality trait. That makes sense. On another note, if you aren't going to even try and answer the qustion, don't even press the edit button. schyler 14:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

October 9

Are There Any Wikipedia Articles That Discuss The Mistranlastion Of Homosexuality In The Bible?

Danke schön.100110100 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your question. "Homosexuality" is never actually mentioned in the Bible per se. All that is discussed is "a man laying with a man as with a woman" being an "abomination". As to what that means, your guess is as good as mine. Loomis 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When you asked this on the Miscellaneous desk earlier, you were pointed towards The Bible and homosexuality, I'm sure if we have any more they'll be linked to from there. --Mnemeson 01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying "mistranslation" would probably be labeled as POV or OR. Obviously, God is against the behaviour, not the person. God would not condemn someone for something that they could not change. BenC7 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, if the word "homosexuality" appears in any Bible, it's a mistranslation, as there is no such word in the original texts. - Outerlimits 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some (not myself, but some, mostly those opposed to homosexuality) would say that sexual orientation is something a person can change, although this seems to go against most of the scientific inquiry into the subject as well as many individual non-heterosexuals' accounts (especially those who have had others try to change their orientation). CameoAppearance ^orate 07:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When will they ever learn? Forcing "normality" on people didn't work with left-handers. If they believe it's just a question of choice, have they ever wondered why people throughout history would choose to be subject to vilification, discrimination, violence and even murder, if it were in their power to choose something safer? Could a straight person choose to be gay? Could a straight man choose from tomorrow onwards to get involuntary erections at the sight of other men's naked bodies, when previously they had no such effect? Hardly. Why would it be any different the other way around? JackofOz 07:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Jack. But nice to see some spirit in you! In any case, it's quite known according to the Bible that King David "lay with another man". It's also quite known that Onan, son of Judah, was killed by God on the spot for "spilling his seed". Many interpret that as meaning that masturbation is a sin, punishable by instant death from God. Well, let me just say, if that were true, none of us, including Ben, (I like you Ben, but be honest with yourself!) would be alive today to have this discussion! That's not to say I'm not a religious person who takes the Bible seriously, and who fears God. It's just to say that I, just like anyone else, am mystified by certain of its otherwise "apparent" meanings. Loomis 09:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to mistranslate the words. It's also fairly hard to change their interpretation, but that won't stop anyone trying. It's not particularly clear from the Bible that King David "lay with another man". What's debated is whether the description of his love for Jonathan exceeding the love between a man a woman means that they had a gay relationship or not. Onan was not punished for spilling his seed. If you read the text (Gen 38:8 and 9), you can see he's punished for the reason why he spilled his seed. I've never heard any preacher of any religion claim that masturbation is a sin "punishable by instant death from God", but I'm sure there's some right-winger out there that could fulfil this shortcoming. --Dweller 09:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the story of Onan has been used regularly as a "Biblical" prohibition on masturbation. That other interpretations differ is irrelevant; all that matters is that the Bible provide the raw material from which justification for one's own beliefs can be fashioned. It has ever been thus. - Outerlimits 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All I know about Onan is that was the name of Dorothy Parker's pet bird. She called him that because he had a habit of spilling his seed. JackofOz 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the best thing I've heard today! To the original poster, I believe godlovesfags.com used to be a good resource for this sort of thing - theories about whether the Bible really condemns homosexuality or not. Ah, here we go: this might be what you're looking for. I have to admit, though, as far as I'm concerned it's all a bit like arguing over how many reindeer Santa has. :) --Grace 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Santa has exactly 9 reindeer. The Bible says so! And they can all dance on top of a pin. - Outerlimits 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

About BenC7's "Obviously, God is against the behaviour". No one owns God's agenda. You may infer, from someone's acts and fate, that it was punishable : it is your opinion.

As we say Gnu's not Unix, whe could say God only does. When we see someone doing something, he does it in the hands of God. As we say that God's name is ineffable, God's thoughts are unthinkable. -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all of this is beside the point. The question is about mistranslation in the Bible. My first observation is that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Strictly speaking, there is no translation in the Bible at all. ;-)

Now, what our questioner probably means is that he or she believes that some English version of the Bible uses the word "homosexual" and that this is a mistranslation of the original. (correct me if that is not the question.)

The word is used by the following translations in 1 Cor. 6:9 -- Contempory English Version, English Standard, Good News Translation, God's Word, International Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard Version, New International Version, New King James Bible, the Living Bible and the New Living Bible. In 1 Timothy 1:10, Contempory English Version, English Standard, God's Word, International Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, the Living Bible and the New Living Bible use it. God's Word also uses it in Jude 7.

The next question, then, is: Do these translations mistranslate the passages? In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, The greek words come from the root = ἀρσενοκοῖτ-. The definition of the word in Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker's lexicon is "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3rd ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 135.) This translation, then is correct in substance. (although "male homosexuality") would be a better translation. The Jude passage is more generally immorality.

Since the term is correctly translated, then, no article is likely to address the mistranslation, since there is none. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think "pederast" and "homosexual" are synonyms, perhaps your opinions about mistranslation are best ignored. "ἀρσενοκοίτης" means "malefucker". What that might mean in terms used today is ambiguous. But it's certainly not precisely identical with "homosexual", either. - Outerlimits 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, to those who might not know, the fairly clear implication of "homosexual" is that

the person has clear romantic feelings for people of the same sex. Note that the clear distinctions between homosexuals and heterosexuals did not exist in ancient Rome; people would lie with men and women, regardless of their own sex -- it was not considered taboo. The only major limit was perhaps in regards to having sex with children, which was considered immoral.

The point here is that translators are virtually unanimous in translating the word as homosexual, the lexica support the translation and so to claim a mistranslation here is simply to be out of the mainstream of scholarship. In Wikipedia terms, it is a minor POV to charge all these translators with mistranslation. You cannot change that by simply disparging that opinion or mine.

How do they come to choose what seems a more generic term? Whether it is to your tastes or not, English translations tend to proceed euphemistically (as when Paul opposes the circumcision party, and he says they might as well finish the job and cut it off completely, the translators do no get as graphic as the New Testament Greek does). Also, until very recent times, homosexuality was defined by Christian Churches as sexual relations between persons of the same sex. In this case, it is clear that 1 Corinithians and 1 Timothy condemn the Graeco-Roman practice of sexual relations between men. Thus the translation. You are free to choose how you wish to label it, but there is little ambiguity here. Paul claims that God forbids homosexual relations in the same breath as he condemns heterosexual relations outside of marriage. That is all I am trying to say. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence we have the distinction; at that time in particular, when a man lay with another man, it was not part of a romantic relationship: it was for the experience of being with another man. Inasmuch as the passage about Onan can be looked, then, in both ways, so can this: one could argue, then, that the Bible says nothing against homosexual marriage -- the teachings of Jesus could imply that such freedom may be reasonable (because he would have probably treated them in much the same way as he treated the tax collectors and prostitute)s; it wouldn't be a matter of "free love" that it was back then. I don't know for certain just how much everyone is clear on this fact -- you all might be, but sometimes I don't get that same feeling from hearing the "general public" or some politicians. E Liquere 03:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The old Testament sources (in Hebrew) that refer to this subject prohibit as "abomination" homosexual intercourse, not homosexuality or gay love. As with Onan, the translation of the words is unambiguous. --Dweller 07:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never said that the "common" interpretation of the story of Onan was the correct one. In fact, from my studies, what I believe, (and after all, it's all a matter of opinion,) is that God killed Onan not for "masturbating", as he wasn't "masturbating" at all! What he was doing was practicing what we would call coitus interruptus; that is, he "withdrew" before ejaculation in order to intentionally not get his levirate wife pregnant. Thus his sin wasn't in "masturbating", but rather in disobeying God's commandment to "go forth and multiply". Basically, he was killed because he had no interest in having children with his wife, not because he "literally" spilled his seed.

When you think about it, spilling seed is an inevitable act that the most pious of believers cannot avoid. How many million sperm cells is it that are produced by one ejaculation? I forget. But it's millions. And the best one can hope for is that one (or perhaps a few, in the case of twins, triplets, etc. but certainly not millions!) manages to fertilize an egg. As for the rest...only God knows what happens to them. And then there are infirtile couples, like the pious Abraham and Sarah, who, up until she was told by God that she would have a son at the ripe old age of ninety-something, was barren. Of course she had plenty of sex with Abraham beforehand, otherwise how would she know she was barren? Yet sex between infirtile couples is obviously not a sin either, as Abraham wasn't singled out for death for all the "seed" he spilled in his 100+ year lifetime (that's a whole lotta seed!). Similarly, heterosexual couples aren't forbidden from having sex once the female goes through menopause and is no longer able to bear children. Still, (hopefully in a good relationship!) a lot of seed spilling is going on!

To get back to my original point, (and again, this is purely my take on it,) Onan wasn't killed by God at all for masturbation. He was killed by God because he deliberately chose to disobey God's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply". Now, what does "multiply" mean? Once you have a couple of kids, have you fulfilled your obligation to (at least try to) "multiply"? I think so. I think it's perfectly fine to call enough enough, and begin to use birth control. And what about before? What if you're young and you have every intention of having kids, but you just don't feel ready yet? I think birth control is ok there too. Ok I went on about it enough, and that wasn't even the original question! Just a clarification of my "Onan" remark. Now it's Jack's turn to pick on me for my lack of concision and focus. :) Loomis 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Representations of left as back and right as forward

Why is it so ubiquitous to have left represented as 'towards the back/backwards' and right as 'towards the front/forwards' in human (well, Western, at any rate) culture? I'm guessing it has some connection to the fact that most of us are right-handed, but I don't know if this is actually the case. CameoAppearance ^orate 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly something to do with the fact that most Western languages are read from left to right, too — left is the start/origin, and right is the finish/destination. -- Vardion 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of that. Can you give any examples? All I can think of is the backhand in tennis, which for trighthanded players indeed refers to the left side. But for left handed players it refers to the right side, so even there it doesn't hold true. And in writing one starts at the left, so that is actually the front. DirkvdM 08:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first example that comes to mind is browser buttons: 'back' is a left-facing arrow, and 'forward' is a right-facing arrow. CameoAppearance ^orate 09:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the browser buttons, where is it represented in that way? Thinking of politics, other words are 'progressive' (forward) for left, and 'conservative' (holding back) for right. --Mnemeson 10:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of things, VCRs, tape recorders ; the layout of "before" and "after" pictures; breadcrumb trails in web-site navigation and even the layout of days in the week in calendars. It is also used in graphs (so a rising stock-market has a line that slants from bottom-left to top-right) and the layout of controls on dialogue boxes and physical control panels (where you have to perform operations in order the first ones are normally on the left or above later ones). -- Chris Q 10:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say in regards to tape direction that, relative to the listener or viewer (should the viewer or listener be looking at the tape deck), see that as the direction that the tape was moving. I think that's the case anyway -- maybe it really is the opposite way (tape moves left as it plays). E Liquere 03:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh - I'd never really thought of them that way. It's probably writing-related - 'cause we go from left to right, we consider that as time progresses you move towards the right side of the page. Also in calendars, it could just be a simple writing thing - anything written in for the days will go left->right, so if the days went right->left, you'd be constantly changing the direction you were moving your eyes in. --Mnemeson 10:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has to do with the direction of writing/reading. My understanding is that the metaphor is reversed in languages which read from right to left — i.e. left and right have different associations in Israel where Hebrew is predominant. (I think I recall reading this in something by George Lakoff but I don't remember offhand) Up and down have pretty concrete reasons for being the metaphors than they are (you can actually stack things to have more of them; it is one of the most basic spacio-temporal metaphors for this reason) but there is no reason that left/right have to mean forward/back and I'm pretty sure they don't mean that for all people. --Fastfission 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Social Class and Voting Behaviour

How significant a factor is social class when addressing long-term voting behaviour?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.86.166 (talk • contribs)

Quite significant, I would say.--Shantavira 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In which country? --Dweller 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Solihull, presumably.--Shantavira 11:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in the United Kingdom, how important is social class when addressing the issue of long-term voting behaviour? I guess I should've made that clearer

I'm not British, but generally it's very significant. People tend (not always, but generally) to vote for whomever they believe represent their own interests the most, i.e. poor people will vote for candidates stressing welfare, etc, and rich people will vote for candidates who support lower texas for...rich people. If you're hoping someone will write your essay for you, you're out of luck (see the top of the page), but feel free to ask more specific questions. -Elmer Clark 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely significant, but not utterly predictive. A simple reading of, say, 1980s politics would have poorer classes voting Labour, wealthier voting Conservative and the middle split between the two big players and the mess that was the Liberal Party and the SDP. Today, it's more confusing because Labour has headed rightwards, the Liberal Democrats are stronger and in some respects very left wing and smaller parties are attracting more support. Your question is especially hard to answer because the United Kingdom includes devolved political processes in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. And anyway, the picture I paint is too simplistic. People seem to vote for people as much as policies, so a right winger like Margaret Thatcher attracted much support from natural Labour voters, because she was perceived as a strong leader etc. So, like I say, it's important, but it's not a crystal ball. By the way, you might like to add a section to your essay on John Major's classless society(!) --Dweller 07:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on how long-term the behaviour you want to identify is, as well. Do you mean intergenerational? Hornplease 10:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Write my essay for me? How dare you? I don't even study politics at the sixth form, I'm just wondering how relevant class is now in all walks of life

Sahara Desert turned to glass

I read something a while ago in a novel or comic book with some kind of post-apocalyptic setting, that mentioned the Sahara Desert having turned into a vast sheet of glass as a result of (perhaps) nuclear war. I think that the characters in the book referred to Africa only occasionally, and with a sort of shudder, like "let's not think about what happened to Africa". This image is all that sticks in my mind, and I'd like to know where I got it from. Does it sound familiar to anyone? --Grace 09:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

although I don't know it i must comment on it! GREAT ! africa, in glass? t may actually be a possibility but not from a nuclear war though (sand would vaporise when hit by nukes and besides, who wants to hit sand?, and if they would aim for the major cities then the climate changes would actually make Africa most likely one of the most fertile places on earth(or what remains of earth after the first anti-matter weapons are used :) )(btw. the anti-matterweapons have reached usable stage. one short anti-matters blast and it's goodbye California and hello moon, im moving in with you.

• Nuclear weapons can turn sand into glass (see trinitite) but I don't know if any way to turn the entire Sahara desert into glass without having an immense arsenal (larger than than all nations ever have ever had) and being very wasteful about it. --Fastfission 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible suggestions, though none of them mention Africa: Washington State University has a Nuclear Holocausts Bibliography mentioning a novel by Adrian Blair, titled Cosmic Conquest, in which "a third of America has been fused into a desert of glass by chain reactions which resulted from a nuclear war of unknown origins". Another title featured on the same site is Triumph by Philip Wylie, where "Park Avenue is a river of molten glass". ---Sluzzelin 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think maybe it was Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. Anyone confirm this? --Grace 13:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The site of the first American atomic test (the trinity test) was at Alomogordo, New Mexico. The sand was fused into glass which was first called atomsite and later this was changed to trinitite. Most of this glass has already been scavanged by tourists to the site. You can read more about this here. ---Filll 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I was more curious about the book, or I would have asked at the Science help desk. Is it Philip K. Dick? --Grace 20:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Michealangelo

I can't seem to find where Michealangelo painted himself in the Sistine Chapel do you have any idea?? Thank you - Sunni

See Sistine_Chapel#Christ_Giving_the_Keys_to_St._Peter. Fifth from the right edge (wearing a black cap), according to the article on WP.---Sluzzelin 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a self-portrait of Perugino. The self-portrait of Michelangelo is in "The Last Judgement"; his is said to be the face on the flayed skin shown in this detail. A second self-portrait in the same fresco is said to be the figure in the lower left hand corner, looking encouragingly at those rising from their graves. - Nunh-huh 16:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your best reference for Michelangelo studies would be Howard Hibbard's text Michelangelo (New York: Westview Press, 1974). It is highly acessible. On page 249, the late Professor Hibbard disucsses the Last Judgement Fresco of the Sistene Chapel. Just below Christ on the right, Saint Bartholomew holds some flayed skin that bears the distroted face of Michelangelo. Bartholomen's feast day is associated with the chapel's construction.

Dr. Hibbard's book does not discuss a second self-potrait in the Last Judgement Fresco.

I heard a recent paper last April at the International Undergraduate Symposium in Art History in Portland, Oregon, where a gentleman argued that the depiction of Noah in the earlier Drunkedness of Noah scene on the Sistene Ceiling was also a veiled self-potrait. You may e-mail me at [email removed to prevent spam] if you would like to obtain the paper. ">midnight_coffee</

On citizenship and guilt

If a person spies against his own country, it is called treason. If against another country, it is called espionage. Both are severely punished. But may it mean that a person without citizenship can be a spy without fear of being accused? I need information on as many countries' laws as it is possible, but especially about the native land of mine, Russia. --194.85.123.55 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know about specific countries, but your logic is a it off. Look at it this way: If a person spies against a country, it is either treason (perhaps) if it is his own country, or espionage if it some other country. There's really only two choices: the country you are a citizen of, or not. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, a person without citizenship can still be punished for espionage. They would probably be punished by the country they spied on. I'm not a lawyer, though. --Grace 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he means a stateless person. The logic still applies, though. Hornplease 10:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian laws don't make a distinction between foreigners and stateless persons. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Relieving A Superior Of Their Command

Under what circumstances is a subordinate allowed to relieve a superior of their command in the army/navy/air force of which you have sufficient knowledge to answer this question? --Username132 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If requesting medical or legal advice, please consider asking a doctor or lawyer instead. In this case, consult a specialist in military law. I claim no specialized knowledge of this field, but The UCMJ offers the death penalty for refusal to obey lawful orders. http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/solis.html discusses the legal background of UCMJ in this regard. One who decides a superior's orders are unlawful and relieves him of command is likely to face a real shitstorm, and may not find many friends in the command structure, since officers order soldiers to face certain death sometimes, and unquestioning obedience makes their work easier. No military likes free spirits, barracks lawyers, or rebels. See Caine Mutiny. Getting a superior relieved because he is cowardly or batshit crazy probably requires the behavior being witnessed by his fellow officers of equal or higher rank and/or by a qualified psychiatrist. As to unlafwul orders, there is supposed to be at least one case of a German soldier refusing to shoot civilians on the grounds that it would violate the rules of war during WWII, and the Nazis doing nothing more to him than transferring him, because they did not want an open airing of their genocide and a conflict between the SS and the Wehrmacht. Refusal to carry out illegal orders is a lesser step than arresting a commanding officer, i.e. mutiny. Requesting orders in writing is the next step below refusal to carry out the orders, because it takes away deniability: the higher ups can't blame "a few bad apples". It will not win any friends either. Edison 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gun Control in the US

Even with a toll of nine dead in three violent school shootings in one week, the United States is unwilling to consider restrictions on guns openly bought and sold across the country. Only a few lonely voices have called for controls to be placed on easily available personal weapons – which can include very powerful semi-automatic pistols and rifles.Instead, a Wisconsin lawmaker has proposed arming teachers and school staff in response to the violence. What’s depressing is how little people are pushing for gun control today. What is the cost of freedom? Impatience for desires and sheer lack of education? What is the heights of creativity? Is freedom being overdone??

At what age is it legal to possess guns in the US? [kj_venus]

You can "own" a gun at birth. However, owning a gun and being able to walk around with one is a completely different issue. As for the main questioner, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You don't really want someone picking through your rather weak argument. That will do nothing more than start a flame war in which nobody will change anyone else's opinion. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So you decided to kick this flame war off by insulting his point did you? Philc _T^E_C^I 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop beating around the bush & accept facts. Its just like a Karate instructor is teaching his pupils to use the skills he has acquired only for self-defense purposes. Its like Spiderman being instructed by his father to learn to use the power only when required. Owning & possessing are two different issues even in legal terms. No child is taught how to use a gun at young age unless he has some pshychic parents. [kj_venus].

There are plenty of such pshychic parents in the USA then, judjing from the news. And I don't why, but I am more afraid of someone with a gun than of someone with knowledge and skill in Karate. Try to defend yourself, or running away, from one and then from the other. There is a BIG diffrence between the two (I am not going to use Spiderman as an argument). Flamarande 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys talking about psychotic parents? or psychic parents? or something else? JackofOz 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've seen numerous cases where a well armed populace actually has lower crime rates than those where guns are not as prevalent. All the stats that I've seen though have been U.S.-centric. They use the idea that if a criminal knows that most everyone they see is not defenseless, then they'll be less likely to carry out a crime.

Secondly, Spider-man was brought up by his Uncle Ben and Aunt May, not his father. Dismas|^(talk) 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Peter Parker's parents Richard and Mary Parker were agents for CIA, so Ben and May had to raise him after they died on a mission (if you're interested =S) 惑乱 分からん 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you examine the crime rates and figures of Japan. Way lower than the US, and the average Japanese doesn't have a gun. It would be interresting to compare the figures of violent crimes commited with guns in the European Union and in the USA (same population number and more or less same culture). Flamarande 12:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You can do the comparisons in the U.S. - which will avoid much of the cultural bias. I focus on violent crime by city here. Then, you need to find a somewhat reliable table of gun ownership. That is where I hit a snag. Does anyone have reliable rates of gun ownership city-by-city? --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the Reference Desk is not the place for a philosophical discussion of this nature - the original poster never asked a question. Our article on gun politics nicely sums up the arguments used by both sides. — QuantumEleven 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the shooter in the Amish case seemed to be completely normal until the day he flipped out, so nothing short of a total gun ban would have kept a gun out of his hands. StuRat 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn Troll! I don't care if you call yourself venus, please SIGN UP so we can know who you are! I can't believe I'm agreeing with this troll, but, I'll say it again: Amendment II of the US constitution should be repealed. Guns should be banned outright. Loomis 06:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, if there was some system of government in the U.S. in which the people could elect people to some sort of, say, a Congress that has the capability of amending the Constitution to do such a thing as repeal the second amendment... No, that would be silly. Never mind. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US guns have obtained a similar status to cigarettes, the majority know they're bloody stupid things to have, and the source of a lot of suffering of people, but it would be political suicide to try and ban them, because so many people have them, even a lot of those that know their stupid. One of the many failings of democracy, if you aggrevate enough minorities, soon you have aggrevated enough majorities, even if you are doing the right thing, you are forced to do the wrong thing. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What is cultural diversity?

I understand that the term cultural diversity is tricky to quantify. And I am not seeking a definition of it in terms of quantification(e.g.no of language spoken on earth). Rather, if we focus on a more micro scale, say, a type of media(film, broadcasting, magazine etc.) in a certain place, how can we decide whether this medium is characterized by diversity or not? In this regard of cultural diversity, what should its definition include other than the "coexistence of different views" ? I would be greatful. Thank you. Paul 02:12 10th oct, 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking of media (which is an odd way of measuring cultural diversity IMO), there are several ways IMO. First, I don't think cultural diversity is just the coexistence of different views; I think at the very least it's the coexistence of different views, values and beliefs. Using that definition, a medium (let's say magazines) that either a) caters to a variety of views, values and beliefs; b) acknowledges the existence of different views, values and beliefs; or maybe even c) is consumed by demographics representing different views, values and beliefs. This is just a partial answer, BTW. Hopefully others have more insight. Anchoress 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Representation is one possibility. There's quite a bit of research on representation of different groups in various media (someone will count the gay and lesbian characters on sitcoms, for example, or the number of photographs of black people in a particular newspaper). Or you could ask, what is the "dominant culture" in your medium, and how is it portrayed relative to other cultures? How often do, say, Australian people appear as major characters in Hollywood movies, and when they appear, what stereotypes are used? This sounds like a Media Studies essay question - if you're not clear about the definition of "cultural diversity", why don't you ask your teacher what they are looking for? --Grace 21:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys. You are right. Its something like an essay question. Actually its a presentation topic, and that's why the lecturer wouldn't say anything because he thinks that he should leave everything to us. What you are suggesting seems to be a textual analysis approach to me. But I am just not sure whether having many people from different culture represented in a medium equate a culturally diversed medium. If that's the case, can I argue that the hollywood film industry is diversed since different movies from different cultures but not only those from hollywood are played, and in those movies people from different culture are represented. Paul 12:36, 11 october 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming movie

Went to the theater and saw a trailer, Some Sin City looking movie about Spartans. The trailer mention it was inspired by some book by Frank Miller. I can't find any information on this movie, and I dont remember its name. I've been looking through upcoming movie lists but still nothing. Can anyone help? - Tutmosis 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Its called "300" and the comic of Frank Miller is loosly based upon the story of Leonidas I, king of Sparta and the battle of Thermopylae. Heres is the official site [5]. Flamarande 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We have an article about it at 300 (film). Adam Bishop 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys! - Tutmosis 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The teaser trailer is available; and it is bloody amazing. Flamarande 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The origins of Frere Jacques

In trying to flesh out the Wikipedia article on the nursery rhyme "Frere Jacques", I have run into a few stumbling blocks.

1. What is the real reference (such as authorship) of "La Cle du Caveau a l'usage de tous les Chansonniers francais, Paris, 1811" ?

2. I ran across the following potential discussion that might have relevance to the origin of "Frere Jacques":

The Theory of Hungarian Music, Edward Kilenyi, Musical Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1919), pp. 20-39

available from JSTOR:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4631(191901)5%3A1%3C20%3ATTOHM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

Supposedly at least part of the tune Fra Jacopino is similar to Chanson de Lambert (1650) and another tune (a Hungarian folk tune?). Anyone have access to JSTOR to check this lead out? I will caution you that I am not sure about the rules for use of JSTOR; hopefully this usage is allowed.

Alternatively, anyone know much about Hungarian folk tunes?

• If you leave your e-mail address on my talk page I'll just send you the article from JSTOR. I doubt JSTOR cares much about one-time sharing of their articles (in any case the article in question is in the public domain so they wouldn't have any real legal case — it'd just be a terms of use issue). --Fastfission 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why a particular order in google?

I was just looking for news items on the Amish school shooting. I googled "Charles Carl Roberts" and searched News, and the two top items (at present) are both blog entries. How would that happen? Anchoress 21:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the Google search algorithm thinks those are the two most relevant news results for your search terms. How Google determines relevance is a mystery, and a highly-guarded trade secret. --Serie 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out our article on PageRank to get a general idea of how Google works. The specifics are trade secrets but the basics are known. (Actually, coming back to that question a few hours later, I realize I misread it — I have no idea if PageRank is used for news stories at all.) --Fastfission 00:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies guys. It's just surprising to me because the news section of google has always seemed very rarified; what passes for a 'news' site seemed to be judged by a very high standard. It's the first time I've ever seen a blog in the list at all, much less so high up in the ranking. Anchoress 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've always wondered where they get some of the news sources for Google News. One of the top sources (at least when I click on Google News) is a weekly newspaper in east-central Alberta that serves a town of 300 people. I live in Alberta and I've never heard of the town, let alone the newspaper.

I just googled for "school killing", and the Westfield Weekly News right now brings up more stories for me than the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald, the Montreal Gazette, and the Ottawa Citizen combined. Charlene.fic 01:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Female mystics and musicians, AD 600 to 1600?

Were there any types of female mystics or musicians in any world culture in the middle ages or renaissance? I can think of many examples that were male, but were there any female traditions or co-ed traditions? Also I'm curious what kinds of costumes these personas would have worn, if we have any illustrations or recreations.--Sonjaaa 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here's one to get you started: Hildegard von Bingen. The category links at the bottom should prove useful. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Teresa of Ávila. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Our article Mysticism further mentions Andal (ஆண்டாள்) (8th century), Mirabai (मीराबाई) (1498-1547), Lalleshwari (लल्लेश्वरी) (1320–1392), Angela of Foligno (c.1248-1309), and Margery Kempe (c.1373-1438).  --Lambiam^Talk 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• And, of course, Joan of Arc claimed to talk with God, although he apparently turned down her urgent request for asbestos bloomers. :-) StuRat 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

October 10

Top 22 Terrorists

On National Public Radio today I heard them say that on October 10, 2001, George Bush released a list of the 22 (maybe it was 20 as that would be more of a round number) most wanted terrorists. This made me a bit curious. How many of those that were named have actually been caught or killed? Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's the list. I'm sure a quick Google news search will establish which have been caught or killed so far. Ziggurat 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

United States Civil War

Does anyone know how many people purchased exemptions from war service from the United States government during the Civil War? 68.7.88.112 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Age of Sexual Consent

I am trying to find out what the age of sexual consent was, for the state of Alabama, in September of 2000. This is my first time using this website, so my apologies to everyone if I'm going about this incorrectly. Thank you for your time. Have a great day!! 03:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Try www.ageofconsent.com. Dismas|^(talk) 04:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked a lawyer about www.ageofconsent.com, and he cautioned me that he would not trust it completely. So I would be careful before relying on it.

Check here [6] it is the current Alabama code on statutory rape, but it looks like the last update was in 2000, so it seems it has not changed since then.

Basically if one person is 16 or older and has intercourse with someone who is

1. under 16 but above 12 and
2. more than 2 years younger

it is second degree rape, a class B Felony

If the first person were over 16 and the second person under 12, then it is first degree rape, a class A felony.

Of course IANAL Nowimnthing 20:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The prevelance of female pedophiles?

I'm always seeing reports of male pedophilia in newspapers, on news websites and on TV. I've never heard of even one female pedophile. Has there ever been a case of a woman being charged with child sexual abuse? Pesapluvo 03:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The one thing that I notice as a constant in these affairs is that the news media will invariably paint the younger party as being 'victimized', 'taken advantage of', 'tricked', 'coerced' or the like. Now, I'm not advocating pedophilia by any stretch of the imagination, but this sort of pejorative, one-sided language really does nothing to help the affair. Demonizing a pedophile doesn't help them, and it doesn't help society. Judge not lest the be judged, and all that crap. <end sermon> Chris 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/nyregion/10teacher.html --Nelson Ricardo 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but the boys were 13 and 17, not quite pre-pubescent, so I don't believe that quite counts as pedophilia. Pesapluvo 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's not the only case; I recall hearing about a couple others, but only vaguely. Still, "pedophiles" are rarely looked at as being women as well, I would suppose largely for the same reasons that you don't hear about a "dirty old perverted woman". (A dirty old man? Hell, that's a catchphrase!) E Liquere 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can remember (but not cite) several cases where a man and woman (or even a teenage boy and girl) were charged together in molesting pre-pubescent children. But in those cases it's always possible one of the couple was acting out of loyalty to the other (or under threat) rather than out of a desire to molest. --Allen 04:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the ages, male pedophiles are often referred to as pedophiles when they prey on 13 year olds. Maybe there is a distinction between the term as far as journalists are concerned vs. lawyers. Dismas|^(talk) 04:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think among psychiatrists, the reference is mainly to attraction, (not real acting out, such as molestation) and the preferred term for attraction to pubescent adolescents is ephebophilia, whereas pedophilia is reserved for attraction to pre-pubescent children. 惑乱 分からん 07:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

But we all know how much actual meaning and legal meaning differ sometimes... Philc _T^E_C^I 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with actual meaning? 惑乱 分からん 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And psychiatrist are not particularly known to engage in legal language.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A lawmaker might very well declare anyone having sex with anyone under 18 or even 21 to be a pedophile, for some political advantage ("his opponent is on the side of pedophiles !") but that has nothing to do with science. StuRat 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a whole rant about this a while back about how I found Dominique Swain in the remake of Lolita quite hot. I'll spare you any repetition. In any case, my main point is that I'd only consider one a pedophile if they're attracted to pre-pubescent children. Once a person is "post-pubescent", that person is, sexually speaking, an adult. It's true that in the early stages of "post-pubescence", the person's mind may be too young to make mature decisions regarding sexual matters, and therefore laws forbidding sex with "post-pubescents" are rational. Yet, I wouldn't describe any person who is attracted to another sexually mature person as a "pedophile". "Pedophilia" is the truly sick attraction to "pre-pubescent" children. Loomis 06:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

hester prynne

the page concerning Hester Prynne, the main character in the novel The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, needs much revision. The information that is there is a vast misrepresentation (the phrase "one night stand" is used), and the length of the article isn't close to what it would take to correctly show the complexity of the character Hester Prynne.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Dismas|^(talk) 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Plow episode of Simpsons

Does anyone know what opera is Maria Callas singing in in Homer's second commercial from the Simpsons episode "Mr Plow"?

hmm, it would be the third commerical right? In the first one he does the "My name is Mr. Plow", in the second he raps "I'm Mr Plow and I'm here to say..." The third is done by an ad agency, but I don't remember the song. This [7] doesn't list it either. Nowimnthing 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait... the third commercial started out with the snowglobe from Citizen Kane, maybe one of the songs from it? [8], didn't see Callas though. Nowimnthing 15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are sure it is Callas, you may be able to figure it out by litening to the clips here: [9] Nowimnthing 15:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I recall it as being the aria from Bellini's Norma, but it's been a while. Natgoo 08:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

By "the aria", do you mean Casta diva? JackofOz 09:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think so. Natgoo 09:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Rudolf Hess murdered?

He got arrested,Nazis then declared him insane,he spent more then 45 years in jail,watching his country being burned almost to ashes...

And finaly,after all these years,in 1987 he got a real chance to get free,and they say he killed him self?!? His family claims that he was killed,and you have to admit that it is a little strange that 93 years old man commit suicide,just before he is to be relased.I mean,being 93,he probably wouldnt live more then 10-15 years maximum.Plus he was about to get freed...So,my question is,from the medical,or simple logical stand,is there any possibilty that a man in his condition commit murder?

Thank you XXXXXXX 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• 45 years in prison does a lot of damage to someone's mental health. It's entirely possible he commited suicide. Whether he was actually murdered, I can't say. I have no proof either way. - 131.211.210.13 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you never watched The Shawshank Redemption? --Dweller 10:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

XXXXXXXX, please read the Rudolf Hess article. You have his life story seriously confused. While he sat out the rest of the war in a British prison, disowned by his former Nazi friend who called him insane as a matter of public policy, rather than admit anything. He then got returned to Germany after the war and got to watch Germany rebuilt into one of the world's leading economies while imprisoned there. Rmhermen 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like dweller insinuated, it may have been his deepest horror to return to the outside world...

Still,he was trying to get free for about 47 years,and then when he was just about to get it,he commited suicide? As for Shawshank,that guy that hanged him self,had no family or anything,but Hess had both children,greatchildren and a home. Plus,he was 93,like i said before,he could hardly live more then 10-15 years,so why kill him self at that age? XXXXXXX 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the point of the question. "[H]e spent more then 45 years in jail, watching his country being burned almost to ashes". What country are you talking about? Germany thrived in the post-war period. In an economical sense, Germany actually won the war, in the sense that Germany replaced the UK as the strongest economic power in Europe. Is there perhaps some other vision of Germany that yourself and Hess see as having "burned almost to ashes"? Loomis 05:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I rather suspect there is. I recently watched a British TV documentary on Hess at the Nurember Trials. If I say 'more nuts than a fruit cake' I assume people will understand. As for the murder theory, self-respecting neo-Nazis were probably falling over themselves to dispose of the Führer of the Fourth Reich, rather than have the world face the embarrassing reality. White Guard 05:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha ,Loomis,when is said burned to ashes,I ment on the year 1945. His Nazi goverment was burn to ashes,so to speak,so I ment if he was going to kill himself,he would have probably done it in 1945,rather then in 1987 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXXXXX (talk • contribs)

Postwar, he considered himself the heir to Hitler and Fuhrer of the Fourth Reich. If he'd been sane, by the time he hit 90+ he would have realised that any life he'd have outside would be pretty sad and meaningless. But there's substantial evidence that he was insane and sadly there is a strong connection between people with mental health problems and suicide and looking for rhyme and reason isn't necessarily going to bear fruit. --Dweller 09:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

gandhian ideology

tell me something about gandhian ideology

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Gandhism. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

movie review

review of lage raho munnabhai

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Lage Raho Munnabhai. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

are car prices increasing or decreasing

I just want to know whether car and other prices like that of SUVs are increasing year by year or decreasing year by year. This is for a research conducted by me. Can anyone talso tell about how many percent has the car prices increased/decreased in the last 6 years from 2001 to 2006.

My research: Whether cost of living inching upward or downward. Already I have found that computer products pricing are decreasing and food prices are increasing. Thankyou

Which country are you referring too? It could depend on where you live (although I think the costs for living generally has increased...) 惑乱 分からん 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

over the average prices do increase though there is no real percentage to go by but inflation is the closest thing around. Inflation is used in economics as to how much prices rose. I suggest looking up your country's balance for the second question, as for the first question; the prices of cars have actually been quite still(not considering inflation) with a slight increase, but when considering inflation they actually have dropped minorly (from european continental view). as a comment to your research: Computer prices have indeed been decreasing but that is because the hausse is gone which drove them up like a soapbubble which then bursted(stock exchange market). food prices are actually the most influenced area by inflation. that would be my suck-thumb(first idea, made up on the spot,derived from dutch proverb) explanation. Graendal 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Taken in mind that the power of general computers have been exponentially increasing quite rapidly, the prices have indeed decreased quite rapidly in actual money value... 惑乱 分からん 11:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vestica Veca

Kako se u originalu, na engleskom, zvala glavni junak crtanog filma koji je prikazivan u Jugoslaviji tamo pocetkom sedamdesetih? dragnik@milnet.co.yu

Maybe try asking your question at the Croation language Wikipedia (Hrvatski). (At least, I suppose that's written in Croation...) Philbert^2.71828 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When written in the Latin alphabet, it'd seem Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian is nearly identical... 惑乱 分からん 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol lol There is no "Bosnian" language,it is called SERBIAN language...And it was asked in Serbian...

Well, at least there's a Wikipedia article about Bosnian language. Not interested in any further arguments, here. 惑乱 分からん 20:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

From those "2.7million speakers" I doubt that more then few thousend know they speek "Bosnian"...

A ti,sto te uopste koji kurac zanima Vestica Veca hehehe XXXXXXX 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

XM, Sirius, and MTV

In USA,

• 1) Does XM and sirius broadcast full new songs or do they broadcast only one minute clips of songs?
• 2) Does MTV full new songs or do they broadcast only one minute clips of songs?
• 3) Does local FM channels full new songs or do they broadcast only one minute clips of songs?

I heard that some media in USA only show clips of songs. What media is it?

MTV Nordic airs full videos, anyway, probably the US version, too... 惑乱 分からん 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the above broadcast the full song, unless it has been edited for content (MTV/ FM radio) or length (some 30 minute epic ballad). The only places that play song snippets are places that are trying to get you to buy the song like amazon.com. Nowimnthing 15:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To be more complete, I guess you do see just a clip of some videos on certain shows like those on MTV that count down the top 10 or whatever videos. Nowimnthing 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

sherman's march to the sea

trying to find what plantation's were raided during march to sea it would be the southern group that would have been the raiders "name of family would have been the huston plantation.

any help would be greatly appreciated. thank you

bob jones

See Sherman's March to the Sea. But Wikipedia does not get that specific. Try a local historical society for the county where the plantation was. The County Court Clerk for the county could direct you to the local historical society if there is one. Sherman burned many of the county courthouses as well in 1864, so many older records were destroyed. Good luck.Edison 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Maki Maki language

Where is maki maki spoken? I see that maki is one type of Japanese egg roll, and also Maki-maki is the name of the deity on Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Does anyone know where maki maki is spoken? --Filll 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no language known as "maki maki" according to Ethnologue.com, the most thorough catalog of languages I know. Marco polo 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The bigger question is, when will there be a Maki Maki Wikiwiki?Edison 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that maki maki is related to "taki taki" a slang term for Sranan, one of the languages in Suriname? --Filll 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Political science/ Micheal Manning I.E.M.P model

How is Ideology,economic,millitary,and political simmular and how different.

I suspect that you mean the sociologist Michael Mann, not Manning. Certainly Mann is the originator of the IEMP model of social power. But your question is far too broad for me to answer here, without writing a whole essay. Try reading the first chapter of Mann's Sources of Social Power, volume 1. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

political sicence/federalisum

what are the pros and cons of federalisum.

Thank you shentell o'neal

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Federalism. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --ColinFine 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How do I see the answer to my question?

On or about October 2, 2006, I asked here in what key did Victoria originally write his motet O Magnum Mysterium? Several days later I returned and edited the question as suggested above in the hopes of getting closer to an answer. The instructions above clearly state it might take seven days to get an answer. Here I am, on day eight from the original post, and just a few days from the suggested edit, and the question seems to have been deleted, moved, or floated off the top of the list. Should I have expected that? If so, it might have been made more clear. What I should like to know is, can I still see the response, and if so, how? Thank you very much. BillWhite 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question, on October 10 October, 2006, HappyCamper made a "massive archival of the humanities reference desk, leaving ~4-5 days of questions". The archived material can still be viewed in the History. BillWhite 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk archive (or the "Archive" link at the top of this page). Specifically, your question is at Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Humanities/2006_October_2#In_what_key_did_Victoria_originally_write_his_.22O_Magnum_Mysterium.22.3F. Unfortunately, it looks like the discussion ended with only one outsider comment, which often happens when no one with specific knowedge of the topic is around. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask to jeff.covey (at) pobox.com who published the piece in mutopiaproject.org. --193.56.241.75 06:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Christian heretics?

Are there any offshoots of Christianity or any other European religion between AD 600 and 1600 that believed in anything like:

• Spiritual authority comes from within, as opposed to from the church hierarchy or from an outside God (or basically God comes from within each of us)
• Women's rights
• Sexual liberalism
• There is no "sin" or punishment, we must learn from our mistakes and take our own responsibilities and gain wisdom after our own experimentation or experiences, but still pacifist and basic values like "don't hurt others"
• Music or merrymaking or altered states of consciousness

--Sonjaaa 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There were certainly groups, including many of the early Protestants toward the end of your period, who believed in the first item in your list. Earlier groups who believed in that first item included the Hussites, Lollards, and probably the Cathars. The Cathars also allowed women to assume roles of religious leadership. As for sexual liberalism and altered states of consciousness, I can't find evidence of groups during your period that believed in those. Marco polo 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Try also Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars, Waldensians, Brethren of the Free Spirit...they were medieval heresies, although they probably didn't believe any or all of the things you listed. It's a start, and you may find more sects by following the links and categories from there. It's unfortunate that we don't have a specific medieval heresy article. There were some 17th century groups in England that may have believed some of those things, if I remember correctly, like the Levellers and the Diggers, which are a little out of your time range, but their roots are in the middle ages. Adam Bishop 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't leave out the Gnostics.Edison 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Beguines were mostly a women's spiritual movement within Christianity during the high middle ages. They didn't practice sexual liberation or the other points specified, though. Hildegard of Bingen was an abbess, mystic, and composer - almost the earliest composer known by name in Western music (she was not a Beguine). Also in terms of music, look up the fourteenth century Ars Nova movement. Neither Bingen nor the Ars Nova movement were ever deemed heretical, but the Beguines went through a period of persecution during the fourteenth century before being rehabilitated. Durova 06:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Alliteratively speaking, one might say that Bingen didn't Begin the Beguines. :) JackofOz 09:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A traditional name for such practices justified in quasi-religious terms was Antinomianism. The old Catholic Encyclopedia has an article from one traditional point of view... AnonMoos 09:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at the Anabaptists.Hornplease 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The fourth one is the one you are least likely to find represented. The concept of 'sin' (though not necessarily punishment) is fairly fundamental to Christianity. Universalism may give you some clues there. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Concept of playboy/playgirl

What exactly is the whole idea/purpose behind a playboy/playgirl? How creative is that? [kj_venus]

The idea/purpose? It hasn't changed, even though both are commonly called "players" or "playaz" now. How creative? It isn't. There has never been creativity to it. Read Shakespeare and you'll see the same player schemes were being used then that are being used today. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How does one differentiate beteween shakespeare's playboy and the present trend of Hugh Hefner's? His business is dwindling! Why is the playboy mag of the US being promoted to an excessive extent? What are the vital stats associated with readership? [kj_venus]

The magazine is suffering because nobody needs to buy a magazine when the Internet offers porn for free. That has little to do with the lifestyle of a playboy. Also, it is not Hugh Hefner's business. His daughter took over the company long ago. See Playboy. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the same vehemently "anti-porn" troll who's been trying to make some sort of point for the last few weeks. I still don't get the point. Porn is a cheap thrill. Too cheap for me. But in a free country with freedom of expression, I feel it must be tolerated. The alternative, what I keep calling "sexual repression" is exponentially worse. Loomis 05:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably, I don't think the problem is porn itself. Banning it seems as pointless as banning alcohol. The market would only go underground. Also, it's unclear whether the question was about the magazines or the lifestyle... 惑乱 分からん 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I just realized I haven't answered the question. To be frank, the whole "idea/purpose" behind Playboy/Playgirl is to offer photographs of nude women/men, to sexually titilate its readership. But Playboy/Playgirl is actually a relatively tasteful version of pornography. Remember that many of the greatest artists throughout history were known for their renditions of the naked human body. In this sense, I would qualify "Playboy" (though I'm not as familiar with "playgirl") as the mere 20th century version (not that I'm comparing them in quality) of the works of Michelangelo.

If you're talking about harder porn, well, the "idea/purpose" behind it is quite frankly to give its readership/viewership inspiration for masturbation. It's that simple. Now what in particular is your REAL question? Loomis 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Prior to Hugh Hefner's foray into publishing, open sexuality was associated with radical left politics. Hefner's magazine associated it with the traditionally lax mores of prosperous men, which made it more palatable to middle America. Durova 05:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop the nonsenese loomis. Accept the fact that u may be a porn-addict too, unworthy of any respect.

WWII : First soldiers on German soil, first Russian soldier in Korea

Hello,

I have been searching through the internet but I'm not able to find this.

1.What was the first time an allied soldier (USSR of from the West?) set foot on German soil during the Second War? Where did he cross the border (or she, you never know) It must have been of major psychological importance, because for the first time, German troops were not fighting to hold on to their conquered territory anymore, but to protect their own country. Now this question might be difficult (do you consider Austria a part of Germany etc....).

2. When did the first USSR soldier set foot on Korean soil? Is it correct to say that all of present day North Korea was "liberated" by the Soviets between the start of Operation August Storm and the end of the second World War?

Thank you very much, Evilbu 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Aachen says that was the first German city invaded, October 1944. "Sept. 11 (1944) Invasion of Germany" is found at http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/adaccess/wwtwo-timeline.html with no details. The first allied soldier on German soil in WW II was probably a prisoner of war, a spy or a traitor somewhat earlier. Edison 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. The first Allied troops to enter German territory in WWII were the French during the abortive Saar Offensive of September 1939. Soviet troops entered northern Korea in September 1945. It was taken from the Japanese, who had occupied the peninsula since 1910. Whether it was 'liberated' or not is another matter altogether.White Guard 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you call Germany. East Prussia is no longer part of Germany, but it was before the war, and I suppose that's what counts. This was conquered by the USSR in Operation Bagration. Neither article says when they first set foot there, but the maps suggest it was on 19 August at the latest. But it was probably in late July.

Btw, I don't think anyone bothered to keep track of who entered Germany first. It was such a major push to get to Berlin and secure as much territory as fast as possible that that detail was probably pretty irrelevant.

An interresting anecdote here is that my mother, who lived in Heerlen, near the German border, was surpised to see the US army arrive from the East, from Germany. Don't know the date for that, though. DirkvdM 08:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Operation Bagration did not get to Eastern Prussia. Unless both maps I have are wrong the offensive stopped a little short of the borders. AFAIK the Soviet forces entered Eastern Prussia only in January 1945. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, are you telling me that the USSR didn't have to fight one bit for its control over North Korea, that they gained control AFTER the end of the war?Evilbu 08:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you don't count the elimination of the whole Quantung Army... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

President of the United States election

Could someone explain to a poor ignorant Briton what happens (in the US) when someone elected to one position then gets elected to a more senior position? (e.g., a senator/representative/state governor being elected president or vice-president.) Would the original position be kept? Can someone be simultaneously a senator and president? And, if they cease to hold the original office, would there be a by-election to fill the vacancy?

Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they can't be both. They take on the role of the new office. Quite often, though not as a rule, the person will resign from the first position in order to concentrate on the election of the new position. They often use the reasoning that it's better for the people they represent that they resign from their original post since their full concentration wouldn't necessarily be on their old job. Whether that's true or if they're just trying to get those voters to think that the person is dedicated and such is up to you to decide. And as far as the coverage of the old job, I'm not sure. Dismas|^(talk) 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for senate vacancies, they are filled according to state law, either by special election or gubernatorial appointment, usually depending on the time remaining in the term. This is in accordance with the 17th amendment to the Constitution: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." (Prior to this amendment, passed in 1913, senators were chosen by the state legislatures). House vacancies are always filled by special election. Temporary appointments are not possible for a vacant House seat. - Nunh-huh 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Is it therefore just convention that the former office is renounced, or is there a constitutional requirement somewhere? Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just convention. StuRat 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is an explicit Constitutional requirement, but the dogma of separation of powers would guarantee that it would never be possible for a person to serve in more than one of the three branches of government at one time. - Nunh-huh 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

At which point in time? When running, it's convention, and by no means universally observed (e.g. Kerry retains his Senate seat because he didn't resign it to run for President). Once elected or appointed to an office however, Article 1 section 6 kicks on - "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." --Mnemeson 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When Senators run for President, most often they do it in a year when they are not up for re-election, They can do this because they are elected to a 6 year term. So a Senator elected this year could safely run for president in 2008, but in 2012 he would have to choose in most cases. Joe Liberman's state allowed him to run for both offices simultaneously (Vice President and Senator) in 2000, so he did not have to make the hard choice Barry Goldwater did in 1964, when he abandoned a safe senate seat to run a quixotic race for President.Edison 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 6, states, no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. Does that apply to this question? Or does "office under the United States" mean something else? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect something else; in context, it's related to ensuring that legislators not personally profit by appointing themselves to office. It's the separation of powers that guarantees no senator/presidents. Though of course there's no telling how any of these words mightspecifically be interpreted/distorted/construed by a judge if it came before him... but though the means by which the decision would be made is in question, the decision, I think, is not. - Nunh-huh 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Short answer... members of Congress may not hold any other office. In 1960, when Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson became President and Vice President, they resigned their Senatorial seats. That's the legal part.

All the rest of the previous answers have been dealing with politics and customs. Elections take place in November; terms of office begin the following January. By resigning his Senatorial seat immediately after being elected President, the candidate allows the Governor of his home state to appoint a temporary replacement. This replacement will have seniority over incoming freshman Senators, which is a slight advantage to the home state.

Kennedy's Senate term extended beyond January, 1961, so his seat was not up for election in November, 1960. Johnson's seat was up. So he ran for both Vice President and re-election as Senator. Having won the Vice Presidency, he resigned the Senate seat. Had he lost (he did win Senatorial re-election), he, like Kennedy, would have remained in the Senate. B00P 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

social order

how can social order be maintain?

Surely you meant, how can pecking order be maintain?

Through whatever means possible. --The Dark Side 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair or foul. White Guard 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social order is maintained through government, luck, and skill. You might consider clarifying your question. It is almost as vague as "What is the meaning of life?" --AstoVidatu 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social order is more than a matter of government. It involves the acceptance by society as a whole of a set of norms and of a power structure. A power structure and government are not sufficient without societal acceptance, as we can see in Iraq. The acceptance need not be heartfelt or enthusiastic, it can be based on fear, but it must be in place for social order to exist. Marco polo 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social order is maintain by Social cohesion. Social cohesion is form when everyone (or most people) is looking after everyone else's interest. If group A (muslims) does not look after the interest of group B (infidels) or vice versa then there is a lack of social cohesion. This implies the existances of common values (or shared values) and common behavior norms. If one group wants to behave the way of X while another group wants to behave the way of Y and X & Y are incompatible, then you have an ideological conflict. Social cohesian is maintain by having a common/shared (non-violent) method of resolving such conflicts that all members of the society will accept it's decision. The actual method is irrelevant, what is importance is for all members of the society to accept the legitimacy of the method (in other words a common dispute resolution method). 202.168.50.40 01:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

October 11

Tony Toni Tone

A freind of mine is a big fan of Tony Toni Tone and wants to get a copy of what he believes is their first album. There is a song and in this song is a line something like "just like chocolate she's so sweet" He thought that was the name of the song. I've been looking and cannot find on any of the albums including Who, their first album any song with that title. By any chance would anybody there know what song includes the line "just like chocolate she's so sweet" and which album that song first appeared in? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

                                             Andrew J. LaTeer

It's from a song called "Baby Doll" which can be found on this album. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana purchase benefit?

When an American citizen applies for dual citizenship in France, normally there are rules including having lived in France for five years. I heard if you were born in one of the states in the Louisiana Purchase, this is waived. Is this true, and where exactly does it say this?

I would strongly doubt that. In any case, actual French influence or control over most of the area was rather minimal... AnonMoos 09:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Our article on French nationality law says that the five year waiting period can be waived for "citizens of French speaking countries", so I can see where this comes from. However, a citizen of the United States is unlikely to be judged to be from a French-speaking country, and even if you could convince them to take Louisiana itself, not the USA, as your "country", I doubt there are enough French-speakers left there to convince them. (And the other Louisiana Purchase states would be even less likely — like AnonMoos says, there wasn't much influence there).

I believe the citizenship laws have been tightened somewhat in recent times, so I suppose it could once have been possible. I doubt they'd have deliberately opened the door to people from the Louisiana Purchase, but I guess they could have accidentaly created the possibility — if they had laws to assist French people returning home from the former colonies (eg the pieds-noirs), some people may have figured that Louisiana should logically count too, even if the law was actually intended for the colonies that obtained independence in the mid 20th century. Just speculation, of course. -- Vardion 09:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Poison gas in WW2

Why was it not used on the same scale as WWI? I mean to say in combat against the Allies, not in the Final Solution. --The Dark Side 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Chemical warfare, the Germans were afraid of retaliation. Hitler was gassed in World War I, so that may have influenced his decision. Also, WWII was much more fluid than WWI; waiting for the wind to blow in the right direction works better in the trenches. Clarityfiend 03:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...Hitler was gassed in WWI...might have influenced his decisions...you may be onto something there! Loomis 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection that it was used by the Nazis on the Eastern front. Anyone got any sources? --Dweller 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was this [10] and it was a ship of the Allies carrying lethal gas who got hit by the Luftwaffe. Gas was used in the German extermination camps, but apparently not in battle. Flamarande 10:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously (as opposed to my above post), I doubt that Hitler avoided something "out of fear of retaliation". It just doesn't go with his mentality. Perhaps there's a better explanation for it. For example, Hitler seemed to have the choice of having his scientists pursue either nuclear technology, or rocket technology (although he had enough scientists to explore both, so it still confounds me). In any case he seemed to strongly favour pursuing rocket technology, and was really on his way to developing missiles that could reach England from the continent (in fact I believe some early ones actually did). As for nuclear technology, thank God he was such an anti-semite that he actually seemed to have dismissed the whole idea as "Jewish Science", (after all, it was all ultimately based on Einstein's work,) not worthy of being explored. As to the original question, why he didn't use poison gas in warfare, he probably had his reasons. It was mentioned that he may have used it on the Eastern front. But, say, in the Battle of Britain, perhaps he felt it wasn't a proper way to conduct warfare against a fellow Aryan people. I don't really know. It's tough to get into the mind of a madman. Loomis 13:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hitler did pursue nuclear weapons and rocket technology and jet aircraft and decryption and radar studies and other technical areas and made huge advances in all of these. After all, when the war ended they were pursuing a rocket that would be capable of reaching the US. They had produced the world's first jet aircraft. They had tapped the submarine cable between the UK and the US and decrypted the traffic on the cable. They had serious radar capabilities. They had refined a large amount of uranium, some of which probably found its way into the bombs used against Japan by the US when it was confiscated by the allies. They were taking advantage of the heavy water facility in Norway, until Allied actions destroyed it. The head of the German atomic program, Werner Heisenberg had stated that the only way to make an atomic bomb was to turn the entire country into a chemical plant, and when he toured the US and saw the extent of the effort, he noted that the US had turned the entire country into a chemical plant to produce an atomic bomb. There are some reports that Heisenberg had overestimated the amount of fissionable material by orders of magnitude that was required, but I personally find this hard to believe. This just does not sound reasonable to me. I think that it was a fairly close call. I think that either Germany or Japan might have managed to produce an atomic bomb before the US, if the timing of various events was just slightly different. --Filll 15:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither Germany or Japan had the will or could afford the resources required to build an atomic bomb. Take a look at the Manhattan Project. "At one point Oak Ridge plants were consuming 1/7th of all the electrical power being produced in the USA." Also, Oak Ridge became "the fifth largest city" in Tennessee, and it wasn't the only facility. In the middle of a war, only the US was rich enough. Plus it didn't help that the Nazis drove away a lot of their leading scientists before the war started. Clarityfiend 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says Heisenberg calculated it would take 130 tons of uranium. Clarityfiend 16:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Being a physicist, I know what Heisenberg's capabilities were. It is very hard to believe that Heisenberg would have made such a large mistake, but of course it is still possible even for someone of Heisenberg's talents. I do agree that it took a substantial effort to produce the bombs that the US did. However, some of the production details and techniques remain classified and it is a bit difficult to make the blanket statement that it would have been impossible for Japan or Germany to do it. Germany had a head start, in some ways. Germany had some incredibly gifted scientists involved in the project. The scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were doing it under the impression that Germany might be able to produce an atomic weapon first. The Allies did not act as though they were certain that Germany or Japan could not produce at atomic bomb during the war, including multiple attacks on the heavy water facility and other facilities controlled by the Nazis, and capturing uranium being shipped to Japan from Germany in May of 1945 on the submarine Unterseeboot 234 (U-234). In spite of speculation, I would be surprised if the details about this cargo had been declassified; it is not public knowledge how much of the uranium was unprocessed and how much of it was processed.--Filll 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, according to our article on Nerve agents, Hitler totally avoided it "out of fear of retaliation". Long story short, (there's a good quote in the history section), Hitler knew that the Allies had far greater ability to produce both mustard gas and nerve agents (like Sarin) in large part because of their greater access to petroleum. What he didn't know was that the Allies didn't know how to make the more toxic nerve agents -- the details had been released in technical journals and patents before the war, but the Allies hadn't noticed, and in fact the Nazis could have used them, if not with impunity (surely the Allies would have figured it out after the gases were used in combat), then at least to advantage. --ByeByeBaby 16:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also read books that have called the gas mask schemes in countries such as the UK the "greatest victory of WWII". He knew that the countries were already highly prepared, and so much of the effectiveness of gas (the fear and the mass casualties) would be massively reduced. Laïka 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

economics

what are the constraints to monetary policy implementation in less developed economies

name this swedish film

I'm trying to recall the name of this Swedish film I saw a while back. An elderly man narrates the story to a girl, perhaps she is imaginary. The story is of a married couple with a young daughter where the wife has an affair with the husband's best friend, about the passion of the affair and the tragedies of the aftermath. Spoiler: the husband eventually commits suicide. He tries to get the daughter to join him, but she backs out in the end.

I thought maybe Liv Ullman played the girl and Max von Sydow played the elderly man, but I couldn't find a movie matching that description in their filmographies. Can you help me? Ziggurism

• The Passion of Anna, perhaps? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Joshua Reynolds

Hello I have A picture that is titled " The Strawberry Girl" and signed by Sir Joshua Reynoldi. At least it looks like an "i" at the end. The closest I can come to it is Sir Joshua Reynolds. I am very curious about the picture, any info I can get would be greatly appreciated.

Is this the picture? DJ Clayworth 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Was the Weimar Republic doomed from the start?

please discuss, im interested in German history, and would like to know if the Weimar Republic was as intensely disorganized as people perceive it to be

The Weimar Republic was doomed because it didn't do it's own homework. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)