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Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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.

April 24

Roman Mythology

I cannot figure out which three MAJOR gods the Romans worshiped before they came into contact with the Greek culture.

What do you mean? Arguably, they were always in contact with the Greeks, as they were in contact with the Etruscans, and the Greek pantheon had spread via trade pretty early. Geogre 02:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iuppiter, Mars, and Quirinus. Chl 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMUNICATION DIFFERENCES IN NIGERIA

I 'm trying to find information about the personal space or comfort zones on people in Nigeria. In some countries people kiss on each cheek when greeting one another. In some countries people hug to say hello or good bye. In some countries people bow to greet. How do people in Nigeria feel about these customs. What are some of Nigerias communication customs. How do they feel about invasion of personal space?

Try exploring the articles and subcategories at Category:Nigeria FT2 (Talk) 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The apartment in the movie "The Island"

Hey all,

After I watched the 2005 movie "The Island", I have been obsessed with trying to find out more about the props and locations in the movie. I have already found out a lot about the yact they used in the movie called the Wallypower 118, and now I am trying to find out more about the in-movie apartment of the character Ewan McGregor plays.

If you watch the movie, the apartment is VERY cool with a very modern design. I was wondering if anyone knew more about where that scene was shot, or perhaps could tell me more about that particular style of design for homes and apartments. Does it tend to be very expensive over traditional building? Is it difficult to find a contractor to build something like this? I am in love with this kind of modern design and would like to someday build a home very similar. Any information is helpful!

Thanks!

--129.120.80.27 01:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC) thank you[reply]

IMDb is your friend: [1]. Grutness...wha? 10:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what are sharks . how do they live

pls explaine this title

thank youu.

--Haishma 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Shark. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharks are fish. They live nice. Loomis51 09:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration of Persian people to Iran

Hey, I was just wondering, which part of Europe did alot of persians come from? Just to feed my own curiousity, because I know that there are alot of persians in Iran who are part European, but I'm not sure which part of Europe. I looked everywhere, but couldn't find the answer anywhere. Thanks a bunch!

I would take a guess and say from Greece and the Macedonia area because of Alexander the Great --Jcw69 10:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, most ethnic Persians (And therefore, most Iranians) in Iran are descended from Indo-Europeans who migrated to Iran milleniums ago from the Caucaus Mountains. That would be why Iranians speak an Indo-European language. -Anonymous Edit in

DIY Nuclear Weapons

Why did PM Thatcher buy nuclear weapons from the US? Why couldn't the UK MoD have made their own? -Username132 (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They tried. See Blue Streak missile#Cancellation. I think the problem was not making bombs that work, but making accurate and reliable methods of delivery. Notinasnaid 12:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem was the cost of developing the whole nuclear bombs + delivery system, that is R&D, manufacturing & infrastructure. In the short-term (the next few elections) it was cheaper just to buy them from the Americans. AllanHainey 13:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, they didn't buy nuclear weapons. They bought the Trident missiles to deliver them - the warheads themselves are British-made (though reputedly based on an American design [2]; making warheads small enough to fit on a missile is technically challenging). Interestingly enough, the current generation of Trident subs are getting to the point where a decision has to be made on a replacement nuclear capability (be it a new generation of subs or something else). --Robert Merkel 11:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

identify the ballet music from this Kids in the Hall sketch

I want to identify the ballet music that's playing in the ballet sketch from season 1 episode 1 of the Kids in the Hall (see List of Kids in the Hall episodes). It's not in the credits. Anyone have the show and can identify? Or do I have to do an audio capture and upload? -lethe ^{talk +} 06:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the audio capture. here (458K mp3). Any help? -lethe ^{talk +} 07:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Swan Lake, by Tchaikovsky. This movement is the Allegro moderato from "Danses des cygnes". --Cadaeib 20:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Beautiful music, isn't it? --Cadaeib 00:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts in Japan

Do you have any information about the formation of the Boy Scouts in Japan, specifically related to the contributions made by Clarence Brazeal?

See Scout Association of Japan.--Pharos 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old LP of children's songs about cars

When I was a boy in early 70s England, I had an LP of songs all about cars. They were songs for children. I think one of the featured cars was a Vitesse, but I can't remember any of the others. Nor can I remember the title of the LP. All I remember is that on the cover of the LP, the title was spelt out in letters formed by various cars.

Does anyone else remember the LP? Can you give me any more details? I'd love to track down a copy. --Richardrj 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember something like this. There was a song about a Volkswagen Beetle (He said "ja, ja, ja" and he laughed, "hee hee") and one about a Mini Moke. But no, I don't remember the title or anything else. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar

I need to find a calendar of official days / months...breast cancer awareness month, administrative assistance day, etc. Suggestions?

land

Did you ever hear of a Jewish Acre. Not the town, but the size of land?

Maybe this article: Ancient Hebrew units of measurement can help you. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

Does anybody know what these are called:

File:Dingsbums.jpg

HarryCane 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The generic name is Pin Art. I'm sure some companies give it fancy names. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatives in America

When I see Ann Coulter et al, I seriously wonder 'what are these people thinking'. I can't read her, since she's such a shrill blood spitting ranter who comes across as psychosed. Is there a sane, calm, logical explanation of why conservatives think what they do that I can read somewhere?

Have you tried our Conservatism article series, especially American conservatism and Neoconservatism, as well as our aticles on Left-Right politics and Republican Party (United States), or articles concerning the issues that often divide them, such as Free trade controversy, Abortion debate, Gun politics in the United States, and Same-sex marriage? Though I doubt that any of them will be able to explain what motivates Ann Coulter to say what she does. The answer to that probably lies in the non-existent controversy as a source of income article. --Aramգուտանգ 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you might also consider [[3]] and [[4]]in trying to gain some insight. this may also be helpful: [[5]]

The book The Right Nation is an attempt by two British authors to explain the phenomenon of American conservatism to a worldwide audience. By the way, I think most Americans have the same reaction to Ann Coulter as you do. -- Mwalcoff 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i had the same question when reading/watching the likes of al franken and michael moore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.142.9 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, I do believe that there are radicals on both side (Franken, Coulter, and Moore). However, I do not think that these people can categorize all Conservatives or Liberals or whatever these peolpe are. I'm a conservative and despise the "shrill"ness of Ann Coulter, but also can't stand the arrogance of Michael Moore and Al Franken. The case you mention about Ann Coulter is limited to Ann Coulter and can't be used to categorize all Conservatives. Thank you, Chuck 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Snake, USA

Do you know where the Great Snake is located in the USA? This is a hill figure, a carving, similar to Nazca Lines in Peru, Giant in Cerne Abbas, UK and White Horse carvings in UK. ^^^^

Serpent Mound? AnonMoos 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cass County Mo

what are the car repossession laws? case laws legal repossession city made people give back car , cannot order to give property back without a court order in civil matters. punitive damages apply

Tonto no like fire? wolf raisin electrocute! vanilla civil court order. Hope that helps!Loomis51 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics to song about Dixie Dean and Pongo Waring

I'm trying to find the lyrics to a song about footballers Dixie Dean and Pongo Waring. I think it starts "when the ball was centered and when the whistle blew".

Whilst I primarily would like the words to the song I'd also be interested in any history about the song. I don't think it was sung at football matches as I don't think these two every actually played a match together.

I thank you very much in advance for any help you can give.

Probably a long shot, but if there are any websites relating to Tranmere Rovers history, they might be your best bet. Pongo seems to have taken over as star player from Deans as star player at the club. Grutness...wha? 03:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1984

Why exactly in the book 1984 are the proles, who make up most of Ocenia, not controlled as much as the Party members. I know they are seen as lower class, but wouldn't it occur to at least one of the Inner Party members as it does to the main character, who is an Outer Party member, that the proles could overthrow the government and that it would make more sense to control everyone equally? And was the Party planning on making everyone speak Newspeak, or only Party members? Also, would the government in Brave New World be considered more successful than the one in 1984, seeing as though they still have different classes of people, everyone is controlled equally? For example, in 1984 only the proles can use drugs while in Brave New World, soma is handed out to everyone. Another difference is, in 1984, anyone against the government is killed. In Brave New World, there are fewer people against the government, and those who are are sent to live on faraway islands.

I haven't even read 1984, but I'm of course very familiar with its theme. I may be wrong, but it seems almost certain that the "Proles" is Orwellian for the Proletariat. Loomis51 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but why would the Party or Thought Police not control them as much as they control the Party memebers. It says in the book that the proles make up 85% of the population. Wouldn't they want everybody to be either complete control or like the society in Brave New World if they wanted no one to be against the Party, or even have any reason to be against the Party?

Does the Party have enough to control all of the the proles especially as it is fighting overseas? Orwell mentioned the average working-man's indifference to politics is several of his essays and the Road to Wigan Pier. The party obviously has parrallels with the Nazi or Communist parties which greatly influenced whole countries but did not make everyone members. There is an inner, outer and non-party structure just as there is an a-list, b-list...z-list to current ruling parties. Even society designed for equality needs hierachy. Newspeak is probably designed partly as a prestige dialect, speakright, thinkright getahead. Perhaps the party knows that producing utterly loyal party drones saps the drones energy, are you working hard if you are crimethinking.

As to which is more successful Orwellopia or Huxleyopia, why do you want to know are you trying to decide which too institute? In Brave New World cracks seem, to be appearing in the well organised society whereas Ingsoc seems to know how to deal with cracks. MeltBanana 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that book, and I thought that this flaw, which you bring up, was one of the reasons why it was kinda stupid. A brief glance at history will show you that you cannot keep control of your fascist government if you don't control the populace. Controlling minor governmental bureaucrats suffices to maintain control of the government? Garbage. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the proles are controled it is just hard to notice. the party does not allow them to gain any form of wealth whatsoever, thus making it extremely difficult to move up or revolt. the proles will always be the lower class because they almost dont know anything better.

The proles are allowed to have sex freely, to eat, etc., because this keeps them from revolting. They are killed by their work and by the eternal war, and so they are allowed freedoms of the body, but they are denied any freedoms of character. They also are expected to reproduce frequently because their children are needed to replace the losses of adults in industry and war. In other words, Big Brother is very cynical. He has consigned them the role of beasts, and therefore they are allowed and expected to have bestial behavior. They are tightly controlled in their access to the upper classes, however. Geogre 10:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no literary critic, but perhaps Orwell had a very low opinion of the poor masses. I always think of that scene in which Winston Smith goes into a tavern full of proles and tries to engage an older one in a conversation on politics and history. The only political comments the prole has to make are complaints that the metric system has made it impossible to get a pint of beer. In Animal Farm, the equivalent of the proles are the sheep, who can't learn to read and can't think on their own. Perhaps hanging out with the destitute of Paris and London made Orwell a snob. Or perhaps he really didn't think that way but was criticizing people who do. In The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell certainly does not appear to consider the poor totally useless, even if he admits to being somewhat repulsed by them. -- Mwalcoff 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in 1984 at least, the proles are made stupid. They are consciously deprived of information and education. It's a complaint that Orwell made elsewhere (in his essays on Burma, for example). He also saw that a history of expectation of stupidity would make a future of stupidity -- the power of class expectations being an actual ideology. Animal Farm is more complicated, as he was speaking there of history and not Mankind and about serfdom as it was, rather than serfdom as it could have been. I.e. those sheep were dull witted and easily led. I don't think they're analogous to proletarians in general, and I do think he believed in the power of the proletariat to achieve the desirable end, if scheming intelligentsia didn't mislead them along the way or plutocrats convince them to watch football and get loaded. Geogre 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Party definitely does control the proles (yes, it's short for proletariat), but they are kept uneducated and Orwell says that when one comes along that has a chance of inciting dissent, the Thought Police would just execute him/her.

In Brave New World, people are bound to society by social conditions.

"It is not consciousness that determines one's existence, but rather one's social existence that determines consciousness." -Karl Marx

The social theory which Orwel propounds in the book (that is what the chapters from Emmanuel Goldstein's book are all about) is that revolutions are ALWAYS made by the middle class (in this case the Outer Party). The lower calss never do it themselves, they only follow the middle class. In earlier revolutions, part of the middle class took power and became the new upper class, but then the remaining middle class always aroused the lower class and made a new revolution. The difference is that this time the people who took power in Orwell's 1950's understood the process, and already when they were still middle class planning to take power they already made sure nobody would follow them in amking a revlution, so they could stay on top forever. The idea of the book is very simple: if you contol the middle class so toghtly that they can;t even think of revolting, than there will be no revolution by anybody. The Proles will no rse by themselves, you can let them run relatively loose. Adam Keller 18:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPP

When I went through the quality of life index, one column is Material wellbeing (GDP per person, at PPP in $). What does PPP stand for?

"Purchasing Power Parity" (money relative to what it can buy in ordinary commonly-used goods, rather than according to exchange rates). AnonMoos 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence/ Smartness

Is there any concrete factors to define someone is smart or not? Is intelligence inherent or can be gained?

See intelligence and IQ for a start. Is there some reason this question is asked practically every week? --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stocks and shares

I heard there are some people who make a living buying stocks when they're low and selling them when they're high. If the money they make selling them is greater than the money they lose buying them, they get some free money. Where does all that money come from exactly? Jonathan ^talk File:Canada flag 300.png 22:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the people who bought high and sold low. It is just like trading baseball cards. The value of a card/stock is simply what someone else will pay for it. The catch with stocks is that the prices are controlled so you don't have to shop around for a buyer/seller. You just go through your agent and you buy/sell at the current market rate.

I just realized that I could have made this a shorter answer by just saying day traders. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Kainaw, your explanation is a lot better. Actually, all that was necessary was your first sentence. "It comes from people who bought high and sold low" That sums it up perfectly. I checked the day traders article and its extremely poor. It's pretty one sided actually, and seems to make the assertion that if you're smart enough you can make a tonne of money at it. Unfortunately 99.99999% of day traders aren't smart enough, and many have lost fortunes. For the vast majority of people, day trading is only slightly less risky (and slightly more socially impressive) than going to a casino with your life savings and trying to "beat the system".Loomis51 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dividends & Share buybacks also help 199.201.168.100 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's slightly more complex. When shares rise (just as when house values rise) there is no more money in the system. Let's compare to house values first, because that's easier to follow. If your house doubles in value, you feel richer, but you don't have any more cash. The only way to get that cash is to sell your house. Of course, you still need somewhere to live, so you may well buy another house, but you could move somewhere cheaper. Overall though, not enough people can get out of the game, so only a few people can get richer because they live in houses that have vastly increased in value. Now take shares. The only people who can make money from rises in share prices are those who can sell. If you can sell and walk away, you have made extra money from those who have been adding money to share owning or selling some shares to buy another (since to sell your shares you had to have a willing buyer able to pay that price). Most of the money in shares simply cannot get out of the game; it is institutional investors who have to buy one share or another. Ultimately profits come from other people buying the shares you sell. This could have come from people who bought high and sold low; from other people who bought low and sold high; or new money. There is always lots of new money going into shares, vast amounts of it from pension investment; if this dries up, share prices collapse, not because their inherent value has gone, but because there aren't enough purchasers and those who need to sell become ever more desperate to get some value. The really ironic thing about house and share prices is that most people can't get out of the game so most people cannot benefit from all this paper wealth; yet the players are devastated if the paper value of their investment drops. Or, to put it in a nutshell profits on share dealing are sometimes a redistribution of money among share owners (winners vs. losers) but more often it is the new money going into shares being distributed to the luckier sellers (winners vs. new investors). Notinasnaid 09:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make quite a few good points, Notinasnaid, but there are a few flaws in your argument as well. The analogy to houses is good, but not perfect. Everyone has to live somewhere, but there aren't nearly as many alternatives to living in a house as there are alternatives to investing in equities. If the equity markets begin to look overpriced, you can always sell your equities and invest in a totally different market that's governed by different factors, very often totally opposite factors, say bonds or commodities, which may turn out to be a cheap investment in comparison. You can't do that with houses. If the housing market is overpriced, all your alternatives, including moving into an appartment, will tend to follow suit and be more expensive than usual as well. Not everyone who sells one share turns around and buys another. Another thing is that share prices aren't totally governed simply by the amount of money available in the market. In the short-term this may be the case, but ultimately, the intrinsic value of the share has to factor in at some point (p/e ratio, eps etc...). When share prices in the short-term rise to unrealistic levels in comparison to their intrinsic value (creating a "bubble" in the market), some smart investors will realize this and quit while they're ahead, selling their equities and transfering them into other forms of investment. When this happens on a large enough scale, "the bubble bursts", so to speak, as it did especially in the high tech sector some 5 years ago. Otherwise, though, Notinasnaid's points are good ones. Loomis51 11:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the Dervish Article

Cutting Themselves with Swords without Bloodshed

We definitely need to include pictures of dervishes piercing themselves with skewers and cutting themselves with swords. File:Dervish.jpgPatchouli 23:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

Kissing

When, how and by whom was kissing 'invented'? The idea as a whole is quite odd when you think about it. What motive did the person have to touch lips to the other? The same goes for many common things such as hand shakes, winking and waves. Any insight to this would be greatly appreciated.

References to kissing (both platonic and as an expression of love) exist throughout written history. I have seen examples in early Chinese, Indian, and Germanic texts. I would be rather surprised if kissing wasn't in early texts of all cultures on Earth. Even cultures where kissing is evil will have it written that people should not kiss. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly its far older than that. Kissing in some form or another is found in several primate species - though not in the full flowering of the art as seen among humans. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really odd if you think about it a little harder. If you love someone, you want the maximum number of your sensory nerves touching the maximum number of theirs. One way to do that is simply to maximize the area of skin that's touching, hence the hug and the caress. Another way is to touch those parts of the body which have the greatest concentrations of nerve endings: the genitals, anus, lips, tongue, and fingertips. Pretty much every combination of those has been tried, and kissing (and shaking hands, for that matter) is the most practical in public. —Keenan Pepper 04:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no patents for kissing.<grin>Patchouli 05:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lord, I wonder what fool it was that first invented kissing!" -- Jonathan Swift Geogre 10:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People don't care if kissing is odd, the point is that it feels good. On the other hand, shaking hands is quite a practical gesture, as that way you could check that the other person doesn't hold a weapon (a knife or a pistol) in his hand. Waving is useful because it can be seen from far away. (And let me link to the article kissing.) – b_jonas 12:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people like to high five.Patchouli 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da Vinci's mechanical drum blueprints

My son is interested in attemptint to build a replica of Da Vinci's mechanical drum. I know that at least one museum has created a replica. We are looking for blueprints or plans for actually building this machine. Do you have any suggestions about where to find such information? I tried searching within wikipedia but only found basic information about DaVinci. Thank you for your help. It is very much appreciated.--71.224.33.24 01:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[6] this? yes , that is what I am talking about, but I need blueprints.

might find it in [7]. click on "sketches by leo.." nope looked there.

here's a list of some of his manuscripts: [8] nope, looked there too.

maybe one of these professors will forward it to you? http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel%20beyond%20the%20conflict/Leonardo%20Da%20Vinci-s%20Inventions%20on%20View

There is a book giving descriptions & plans of a range of DaVinci's machines, I've only seen it in museum gift shops in Italy though so I don't know how available it'll be. I think I've got the details at home I'll check & post again if I can find the author, ISBN, etc. AllanHainey 14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, I don't know if it includes your mechanical drum but it might be worth checking out:

Leonardo's Machines Secrets and inventions in the Da Vinci Codices; by Mario Taddei, Edoardo Zanon & Domenico Laurenza; Giunti Press; ISBN 88-09-04363-4. AllanHainey 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

What is a eloheem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovetolearn2006 (talk • contribs) .

Do you mean elohim? —Keenan Pepper 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Althusser quote

Could someone please help me locate the bibliographic information for the following quote on the French page about Louis Althusser: "Un philosophe idéaliste est comme un homme qui sait d'avance et d'où part le train dans lequel il monte et...où va le train. Le matérialiste, au contraire, est un homme qui prend le train en marche (le cours du monde, le cours de l'histoire, le cours de sa vie) mais sans savoir d'où vient le train ni où il va."

Try asking in the fr:Main Page French Wikipedia? FT2 (Talk) 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWII history

I am trying to find information on Eskerunda (German Name in 1945). When the German army was retreating with refugees and it was impossible to escape through Gdynia people escaped to Denmark by a make-shift harbour situated in Eskerunda. I can find no information about this place. Could you please direct me to which I can access this information, thanks Nora

This is just a guess... I can't find any mention of Eskerunda on any maps of the German and Polish coast (and I've gone back into historic atlases too). BUT - there is an Ueckermünde close to the mouth of the Oder between Anklam and Szczecin. Could that perhaps be it? Grutness...wha? 12:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eskerunda sounds more like a Basque name than a German name to me. I also suspect the spelling is something else. JackofOz 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Thiery Henry a muslim?

I`ve heared that Thiery Henry(the french soccer player who plays in the English Arsenal club) became a muslim & I couldn`t find any info in your site about this is this true?? I mean did he realy embrace Islam & if not then what`s his relegion????

thanks in advance

Not that I'm aware of. And certainly if he is Moslem it's not through any tradition within his family (though several French players are of North African descent, Henry's background is Caribbean). Grutness...wha? 09:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it matter? I don't know if he is or isn't. But Arsenal is Bin Laden's favorite soccer team [9]. --Chapuisat 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, it's Thierry Henry. Two R's. --Chapuisat 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help in assignment.

I'm looking for an artwork of fiona hall that has something to link her to any of andy warhol(example material used)thanks, i really appreciate your help.-----

i need help looking for any art work that links any of andy warhol's art work to fiona hall's art work.thanks alot.--≈≈≈

I tried :/ Best I could come up with was an article about her in a journal put out by the Andy Warhol Foundation (n.paradoxa, vol. 9). There's an article about Hall in the latest issue of Art Monthly Australia, BTW. Not that that really answers your question, I'm afraid... Grutness...wha? 12:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is...of course... unless you count subject matter as a link :) Fiona Hall has used Coca-cola cans to create art. She knitted with strips from them; Warhol, of course, painted them. Here's a link. Grutness...wha? 13:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, Warhol painted Coca-cola bottles and Campbell's Soup cans. --LarryMac 16:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though his most famous work is probably his Campbell's Soup cans, he definitely painted coke cans as well. And Schlitz cans, And coke bottles, and a pepsi bottle cap - among many other things. Grutness...wha? 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic wages, plus food, merchandise and other prices in the US

I would like to know of resources where I may find average prices for various items throughout US history. For instance, how much did a pound of hamburger cost in 1939? And what was the average wage for various types of work that same year? Are there such indices online? Thank you, <email removed>

I removed your email, it's not a good idea to post it here or you'll get a ton of spam. --Chapuisat 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many historical and detailed datasets are the Bureau of Labor Statistics on producer prices and wage levels. However, I find it easiest to use EconoMagic. For example, they have THIS, which gives "meats, poultry, and fish" monthly price index back to 1926 (index to 100 for January 1992). In any case, go HERE and explore the many datasets. There ARE wage levels hidden somewhere in there, I know it! --WonderBread 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Control USA

hi, i'm british and just old enough to remember the Dunblane primary school massacre in the 1990's - after this tragedy the government promptly banned hand guns and we haven't another school shooting since. I'm aware that the US constitution has something to say regarding americans' right to gun ownership but given the shockingly high frequency of school (and other types of) shootings in the states, why hasnt it been repealed? indeed, why are americans so fond of their guns even if its clear that the social cost is so huge? is there an argument i'm missing? also, how does the absence of gun control play with the christian right? surely they must think that only god has the right to end life?. anyone's, preferably an american's, thoughts on the subject would be much appreciated, thanks andrew

I'm half American, so here's half an answer. It's complicated. Gun rights are tied to the idea of the American west, the pioneer, the revolutionary spirit Americans pride themselves on. Hunters see attempts to curtail gun rights as an assault on their culture by city dwelling liberals. The Christian right is probably the strongest supporter of gun rights. Just as they strongly support the death penalty. How, exactly, this jives with their Christian beliefs I'm not sure. You'll have to get an answer from them. --Chapuisat 16:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this might sound remote, it isn't: the United States was founded on the Lockean notion that power derives from the people and that it always remains in the hands of the people, that the people may rightfully overthrow any tyranny. The American Revolution required a volunteer militia and not a state army (the state being the UK). Thus, the 2nd amendment to the US constitution envisioned volunteers being used in all US conflicts and no standing army, ever. That's why it begins, "A well regulated militia being necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." However, the US very, very slowly established a standing army, and military technology quickly got too expensive and lethal for anyone to bear. Nevertheless, the radical position on gun ownership is that guns will enable the people to overthrow any corrupt or tyrranical government. This argument is poppycock, obviously, as the same people pointed out that Saddam was a tyrant and that Iraq had the highest number of privately owned assault weapons in the Middle East, so they presented, in essence, their own rebuttal. However, that remains the logic most often cited by the National Rifle Association. More practically, the US has a culture of fear, as Michael More discussed in Bowling for Columbine, where that fear of the neighbor is used to justify the paranoid fantasy of a personal firearm being used to "defend" against the unspecified but violent Other. I.e. most actual gun owners believe that they will use their firearms to prevent Someone Else from raping or stealing or killing. They therefore will accept casualties, for the casualties are themselves justification of owning a gun: "I have to own a gun because there are crazy people out there with guns." Geogre 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Michael Moore. Also, Andrew, please do not assume all Americans are fond of guns. --LarryMac 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us prefer knives.

But seriously, Geogre is right. The original relevance of the Second Amendment has been completely undermined by the massive and unanticipated expansion of the U.S. military. You might have noticed that the very politicians who support a runaway military also support a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment. Obviously, most conservatives don't want to join a militia or overthrow a hypothetical tyrant (they're quite happy with the tyrants they have). They want guns because they're afraid minorities will steal their TV sets. They want to feel like big men, and associate gun control with women and "liberals". The anti-gun-control movement is fed by what Karl Popper called a closed circle: If gun violence (or crime in general) were to rise, it would be interpreted as a sign that more guns are needed for "law-abiding citizens". If gun violence were to decline, they would present this as an argument that gun control is unnecessary. And LarryMac is right: although the ruling party accepts this tortured logic, a great many Americans do not. Bhumiya (said/done) 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I skipped over it, I didn't see anyone mention the most common phrase used against gun control: "If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns." I've personally never heard a person for gun control refute that argument (which would be simple: guns are illegal in many countries and most criminals in those countries don't have guns). --Kainaw ^(talk) 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue either for or against gun control, but I will argue for logic and say that your parenthetical statement does not refute the premise. --LarryMac 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing you should appreciate is that school massacres are not common. They are *extremely* rare. Just like terrorist attacks. It is largely because they are so rare that they attract so much attention when they actually happen. They are so rare, in fact, that designing policies around preventing them is largely a waste of time.

A further point is that the social cost of guns in the areas most strongly opposed to gun control (and with some of the highest gun-ownership rates) is often much lower than where gun control is supported; according to this and this the murder rate in Montana (where gun control is strongly opposed) is less than half that of New York (where gun control is, generally, more supported). --Robert Merkel 23:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Montanans live much further apart than New Yorkers do. The South and West -- where gun control has its fiercest opponents -- whole have higher murder rates as a whole than the Northeast and Midwest do. -- Mwalcoff 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's a common misconception that the reason America lacks significant gun control is because of the US Constitution. No matter what anyone thinks of the Second Amendment, the fact remains that no federal court has ever struck down a gun-control law on second-amendment grounds. Indeed, when passed, gun control laws almost always pass constitutional scrutiny at the federal level. Anyway, members of Congress are happy to pass legislation that violates the First Amendment, Tenth Amendment and lots of other parts of the Constitution and leave it to the courts to strip away the unconstitutional parts. But they won't touch gun control.

Why not? Well the easy answer is that while polls show majorities in favor of gun control measures like licensing and registration, the minority that's against such laws includes a lot of people who feel really strongly about it. A lot of them are "swing" voters for whom the gun issue might prove decisive. The U.S. system also overemphasizes rural votes. Every state gets two senators, no matter how sparsely populated. The 900,000 people of gun-happy Montana have as many votes in the Senate as the 19 million people of gun-weary New York. Even in the House of Representatives, districting tends to cram urbanites -- the biggest constituency for gun control -- into fewer districts.

Now why is there such a strong minority against gun control? It's only a personal opinion, but I think race has a lot to do with it. Gun-control opponents often say that "we" need guns to protect ourselves from "the criminals," who will get guns with or without gun control. The idea is that there is a definable criminal class -- a "them" -- that is responsible for all crime. In reality, of course, the difference between "us" and "them" is not that sharp. Many murders are the results of family disputes or other confrontations between acquaintances, not random acts of violence by outsiders. But because of the racial dynamic in America, a lot of people, rural residents especially, see crime as an us vs. them issue, rather than an us vs. us issue. The same dynamic comes into play with other issues, like welfare (Ronald Reagan's famous welfare queen from Chicago's South Side, for instance).

Race is also an issue because so many victims of gunplay are black. I think there would be a much greater outcry about gun violence if it wasn't seen as "those people shooting each other."

Of course, I'm trying to rationalize the pro-gun movement, which may be a silly thing to do. The gun movement appears almost religious to me, with its advocates crediting miraculous powers to gun ownership or predicting armageddeon as a result of gun control. Take the oft-repeated claim that widespread gun ownership prevents "tyranny." You know what country has the most-heavily-armed citizenry in the world? No, not the U.S. North Korea.

Many Americans, of course, are also quite ignorant about the rest of the world. I think if more Americans knew that gun control by and large prevents gun murders in Europe, Japan and elsewhere, they would make it more of an issue. But the horizon of most Americans is limited to their immediate surroundings, and few have any idea what life is like beyond our borders. -- Mwalcoff 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time . . . From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998")

"English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981 . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America's. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America's . . . Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England" (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981–1996," October 1998).

"People who use guns to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other methods of protection or do not defend themselves. (Kleck, analysis of Nat'l Crime Victimization Surveys, Targeting Guns, 1997)

"Handguns are used for protection against criminals nearly two million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes." Kleck, "The Frequency of Defensive Gun Use" (In Kates and Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate [San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997]). —Wayward ^Talk 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a voter against gun control and an american, i don't care about the rest of the world. if owning a gun is my right, and it is, i am going to defend it. it is not just about whether or not i should own a gun, it is if i can. I believe in the statement that if guns are illegal, criminals will still use them. I do not want to be defensless in my own home. Furthermore, if i choose to hunt i should be able to. Most of the people I know hunt. If New Yorkers do not like the crime rate there, move to Montana. There will always be higher crime rates where the population is more dense, with or without guns. If there ever comes a time our government is corrupt, I will uphold the american belief in freedom and will fight to bring our government back to its original beliefs of a government that fears its people, not a people that fears its government. With the way politics are going, it is very possible that we become corrupt. I am in no way an anarchist, but it is my right. I am also a Christian so I can answer this question from the Christian view point. Christians believe in the death penalty because the old testament says an eye for an eye. life for a life. I do not own a gun to kill someone with unless they are attacking me or my family. The people that end up using guns on eachother have anger issues anyways if they can not control the thoughts and think of the consequences of their actions. Christians do believe only God can begin and end a life, but he also had the Jews defend themselves against invaders. He does not expect us to be simply run over. The Bible does say turn the other cheek, but it does not say allow murderers to roam the streets. As for school shootings, they are few and far between. The ones that have occurred, most students also had instructions on how to build a bomb. The Columbine shooters were actually building a bomb. If they are intent to kill someone, they will reach that end. For me, the social cost is not so huge, it is portrayed as huge. hwo issues are portrayed and how they are in reality are usually two very sperate issues. 216.226.25.181 02:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Lindsayfaye[reply]

Linday, it is an interesting difference of perception. I am British and I like the fact that we have strong gun control precisely because it makes it far LESS likely that some drug-crazed burglar will kill me and my family. He will still burgle the house but if I wake up and disturb him he wont have an easy means of killing us. You say "I believe in the statement that if guns are illegal, criminals will still use them" but the reality is that "if guns are illegal, far fewer criminals will have them and use them". Not zero, but far fewer (providing the police force is reasonably efficient at stopping purchase of illegal firearms and arresting those who have guns). I sincerely believe that the average Britain is safer than the average American in this respect becuse burglars know that urban householders havent got guns so he neednt bring one with him when he's "on the rob". Right-wingers have fear of crime higher up their list of political priorities than left-wingers in Britain too - its just that a completely different strategy evolved to deal with it. Jameswilson 01:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a myth that having a gun makes you less likely to be a victim of robbery. I remember reading about how criminals take pictures of license plates at gun shows so they can rob the owners' houses and steal the guns. I also saw a survey of convicted burglars, and they said the best way to prevent a burglary is a guard dog. (Guns were way down on the list.) And of course, most burglars are smart enough to wait until you leave the house to rob it. It's certainly possible that someone might invade your home while you're there and that you'd have time to find and draw your gun before they get a chance to pull one on you. But unless you're Clint Eastwood, that's quite unlikely. The tiny chance of this happening can hardly make up for the increase in potential death or injury from accidents, suicide attempts or domestic altercations when a gun is in the house. -- Mwalcoff 23:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has given the obvious answer to the question: look at the gun politics and gun politics in the United States articles.

The reference desk is not an appropriate place to discuss the issues. The question has been answered now, so let this section move gently to the archives.-gadfium 04:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's name...

Why the country Japan is called Japan but no Nihon or Nippon?Hkl8324 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the section in Japan titled "Etymology." --LarryMac 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons:

Germany is called Germany and not "Deutchland" China is called China and not "Middle Kingdom" Spain is called Spain and not "España" Hungary is called Hungary and not "Magyar"

etc... Loomis51 03:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pageantry paradigm shift

It occurs to me that during past centuries, it was uncommon to stage celebrations in honor of impersonal events like wars, treaties, etc. Most celebrations seem to have had a contemporary subject -- to honor a living ruler or celebrate the festival of a living god. When did the function of public pageantry switch to remembrance and commemoration? Did it have anything to do with the decline of monarchism? Bhumiya (said/done) 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Day was celebrated every year in England after 1605. However, what may be more telling is when national celebrations began to be merely "time off." As late as 1900, the British Guy Fawkes Day was an occasion for reminding the people that they weren't Catholic and had been freed from a Catholic menace (the Red Scare of the British 18th century). In other words, commemorative celebrations were always actively tied into the contemporary situation. A commemoration as pure memorial is slightly different. In that respect, however, it is also quite ancient, probably. The Romans celebrated their foundation day, but, of course, they really believed, at least nominally, that Romulus and Remus were gods, so there was a religious component of their celebration that would be contemporary and not strictly memorial. I think commemoration without anything else (active political gesture or religious significance) requires not the decline of monarchies but the rise of secular ideologies together with the rise of the nation state. It takes Your Nation Here as a definite entitity separate from the personality of the monarch and the transferrence of religious commemoration to secular occasions. (Just a guess, there, though.) Geogre 21:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Day is a bit of a problem though, since it was yet another deliberate attempt to hide a Pagan festival - one that had carried on into folk festival status for many centuries after paganism was largely eradicated (or atleast went into hiding) in Europe. The old festival of Samhain lasted several days, starting with the welcoming (or attempted tricking) of the spirits of the recently dead, and finishing with bonfires in which effigies were burnt. The traditions carry on well into Christian times as Hallowe'en and Guy Fawkes. Which all means that although it is regarded as a commemoration of an event, that was sprayed on after the fact, as it were. If anything, I'd say that it's not a symbol of the decline of the monarchy, more of the lessening of the role of the church in daily society. As you point out, in the Middle Ages, most festivals were saints' feast days or other religious festivals. With the decline in these festivals, commemorative ones have largely taken their place. In recent years they've had an added impetus via the commercialisation of major festivals, too. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I might put {{disputed}} on that interpretation, since I think that Guy Fawkes himself chose when to act and hadn't considered any syncretism. Also, I don't really like the coincidence of events being assumed to be syncretic. Maybe the day was at the same time as a pagan festival, but certainly Parliament didn't consider that when assigning the holiday nor the people when they went off with their Pope burnings. After all, pick any date in the calendar, and some clever archeologist will tell you that the Sumerian festival of mudbugs and river birds took place then. :-) That said, I agree that commemoration of saints has a bit of a journey to take before it can become commemoration of battle victories, charter signatures, and the like. To some degree, royal birthdays are still observed by some segment of the populations in nations with monarchies, but these used to be more significant. England appears to lead the way in secularizing here, as in other respects, with its association of Lord Mayor's Day with nothing more than a parade and a performance of Dick Wittington's Cat. Geogre 10:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be pure coincidence, but up until Guy Fawkes' time there were early winter Samhain bonfires on which effigies were burned on November the 5th - now we have Guy Fawkes night on November 5th, with effigies burnt on bonfires. Perhaps my use of the word "deliberate" was wrong, but it is an old pagan festival peeping through from more acceptable coverings. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pilgrim of Love"

In "Pawn in Frankincense", book four of Dorothy Dunnett's "Lymond Chronicles", "Pilgrims of Love" are mentioned. Did such a concept actually exist, and if so, who were these people? Thanks, Lkjhgfdsa 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion - Judas Iscariot

What was his day job ?

Based on his job with Jesus (he carried the money), he was most likely some form of an accountant or banker. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about his carrying the money isn't definite. That's more of an attribution. However, he was a member of the Zealots, as was another disciple, so that may mean that he was supported by contributions. (And Jesus reminded both Zealots that power was not what they thought it was.) Geogre 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Afghan"

What is the origin of the word "Afghan"? Why do some Afghans refute the use of "Afghanistani"(one from Afganistan) and instead of it prefer to use only "Afghan"?

See Afghanistan. Afghan is a person. Afghanistan means "Land of the Afghans". Afghanistani is a bastardized word that most likely means "A person from the land of the Aghans". --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason some prefer "Afghanistani" is that historically "Afghan" has largely referred to just the the dominant Pashtun ethnic group.--Pharos 07:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. immigration laws

How, or what steps, did people take to immigrate to the U.S. before 1994?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_US_immigration --Lkjhgfdsa 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked here, but it does not help me find the steps to immigrate.

Do you mean what legal steps? That would largely depend where they were migrating from and their primary purpose (family, work, etc). Can you be more specific? A large number simply climbed over the fence of course. Shantavira 12:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean legal steps. The country they are immirating from doesn't matter. The purpose doesn't either. I am supposed to answer the question, "What were the legal steps that had to be taken to immigrate to the U.S. before 1994." I have looked all over hte internet, but I can't find them. If anyone knows, I would realy appreciate it. Lindsayfaye

April 26

Invoice

I'm looking for academic sources on invoices. The article is vastly undersource. I've tried Google, but I get way too spammed from corporate web pages with nothing helpful. I'm looking for stuff like history, styles, etc. Anything academic. I deal with them all day long, but I have no verifiable sources! ---J.S (t|c) 00:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources on invoices? I doubt much academic thought was put into that concept: You're a vendor, you sell a good to a purchaser, and then you give the purchaser a record of the sale in order to obtain payment. I would imagine that the concept was so simple and so universal to business transactions that it naturally developed independently wherever it was needed. It's like asking who invented the "bow and arrow". The "bow and arrow" wasn't much of a unique invention, as pretty much every society developed it independently of others. It's too basic a concept. When the Europeans arrived in America and were faced with aboriginals weilding bows and arrows, their thoughts were likely along the lines of: "This society is in the bow and arrow stage of military development." The same goes for invoices. If, hypothetically, an advanced alien race were to land on earth and witness how we do business, they'd likely say to themselves "These humans use paper invoices to record their business transactions." Loomis51 09:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richmal Crompton's "Just William" stories in Polish

Can anyone please tell me if any of Richmal Crompton's "Just William" stories have been translated into Polish, and if so in which year was this done? Thank you.

Reservoirs in UK

When was the last reservoir built in the UK

Here's one built in 2006. http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=196682. Notinasnaid 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it probably won't be the last. There are currently plans to dam Loch a'Bhraoin in the western Fannaichs. Shantavira 12:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for seven in the South East. --Bth 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about water reservoirs or something else? - 131.211.210.13 12:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oliver north

is it true that, during his stint at the Whitehouse, oliver north wittingly aided in the importation of cocaine into the usa? was he convicted, in abstentia, of the same by a central american government?

thanx! JB Hale

See Oliver North. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Gary Webb. (Text purporting to be) Webb's collected SJ articles is here: [10]. Webb wrote a book called 'Dark Alliance' covering this subject. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rape as a crime against humanity

pis give me adequate answers with references

Is this a homework question? Notinasnaid 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to give answers, you must first ask a question. You may find the articles on rape, crime, and humanity helpful. Dismas|^(talk) 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well as Crime against humanity. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And (practicing some pedagogical telepathy, here) war crime, as you've probably been asked about rape as a war tactic being classified as a human rights court matter. Geogre 02:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the (US) Senate's role

i recently learned that EVERY state in the US elects two senators into the senate. this is obviously massively preferential for the rural (red?) states which have lower populations. i was wondering basically about the split of power between the House of Representatives and the senate. is there anything to keep the rural states in check? at the risk of promoting stereotypes, is the US on a continual right wing (homophobic) slide down hill because freedom-loving urbanites are so grotesquely outnumbered or can i sleep soundly?

In actuality, the Senate tends to be more "liberal" in these matters than the House does. The House is more susceptible to rabble-rousing, and its conservative leadership in general tends to be the more likely to push the conservative agenda than the leadership of the Senate does. In addition, the Senate's rules tend strongly towards individual deference towards single members -- for example, Senator Mary Landrieux of Louisiana has said that she will hold up all Bush appointments until he comes up with more money for Louisiana hurricane repairs. She can do this, because the Senate defers to one member when they want to hold up things like this, even though a simple majority would probably vote the opposite way. Robert Dole did the same thing over Public Broadcasting funding years ago, even though the majority of the Senate would probably have supported funding it. It only takes one Senator for certain things never to come to a vote. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is not nearly as disproportionate as you seem to think. Keep in mind, George W. Bush, probably the most conservative president in decades, actually won the popular vote in 2004. How could Bush possibly have won the popular vote if only people from sparsely populated "red" states voted for him? There seems to be a phenomenon in the US, and probably most other western democracies as well, where the left tends to be far more vocal than the right, and therefore far more is written about their opinions, and they generally get far more attention from the media. I'm not blaming the media, or the left for that matter, it's just that left leaning individuals are far more prone to bitch and screem and protest than conservatives, who generally tend to keep a much lower profile. Another good example is the '72 election. Despite the fact that it was held at a time when the anti-war hippy movement was at about its highest, Nixon the Republican won by a landslide against McGovern. When asked how he could have pulled off such a lopsided victory, he credited what he called "the silent majority".

As for equating the right with homophobia, there's actually a group called the "log-cabin Republicans." Basically they're gay but right wing at the same time. It's true, most gays almost certainly vote overwhelmingly democratic, but I don't think it's fair to equate the right wing with homophobia. That's a stereotype in and of itself. Loomis51 20:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Log Cabin Republicans are pretty much a fringe group, though, and even they categorize themselves as being against the GOP's general attitude of homophobia ("Too many people in the party remain hostile to gay and lesbian civil rights"[11]). I don't think characterizing the Republican party as being, at the very least, unsympathetic to gay-issues and the idea of gay-rights is incorrect at all. They've made rallying against gay marriage a major campaign issue, and the Chairman of the Republican Conference (Rick Santorum) is a notorious homophobe who believes that states should be able to outlaw consensual homosexual relations because he thinks they are legally and ethically in the same category as bestiality and child molestation. (I recognize that a Republican would not frame their beliefs in exactly this way, of course, but the agenda seems pretty transparent to me.) --Fastfission 01:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more history to this. When the founding fathers were trying to figure out a workable system under the (at the time) new principles of government, they had the problem of how to create a system that achieved both a proportionate and equal representation. After the Declaration of Indepencence and the war of independence the states did not especially want to cooperate, and on occasion almost went to war with one another. Those states that had been around (ie. the 13 colonies) the longest did not want to give up their influence to those that had only recently come into existence, whereas the newer states demanded the equal representation the Declaration and fundamental principles of independence promised. Thus, the originators of the system determined that there must be two houses, comprising Congress: the lower house of Representatives, in which there is proportional representation, and the upper chamber of the Senate, in which there is equal representation. This solution has been very successful, having worked for over two-and-a-quarter centuries with only one civil conflict and very few significant amendments. Now, as to your question: the situation has changed greatly over the past 40 years. In 1960, a Democratic candidate would start off with a huge advantage in the south (the 'Dixiecrats'), and the Republican candidate would have to bust his tail to catch up...so much so that only two decades previously it was wondered whether the Republican party had a future at all. But now, the southern Democrats are all but dead--the Republicans have come to represent the values of those citizens, and it is the Democratic party that is now in turmoil. In other words, unless you are an activist and would like to help steer the ship, there's nothing to get especially worried about here. Just an ebb and flow. --User:Shandon 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1780s, the US was in a position much like the EU now. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government was basically an association of 13 nearly independent states. The Federalists wanted a real federal government with a national legislature, but some people didn't want the states to give up their role as 13 equal partners. So they had one chamber elected based on population and one chamber with two senators for each state. Until 1913-14, the state legislatures themselves appointed the senators.

In my opinion, like the Electoral College, the equal Senate is a relic of 18th-century circumstances that no longer makes sense under current ones. We're no longer in a position of trying to attract nearly-independent states to join a new government with sharply limited powers, although many people would like to return to that.

It's true that the Senate now seems less conservative than the House, but that's because of the rules of the respective chambers. The Senate is a deliberative body that works to some extent through bipartisan partnership. In the House, the leadership is much stronger and party divides much more important. It's far easier for the Democratic minority to block things in the Senate than in the House. Gerrymandering and the concentration of liberal votes in cities also means that the House, too, is more conservative than it would be if it truly reflected the national electorate.

Even if the Democrats do take control of the Senate, their caucus will probably still be somewhat conservative. Remember that Kerry won nearly 50% of the two-party vote but only 19 of 50 states (or, to put it another way, only 38% of Senate districts). That means that the Democrats must run candidates more conservative than Kerry to win 50% of the Senate, even though Kerry won 50% of the national vote.

Is this fair? Heck no. The Supreme Court said as much in 1964 when it prohibited state-level senate districts not based on population. But the unfairness of the federal Senate is written into the Constitution in a clause that's supposed to be unalterable. Even if the composition of the Senate was subject to the traditional rules for constitutional amendments, there's no way you could get three-fourths of the states to eliminate the malapportionment, since some of them would lose power. -- Mwalcoff 23:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, the fact that the Senate arrangement favors less-populated states is well known. It is deliberate. The House of Representatives favors the more-populated states. The goal of having two houses is that somehow things will get worked out between the two of them. See Connecticut Compromise. There are pros and cons to any arrangement, including this one. --Fastfission 01:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's incorrect to say that the constitutional rules concerning the Senate are unalterable. In fact the Senate as we know it is to a significant extent the product of the 17th amendment. Second, I believe that I made it clear that my main point was that to assume that all homosexuals are left leaning is itself a stereotype. There is much more to the left-right debate than gay rights vs. homophobia. The only truly open-minded view is to recognize that homosexuals come in all shapes and colours, left, right, centre; both deeply religious as well as firmly atheist. Generally considering myself a conservative, I resent the implication that I'm a homophobe. I consider the views and statements of Rick Santorum to be an embarrassment to all decent conservatives. Left vs. right is an extremely multidimensional issue. For example, while I generally favour Republican foreign policy, (if I were an American) I'd favour Democratic domestic policy. I hold very disparate views on many issues. I strongly support Bush's foreign policy, including the invasion of Iraq, but at the same time I'm so anti-gun that I support the repeal of the second amendment, a position most Democrats would consider too leftist even for them to consider. In sum, my point is that viewing all issues as right vs. left, or Republican vs. Democrat, is an extreme oversimplification of the vast array of views in a democracy. Loomis51 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fairy tale with doves

I'm looking for the title of a fairy tale that I read a long time ago. In the fairy tale, a hunter is catching doves with a net for a wedding banquet. All of the doves he catches are brown, except for a single white one. This dove transforms into a woman. If I remember correctly he catches the white dove a second time and he kills her. Sound familiar to anyone? KeeganB

South Korea

In what year was an election held and American troops pulled out of South Korea?

Maybe 1952? That's when Eisenhower was elected. Actually American troops were never completely pulled out. We still have soldiers patrolling the DMZ. Brian G. Crawford 23:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a specific answer to the question, except to say that it had to be later than 1952. Major combat in the Korean War had not ended until 1953. Loomis51 02:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the questioner has confused the Korean War with the Vietnam War. Just by the phrase "pulled out", it is rather limiting. American troops are still in South Korea, Japan/Okinawa, Germany, Italy, France, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Panama, etc... Vietnam and the Phillipines are the only two countries that I know of that American troops have pulled out of. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

We didnt start the fire (the song by billy joel)

What is special about bernie goetz?

Does our article on Bernie Goetz answer the question? --Fastfission 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intrinsic democratic goods

What are intrinsic democratic goods and extrinsic public goods as they relate to comparative politics?68.228.73.29 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Minnie0085[reply]

Please do your own homework. It won't do you any good to have your homework done for you - after all, it's there for you to learn. — QuantumEleven 11:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well gee, thanks for your help. This isn't for homework, its in preparation for a college midterm on comparative politics and I can't find these definitions in any of our texts. Just because the question is posed in proper grammar and spelled correctly doesn't mean its homework. Thanks anyways68.228.73.29 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)minnie0085[reply]

You can try rephrasing it in simple English: "What are essential elements of democracy and non-essential public resources in the area of comparing governments with one another?" --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Liberty Head ("Mercury") dimes (1916–1945)

I found one of these coins that was dated 1944...I read all the information on the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_%28United_States_coin%29 and I couldn't find any information about 1944 coins or the market value of these coins. If anyone has any information please let me know through my personal email: < e-mail adress removed to prevent spam > Your information and time are greatly appreciated.

Memorable quotes

"What we do in life for ourselves dies with ourselves but what we do for others remains and is eternal." I thought the author's name is Robert Hines but I cannot find him nor the quote.

I think that this quotation is nonsense. If I attain a net worth of $1 million for myself, then when I die my descendants benefit from the inheritance. I initially tried to do something for myself, but I ended up help both myself and people near me.

Or I can help the people around me while I am alive, and expect to get something in return. I could pay for a cousin's education, and then expect a return. Again, both I and the people around me benefit.Patchouli 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very much like "What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal" by Albert Pine. On this page [12], google without the quotes--Shandon 17:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares who's talking

I'm trying to locate the source for an alleged Samuel Beckett quote that is quoted by Foucault in Qu'est-ce qu'un auteur? - the quote in the French text is "qu'importe qui parle?", or in the German translation "Wen kümmert's, wer spricht?". Unfortunately, I don't know the exact English phrasing of the quote which makes searching a bit diffcult, but I've been all over Google, did a fulltext search on some of Beckett's works with several possible English translations, waded through tons of "memorable quotes" websites and still came up with nothing. Curiously, the French and German versions of the quote yield tons of Google hits but all of them seem to talk about Foucault, not one of them seems to make a mention of exactly where the quote originates. Is this a red herring by Foucault (would be rather untypical for him)? Or am I just too stupid to google? -- Ferkelparade π 08:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could this article be a reference to it? A search for 'what does it matter who speaks' produces some results, but only attributed to Foucault and "one of Beckett's narrators". Henry ^Flower 09:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've finally tracked it down. The original quote is "What matter who's speaking, someone said what matter who's speaking", from Texts for nothing #3. Thanks for the help (even though I found it somewhere else) -- Ferkelparade π 10:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music

What British band has a song, album and tour with the same name?

What is the prize? Notinasnaid 09:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a song, album, tour, and movie with the same name? Help. I can't think of the name. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is too easy. Most bands name their tours after their last album, and many albums are named after one of the tracks. DJ Clayworth 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need Help, eh? Well, whatever the answer is, I'm sure that The Song Remains the Same. It all depends on whether the "album" is before or after the tour, etc., but this long ago Stopped Making Sense. Geogre 02:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was this one band with a Magical Mystery Tour, but I don't remember their name. I think they were the precursor to Wings. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? It was the precursor to the Plastic Ono Band! --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fates (Moirae)

I really need help on this. I'm doing it for a school report and I've looked everywhere, including here. Does anyone have anything else on the Fates? (Greek mythology)

If the pages on the Moirae (and their individual pages) don't have what you need, you'll have to be more specific as to what you want to know if you want a good answer from the Reference desk. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could always go to the aptly named The Fates Homework Page [13], but bring your Delphi keycard with you.--Shandon 16:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

civil war

could you please tell me what was the roll of an African American was during the civil war if he was enlisted in the united states army and in the confederate army.

Probably stale and moldy, my old scotch and soda...seriously though, likely the role of regular enlisted man for the federals since he had a reason for fighting & the yankees rarely handed out commissions, and if at all for the confederates probably most often as 'slave' hauling supplies. Have a look at [14] for the federals and [15] for the rebels. Now I will await correction by some grizzled veteran of four score and seven years... --Shandon 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be grizzled but I'm no veteran - wait, yes, I am. Regardless, my African American rolls were rather tasty with a side of good Kentucky whiskey. Those northerners had them stale and moldy African American rolls. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good book on the subject: Forever Free: Emancipation and Reconstruction by Eric Foner. Also, Slave To Civil War Hero: The Story of Robert Smalls by Michael Cooper. And generally just a good (fiction) book about the civil war: Year of Jubilo by Howard Bahr.

Glory is a great movie about that particular subject, albeit only from the perspective of the Union army. I'd really suggest you see it if you're interested in the subject. Loomis51 00:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Buffalo Soldier and the links from it may also help a little. Grutness...wha? 08:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinner's prayer

The survivor of the Sago Mine disaster has written an account of his experience (AP 4/27/06). In his account, he relates that as air was running out in the mine and as the miners became resigned to their fate they said a "Sinner's Prayer". Wikipedia does not have a reference to 'sinner's prayer', though the web has a few references when using the Google search engine. The googled references only speak to the value of a sinner's prayer, not exactly what it is nor how it should be used. Also, I can find no example of a sinner's prayer. Now that I am feeling in need of such a prayer, I can't find a ready-made one. Please help or provide a reference.--John Murray

See Sinner's Prayer. Instead of just answering, I made the article. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Thank you.

Waldo

Where's Waldo? 199.201.168.100 18:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. --MattShepherd 18:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy here. :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHICH Is it!? now I'm confused! 12.183.203.184 00:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

travel and tourism

i needed a graph which will show me visitor numbers to walt disney world florida between 2000 through to 2006

Boston Tea Party = Terroism?

(Hope this is the right catagory to put this in.) I've heard from a friend that the Boston Tea Party was, by today's US standards terrorism due to the "destruction of proprty for polictical gains" or something like that. Is that true?

In popular usage of the phase "Terrorism" also requires that it is being done by the "enemy". So the Brits could call it terrorism, but the Americans would call it something else. Political protest or something. ---J.S (t|c) 23:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Tea party as terrorism? The Brits would definitely NOT call it terrorism. This has got to be one of the most insane, anti-American comments I've heard in some time, and I've heard plenty. Are you basically saying that the slaughter of 3,000 people on 9/11 falls into the same general category as dumping a bunch of tea into Boston harbour? I really don't know what to say except that the proposition is insane. StuRat, maybe you can do a better job than I am at responding to this absurd comment. Loomis51 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I've seen it in a National Geographic article about terrorism before. I think that's where my friend heard it from. Wizrdwarts 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually that insane a comment, once you realise what's being asked. Basically, the problem with modern anti-terorrism legislation is that it's often drafted to include everything you could define as terrorism, but as a result it ends up being (theoretically) applicable to things that nobody ever actually intended. I can't comment on the example quoted, but the example that always stuck with me used the UK's Terrorism Act 2000, which as you can see from the link defines terrorism as something which a) involves serious violence or property damage or so on; and b) is intended to influence a government or a section of the public; and c) is done to advance a political or religious cause.

Even if you leave the Tea Party out of it, if you look at some of the resistance movements of, say, WWII, they did plenty of killing "collaborators". Terrorism by another name, unless you subscribe to the theory that terrorism is something that other people do to you. --Robert Merkel 01:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the obviously-not-terrorism example of Operation Overlord, then, we can work out that a) it involved a lot of violence and damage; b) it was intended to influence the German government; c) there was that whole "freedom" political cause thing going on. You can see the problem with an overly-broad definition, I hope! Yes, the law would never be used in this way, but the fact remains that the law is still defined really sloppily...

"Terrorism" is like "pornography"; it's really easy to define what is obviously terrorism, and what obviously isn't, but it's very hard to write a definition which manages to draw the line in the middle accurately, and most attempts to define it (as in this case) are so broad that they throw up a huge number of false positives. I very much suspect the original poster had heard a similar comment. Shimgray | talk | 01:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorism" is a military action by a paramilitary or irregular force designed to achieve political ends by the inducing of terror. The Boston Tea Party was political protest. The British longshoremen weren't supposed to be terrified, and the British officials weren't either. Rather, it was a statement that they'd rather dump the tea than pay taxes...about the equivalent of sneaking into a chemical company and spilling the vats. It's quasi-violent, but it's not designed to create terror as much as impress the powers that be with the determination and potential violence of the objectors. Geogre 02:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody blew up our strategic oil reserves, it would be labeled terrorism even if no one died. If someone blew up a government owned grain silo, in the name of attacking the government, it would probably be labeled terrorism but not wept over. I think if someone blew up a major material commodity, in the name of defying/attacking the government, it would be labeled terrorism, by today's standards. So, yes, I think the British, if they thought like 21st century Americans, could have labeled the Boston Tea Party as "terrorism". --Fastfission 03:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it isn't a political science term at all, and trying to come up with a rigorous definintion either includes some of the actions of the noble free democracy-loving states, or excludes some of the actions of the baddies, who obviously ought to be tarred with the brush of this debate-stifling political swear word. (Note that of course, people stop being terrorists as soon as they become saints - I'm thinking of Nelson Mandela here, who could have cut short his 26-yr jail time at any point by renouncing violence as a legitimate tool of the ANC). --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shimgray said it best by basically applying Justice Potter Stewart's assessment of obscenity: "I can't give you a definition of terrorism, but I know it when I see it." The Boston Tea Party was not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. The indiscriminate targeting of civilians for death, for sheer shock effect to display a wanton disregard for human life is. I suppose terrorism is difficult to define given the limitations of human language. But I know it when I see it. (And conversely I know when I don't see it.) Thanks Shimgray, for that astute analogy. Loomis51 09:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people are calling the occupation of a partially constructed housing development by Six Nations Indians in Canada "terrorism," so not everyone shares the definition that someone has to die. In U.S. federal law, 18 USC 2331 defines "domestic terrorism" as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State (that) appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Since the Boston Tea Party was probably not life-threatening, it probably would not meet that statuatory definition. However, the Sons of Liberty might be guilty of racketeering under 18 USC 1951 and subject to up to 20 years in prison. -- Mwalcoff 23:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My def of terrorism is that it seeks to maximize civilian casualties while legit military operations seek to minimize civilian casualties. Under this def, the Boston Tea Party was certainly not terrorism. Note that some orgs called terrorist, like the Earth Liberation Front (those nuts who torch SUVs) also don't qualify as terrorists orgs under this def. While they are guilty of "conspiracy to commit arson and vandalism", to me that doesn't rise to the level of terrorism. (Ironically, their actions likely hurt the environment, as another SUV is built to replace the torched one, and the environmental costs of this must be added to the resources used to produce the first one and the actual environmental damage caused by the flaming vehicle. The auto companies must also be happy to have an opportunity to sell a replacement SUV.) StuRat 23:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OREGON TERRITORY HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am doing a report on Oregpn Territory I need notes on How it became part of the US The things that attracted settlers there and Conflicts that arose in this territory I can not find any of these in the articles about this territory.. I need this info or somewhere to find it ASAP samantha

Did you see our article at Oregon Treaty? If you follow the links from there, they might help you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer History

I am researching information for volunteer management and administration purposes.

Do you have any information on:

1) The first American recognized volunteer organization 2) The first documented American volunteer "act" and or "service" and 3) When was the study or academia of volunteer administration first accepted as a college/university course?

Thank you.

Our information on volunteers is somewhat limited, and your answer probably depends quite a lot on your definition of volunteering; though I expect something recognisable as modern volunteer organisations were probably a 19th century thing. Do communities pooling their efforts to build churches count? --Robert Merkel 01:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to explain what you mean by volunteer. Do you mean such things as fire brigades (18th c.)? Do you mean philanthropy (1730's)? Do you mean prison relief (1760's)? Do you mean charity to children (1720's)? Do you mean rescuing "fallen women" (Francis Chittendon Society, 1810's)? You really need to specify a bit. Prior to the development of efficient civil mechanisms, the United States, in particular, had numerous voluntary organizations to fulfill what should be civil functions. In an expanding territorial framework, voluntary organizations were able to move more quickly than governmental structures. Geogre 03:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

China

I've have two questions to ask you about China:

In an article in a Time magazine, called 'Mother Nature:Political Reformer', it said that "China's government wants to make China a wealthy and economically advanced country without making it a democracy.But it is realizing too late that the two go together." I don't understand -the two go together?But how and why do they go together?

Also, I've heard that China's government says that China is not suited to be a democracy.Do you think that's true?If not, then why do you think China's government said that?

User:Bowei

It seems to me that what you got here is two points of opinion, one pro-democratic the other anti-democratic, neither explaining their opinions, but going by the classic "I'm right, your wrong" approach. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 06:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sides to the first point. Firstly, it's a common conception (especially in the US) that the only countries which will become prosperous are 'democratic' countries (however you define that term). When asked for examples, Americans will usually point to themselves, Western Europe, Australia and so forth as good examples of this. The argument goes that capitalism and tight control by the people over the government (so no dictators, and steep penalties for abusing power) are necessary prerequisites - the list of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, a decent (if by no means perfect) measure of wealth seems to support this claim, as most countries at the top of the list are western-style democracies. The converse argument is also stated - that most countries at the bottom of the list are either dictatorships or failed states. But there are, of course, exceptions - Brunei, for instance, #26 on the list, is an absolute monarchy and doesn't quite fall under 'democracy'. Qatar may be a nominal democracy, but it keeps a very tight lid of freedom of expression and the like, and stands proud at #11. Tanzania, virtually at the bottom of the list, could count as a passable (if somewhat corrupt) democracy. So you can see that there is a problem defining 'democracy' - is it a democratic (free and fair and regular elections, division of power...) system which is key, or is it the freedoms the population enjoy, or what? Take Singapore, a very wealthy and successful country, which is democratic but with a very heavy-handed judiciary where personal freedoms are more restricted than in most Western countries - but it's still a democracy! So while the theory may hold more-or-less true in general, it seems that there is (as always) more going on.

Secondly, something else to consider is that cause and effect may be reversed - economic properity leads to democracy. The argument goes along the lines that more wealth for the people means the people demand a better and freer lifestyle, which the government may or may not wish to grant them. Also, a better-off population has better access to information and more ways of making their voice heard, and so are not so easily misled by government propaganda designed to keep them complacent. The problem, of course, is how to define 'wealth' - if a country is exceedingly wealthy (I take Brunei again as an example), but that wealth is concentrated in a few people (I mean, the Sultan has enough money to buy one of our planes as a toy, and those babies aren't cheap), then the vast majority of the population remains poor. Also, there is no compelling reason why more wealth to the people means more democracy - historically, it seems that the populace is perfectly happy with their government unless that government is seen to radically restrict take away that wealth. China is one of the crux examples of this, as its population is becoming ever wealthier while the government is still seen as being relatively restrictive (from an outside view). Witness the success of the The great firewall of china in keeping 'undesirable' information out of the country - for the moment, it appears to be working. Only time will tell if it stays that way.

So, to sum up, it seems that neither explanation is completely true - there are trends in that direction, yes, but as any good scientist would say, correlation does not equate to causation. Just because most of the wealthiest countries are capitalist democracies does not necessarily mean that capitalist democracy either leads to or is caused by prosperity. For a more detailed explanation, you'll probably have to ask an economist... hope this at least went partway towards answering your question!

Oh, and I can't really comment on the second - sorry, don't know enough. — QuantumEleven 07:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview on NBC, CBS, or ABC a couple years ago, President Hu explained the political system in China as follows: People elect their local leaders in a fully democratic way. Federal law prohibits a person from one area to run for office in another area. The leaders of local areas vote for the offices above them in a fully democratic way. The regional leaders vote for federal office in a fully democratic way. The interviewer said it wasn't a democracy like the U.S. if the people weren't directly voting for their leader (he obviously forgot about how the U.S. votes for the President). Then President Hu explained that the education system in China is very poor. He is working to improve it. Without education, democracy will not work. People will be easily tricked into voting based on things that do not matter. Then, the government will exist to take advantage of the people instead of help them. After that explanation, I thought that President Hu did his homework. Without stating anything about the U.S. directly, he jabbed our government for taking advantage of our uneducated people. Best of all, I doubt more than 10% of the viewers got it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Its also worth noting that democracy isn't nessarily preferable -althogh as liberal westerners we like to think it is. aristotle said that the best form of governement was a benign dictatorship and i have head about india that, when people cant read, things like growth in GDP are meaningless(becuase they, presumably, dont know what GDP is), so people are elected on what might be considered trivial bases. I only say this because it may well be that, in comparing themselves favorably to india, the chinese middle classes may not WANT democracy, almost independantly of how repressive the governement is...andrew.

wagner labor regulations act of 1935

Please explain the Wagner Labor Regulations Act of 1935 and its purpose.

Do your own homework here: National Labor Relations Act --E ivind ^t ^@^c 06:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will explain it to you, by the way in about a week from now I will be earning a Doctorate in Laws, and labor law just happened to be my best subject?

The wagner act gives workers a company the write to form a union, and engage in collective actions in order to get the company negotiate. (Such as strikes). It also regulated what both the union and company could do to counter each other.

It's purpose: 1. To satisfy Unionist members of the Democratic parties new deal coalition. 2. It order encourage industral peace. Prior to this law their was much blood shed between unions and management. This bloody battles which put workers agaist security details employeed by the company occured and where over issues such as whether management will reconize the union, and it would grant union economic demands. The process laid out mandated an orderly process that governs how unions and management should behave towards anouther, and thus promoted industrial peace. 3. A final reason involved the depression, New deal planners hoped the Wagner would result higher wages, which would be spent by the worker,a and trickle into the general economy, thus helping to end the depression.

Setting of Huckleberry Finn

I haven't read the book in years and I can't find the answer in the article on the book: in which state does The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn start? I'm working on a synopsis of the musical Big River, which is based on the book, and my source doesn't mention it either. I know when I get the answer I'll feel like a moron, but, you know, there it is.... -- MusicMaker5376 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it's said to be a sequel to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer which is set in St. Petersburg, Missouri. The e-text is available so you could try searching in that for the names of various other states that the Mississippi flows through. --Shantavira 08:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Gutenberg has lots of Twain, including Huck Finn: [16]. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is missouri alteripse 10:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure if it was Missouri or Mississippi. Thanks! -- MusicMaker5376 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Citizen/Naturalization Requirements 1880 - 1945

What were the mandatory requirements for immigrants to become US Citizens between the years 1880-1945? Was learning English one of the requirements?

I don't think being fluent in English was a requirement. I know people like Jane Addams created workshops and classes for immigrants who wanted to learn English. Maybe someone else can chime in with a better answer. Mike H. That's hot 09:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1906 novel of Upton Sinclair The Jungle, the main character, Jurgis, becomes a citizen in less than two years. Based on my own experience, I can tell you that after nine years in the U.S., I don't even have a green card. In addition, immigrants around me are ~~distrungled~~ [disgruntled] for the toughening of immigration laws. I can tell you that the CIS is the most incompetent bureau I have seen. They keep telling me to wait forever and my complaints to the ombudsman are ignored.Patchouli 11:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

distrungled? Is that a variant of disgruntled, or is it a cool new word? JackofOz 11:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was distrungled once, but I'm now fully trungled again. Feels great. Henry ^Flower 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on saying, "Don't execute me. It was just a typographic error." However, I am a teachable person and do not like to justify any of my errors - even if they were inadvertent. Thus, I thank very much you for drawing me attention to the misspelling, and I take the blame.Patchouli 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with blame, Patchouli. I really like the sound of "distrungled". Obviously other people do too, as it gets a significant number of Google hits. Pity it's just a mistake for "disgruntled", which means I now can't use it for anything else. In my next life, I'm coming back to Wikipedia as "Distrungled Splinge". You heard it here first. :--) JackofOz 12:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate evil?

Is there (or was there ever) a religion which advocates doing deliberate evil? That is, where the adherents of the religion know what they are doing is radically wrong, in some sense, and yet deliberately strive to do it anyway? A religion that consciously tries to make the world worse, not better? The evil they do should be considered evil by their own standards, irrespective of what outsiders may feel about it. So something like ancient Kali worship where the adherents may feel destruction is good to preserve the world order or some such would not qualify. Sorry this is kind of a weird question, and I fully expect there is no such religion... however, seeing how there may well be some experts on obscure religions here I thought I'd ask. -- noosphere 06:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nowhere near an expert, but it seems like a logical impossibility to advocate doing deliberate evil... as it would be advocating that evil was indeed good, thereby turning it on its head. In other words, as an example, say that Evilism posits that its adherents should "always strive to do what is wrong." The implication, though, is that it is right to do a number of things, explicit or otherwise, which are "wrong." Therefore, the adherents aren't actually doing wrong (according to their ideology), but something that is right — it's just considered wrong by others. Ahh, the relativity!

About the only way to answer your question positively would require the existence of objective evil, in which case, there's probably some ideologies may at least partially fit your description. Of course, a complete embrace to said evil would seemingly destroy the adherents to that ideology rather quickly. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to confound the concept of "good" with "desirable", and "evil" with "undesirable". Just because something is desirable for someone doesn't mean its good. For example, if you read some confessions by certain serial killers and some schizophrenics, they'll sometimes talk about how they knew what they were doing was "evil" or "wrong", yet they felt they had to do it anyway because God told them to, or they felt they couldn't help themselves or something along those lines. So what I'm looking for is a religion that advocates actions judged in a similar manner. That is, one that actually advocates doing evil, while being clear that the acts themselves are evil and are both not immediately good, and not done for the sake of some eventual good. I am particularly interested in what their justifications for such action would be, and also interested in what the mythology of such a religion would be. But I could do that research on my own. The hard part is finding such a religion. -- noosphere 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trick question because everything that a religion advocate is by definition a good action. IE. religion is the ultimate authority by which good and evil is defined. Ohanian 09:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantric Buddhism advocates that there is good and evil for those trapped in the worldly cycle of rebirth. To prove that one is beyond this cycle, acts of deliberate evil are allowed. A popular story is a woman who offered a bowl of her urine and feces as a dinner to a buddhist priest to show that she was beyond the concept of good and evil. The priest, therefore, had to eat it to prove that he too was beyond it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything in the Tantric Buddhism article to suggest that's true. It sounds like an urban legend to me. --Hughcharlesparker 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The Tantric Buddhism article has absolutely nothing about the Twilight Texts. I'll have to dig up my religion studies books so I can ensure what I add is properly referenced. Anyway, the Twilight Texts are the ones that discuss the indistinction between good and evil. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting example, Kainaw. But it's not what I'm looking for. Maintaining that there's no difference between good and evil, or that they don't exist is not the same as acknowledging there is evil and performing such an action would be radically wrong, but striving to do it anyway... which is more what I'm after. -- noosphere 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohanian, a religion would indeed be the authority on what is good and evil. However, I maintain that there is no contradiction in branding something evil and admitting it will make the world worse, and yet at the same time pronounce it to be desirable and even mandatory or laudable. And even if it were contradictory, I don't see why a religion couldn't take that stance anyway... many religions have apparently contradictory doctrines. -- noosphere 16:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Tijuana Brass and Ohanian. If you say something is "good", that means it's something you "should do", and vice versa. On the other hand, do you consider Discordianism a religion? I'm no expert, but I think Discordianism might actually advocate doing evil (even though that's a contradiction). —Keenan Pepper 17:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think Discordianism is pretty clearly a joke, like the Church of the Subgenius. And I think what they purportedly advocate is more disorder-causing mischief than outright "evil". I could see a Discordian hiding a friend's car keys or performing some other practical joke, but not murdering people for his religion or otherwise causing great suffering. -- noosphere 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one obvious answer would be that a number of religions advocate doing evil, but only if it is the lesser of two evils. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a textbook example of a false dilemma. It only seems to be a contradiction when cultural mores are perceived as universal rules. The problem is confusing because the words in which it is presented (i.e. "evil" and "should") are loaded. They require a belief in a universal morality. Without such a belief, the concept of moral obligation is meaningless.

This becomes more evident when one considers a moral law that has lost the illusion of universality. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that a person has been instilled with the belief that dancing is evil. If he retains this conviction while wilfully "committing dance", then he may perceive himself as a wilful agent of evil. Most of us would disagree, arguing that his desire to dance is innocent, and that he simply lacks the knowledge that his cultural mores are mistaken. If this person were to reject his culture and form his own moral code, would he declare dancing a sin? Obviously not. Only by aknowledging the validity of his culture's morality is he able to view himself as a sinner. Evil is culturally determined, not set "by [one's] own standards". If it were, there would be no self-loathing gays and guilt-ridden masturbators.

Whether evil is culturally determined, relative to the individual, or absolute is really a seperate issue. So I'll just say this: one could, concievably, set one's own standards of morality and still go against them. In fact, I personally believe these are the only kinds of standards there are, despite people pretending otherwise. So yes, even the guilt-ridden masturbators are making themselves feel guilty over failing to live up to a standard they've set for themselves. But, again, this is really tangential to the question at hand. -- noosphere 04:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we restate the creed of deliberate evil in objective terms, the fallacy becomes obvious:

If one believes "X is evil", one believes that non-X is a moral obligation. If one believes "I should do X", one believes that X is a moral obligation. If one believes that "I should do evil", then one believes that X = non-X. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument commits the fallacy of begging the question. It already starts with the premises that good actions are morally obligatory, and evil actions are morally prohibited; while those are themselves the conclusions to be proven. My whole question is about finding an instance of a theology where the morally obligatory act is evil, so I will not join you in assuming a definition of good and evil that would render such an act logically contradictory from the outset.

Good and evil can be definied in any number of ways, and while I grant that good acts are usually morally obligatory and evil acts usually morally prohibited, I am not willing to grant that they must always be so.

Anyway, this is not the place to argue about the definitions of good or evil. I am just looking for a religion that fits the requirements I specified. Perhaps there isn't one. But I'm not ready to toss in the towel quite yet. -- noosphere 04:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl Nuclear Station after the disaster

I was reading about the accident and began wondering, exactly what did happen to the other units of the Chernobyl plant? By searching I couldn't find any references to what happened to them, except "now closed". So, can anyone enlighten me about this tidbit of information? And yes, it is obvious that they were shut down, but how fast, normal shutdown or emergency, when and so on. Thank you. Shadikka 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened in the immediate aftermath of the meltdown of reactor 4, if the other three reactors were turned off or not, but I suspect not -- it's very expensive and time-consuming to start a reactor back up after it's been running for a while. In the long run, the other three reactors were kept running, as the Soviet Union (and later the Ukraine) needed the electricity. According to the article Chernobyl disaster, reactor 2 was shut down in 1991 after being damaged by fire, reactor 1 was decommissioned in 1996, and reactor 3 was shut down in 2000. --Serie 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Martin

Dear Lady, dear Sir, I came across a newly published bookklet "My Autobiography" by Judith Martin (2005, ISVN 1-4208-7552-3 (sc). Assuming the name refers to "Miss manners", I bought the book via Amazon, but it has evidently nothing to do with the well known "Miss manners". I did, of course check the key-word "Judith Martin". Have you got any idea who this person is, as she evidently misuses a public name? I would be gratful to get an answer. Very sincerely yours Dr. Helmut Sauer (Germany) E-Mail: [redacted to reduce spam]

A Judith Martin is the person who writes the Miss Manners column for the Washington Post. (BTW, are we all supposed to be hating on WaPo now? That's the feeling I get from some quarters. I thought it was the WashTimes that was dodgy.) "Miss Manners" as a fictional person dates back much further, eg in the phrase "leave one for Miss Manners". But of course the Miss Manners Judith Martin doesn't have a copyright on her birth name, so any other Judith Martin is perfectly free to publish an autobiography, as one clearly has (looking on Amazon, apparently some non-notable person who went through AuthorHouse, one of those publishers that exists in the borderland of the vanity press industry). But there's no real "abuse" here. --Bth 12:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you may not have a complete right to your own name if you share it with a public figure and try to get into the celebrity's line of work. Bill Wyman, former Rolling Stones bassist, sent a cease-and-desist letter to a music columnist also named Bill Wyman, threatening a lawsuit if the columnist didn't include disclaimers telling readers he (the columnist) was not the former Rolling Stone [17]. Mwalcoff 23:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist Gaze(John Urry)

What is tourist gaze? I have limited knowledge about this term and would like to know more about it. The idea of the "objectification of place for tourist consumption" doesnt make sense to me because isnt "place" already an "object"? -- Paul 28 April, 2006

I'd check out our Gaze article, especially the "Effects of gaze" section; it defines "gaze" in terms of feminist theory - which is where the idea originated, in my understanding - but perhaps you could see how the same idea could be relevant to unequal power relationships between the wealthy, outsider tourist and a poorer person whose home is being visited. Also check out Objectification. ...of course, I'm not actually familiar with Said's use of the term - with luck, someone smart will come along and fill in the details before too long. CDC (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't qualify in that regard, but think of "objectification" in this regard as a form of commodification and subjection. To reduce a place to an object is to make it into an Other (the distinction is not between objects and actions but between subjective and objective; objectification is to make something entirely not part of the self, to make it inferior and uninvolved, to take it from the responsibilities of common humanity). Geogre 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm way out of my depth on this one, as well, but when I was thinking of objectification/commodification for tourism purposes, I was reminded of the Padaung, a group of the Karen people living in northern Thailand; I seem to recall that their custom of neck-lengthening had largely died out, until day trips from Chiang Mai to their villages became a popular attraction, and the neck-lengthening is now done pretty well entirely to attract tourists. The ethics of this sort of seem to be something that might help understanding. --23:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I had made a mistake. John Urry should be the one who conceptualized the "tourist gaze", while Edward Said should be the one who coined the term Orientalism. I have changed back the heading. Anyway the two concepts are a little interrelated (in my understanding). But I still don't fully understand, what's wrong with this "tourist gaze" afterall? If "male gaze" reflects an inequality of power distribution between the sexes(if I am correct), what does "tourist gaze" reflects? A hindrance of the local people's way of living? (Regarding the Padaung example) Anything else? --Paul 23:02, 29 April 2006

And could anyone so kindly create an article on tourist gaze? -- Paul 23:15, 29 April 2006

Further small correction: I think the above jargon usage of "gaze" originated with the French theorists (Foucault, Lacan, Derrida) and was later (70s or 80s) adopted by American feminism and university English departments. alteripse 16:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacan and Foucault have a different form of "gaze." Feminists who derive their language from the one mean something very different from those who derive it from the other. At any rate, if you entirely encapsulate a place in the Other, then it loses any claim on your shared humanity. If Cairo is not only "not London" but is, in fact, "some place to go and do" and "some place with wogs in it," then you can behave differently than you would at home, have no regard for its abilities to have laws, have no concern for the welfare or rights of the people, etc. By turning it into a commodity, a thing bought and sold, you make it property. This is an antagonistic expression of power difference, it seems to me. (Then again, I'm so heavily Marxist in my criticism that I may be painting their analyses red.) Geogre 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

civil war

can you please tell me some african american units that were around during the civil war and please tell me what type of stuff they would do in an all black unit.

The most famous is the 54th Massachusetts whose story was told in the movie Glory. See also the Civil War section of Military history of African Americans. Note that the army was not integrated - there were only all-black units, not mixed ones. Rmhermen 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You (or someone using your computer) asked this question yesterday. Try using the scroll bar and moving up to see the answers that were given - especially the one about Glory (film). --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In these units they would fight the confederacy, snd perform other military duties. These units where considered above average, espessally in terms of discipline. What individual units did varied, however at the begining of the war most of their activity involved menial work.

As I also answered in the previous question on this subject, the article Buffalo Soldier, and its associated links, is also probably quite useful. Grutness...wha? 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo soldiers were after the war though. Rmhermen 03:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the article gives some details of the history prior to the formation of the Buffalo Soldiers in 1866, specifically the role of black soldiers during the ACW. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Angel" at the Ambassador Hotel

Which episode(s) of the TV show 'Angel' was shot at the Ambassador Hotel in LA? - Redgie

"Parting Gifts", according to The Buffy Trivia Guide, though this conflicts with our The Ambassador Hotel article, which claims it was a third season episode, without any cite. I've amended the article on the grounds it's probably a third/first mishearing or something. --Bth 09:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Vietnam War Draft

Based on my reading of Wikipedia articles, I think that the Vietnam War draft lasted for four years, 1969-1973. Is this correct?Patchouli 02:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Actually that is not correct, almost continously from from WWII to 1973 the U.S. had a draft. What changed in 1969 is the draft was reformed. These reforms involved removing most deferents that had helped parties such as college students get out of military service, it also took draft system and changed from locally controlled to nationally controlled. These reforms where put in place mainly to take away the perception that the draft favored the rich and affluent. The old system was viewed as bias because the people who get deferents where usually more affluent, in addition the control by local draft boards increased likely hood of chacanary.[reply]

Tablature/Chords to Farewell to Nova Scotia

I'm looking for the tablature or chords to the public domain song Farewell to Nova Scotia. According to this Wikipedia entry it's in the public domain, but I can't for the life of me find the tabs/chords. Thanks! --Silvaran 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe http://www.festivalfive.com/seamusic/chords/SMfarewell-nova-scotia.txt ?? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆

differances

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF PREMELINIAL AND AUMELINIAL OF THE BAPTIST FAITH

Premillennialism is the belief that Revelation (specifically Chapter 20) is a literal prophecy foretelling future events, and specifically within that context that the Second Coming will happen before a literal 1000-year-rule by Christ on Earth. Amillennialism is a belief that Revelation should be taken more symbolically than literally, and that the church already represents a spiritual kingdom ruled by Christ from heaven.

There's also postmillennialism, which teaches that we're already in a more subtly interpreted "millennium" (not necessarily of exactly 1000 years), which will culminate in the Second Coming. --Bth 08:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNITAS?

Can someone give me a short definition of what UNITAS is? Best I can make out is that it is some type of military designation in South America--a coalition between the U.S. and other countries' militaries?. "Since 1959 UNITAS has been instrumental in improving working relationships among U.S. and Latin American naval forces. Promoting friendship and understanding between participants and people, this year’s exercise focuses on engaging nations to face their common threats and devise multilateral responses"[18]. I am translating a Spanish Wikipedia article where the term appears and it has me stumped. There is no article on it here or there.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNITAS is a yearly, multinational naval deployment exercise. Henry ^Flower 09:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Much appreciated. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Government,The Environment, & Human Rights

In the official website of Amnesty International[19], there was an article which said that many people in the world have been persecuted,arrested,imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed,etc for speaking out and campaigning for the environment and against environmental damage.

I don't understand.First, I thought governments are supposed to care about the environment.(I mean, making environmental laws,controlling pollution,funding convservation programs, and educating people about the environment,etc.)If governments care about environment and environmental issues, then why would they persecute or imprison people for telling them about environmental problems and the need to solve them?I mean, how come they're doing that?

Second, traditionally, it has been businesses and industries, not governments, who don't like environmental concern and campaigns, because it means having to stop doing things that provide some of their profits.So why would governments don't like people campaigning for more attention and solutions to environmental problems?

Many many governments view industrial and economic growth as very important, and thus are on business's side to at least some extent (note that the US govt's stated reason for not signing Kyoto is not that it's not going to fix anything -- a proposition I actually agree with -- but that it would unfairly inhibit their growth). Many governments take large donations from industrial concerns, but I'm sure they wouldn't let that affect their decision-making. More fundamentally, all democratic governments do poorly when looking at things on timescales beyond the next election, especially in "short term pain for long term gain" situations -- unless the public is fully behind the need for the long term gain, they'll get voted out because of the short term pain, so it's not in their interests to do it even if it is in the country's interests. This is why we need political leadership, something sorely lacking in these days of focus groups and exquisitely tailored messages for tiny minorities of swing voters.

This is changing, slowly, lagging public attitudes by 20 years or so -- the Greens are becoming more successful in continental Europe, especially Germany and Scandinavia, and almost everyone else is at least paying lip service to the problems.

And in several non-European countries. The Greens came within a gnat's whisker of being a coalition partner in the current New Zealand government, and have six seats in the 122-member parliament (and ISTR that WP editor User:Alan Liefting was one of their candidates, too!) Grutness...wha? 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time User:Mac Davis logs in, I'm sure he'll be along to tell us that it's all a myth. --Bth 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't completely understood. Have you really gone on to that website and read it? Actually, I'm also asking about why governments would persecute,arrest, and imprison people who speak up for the defence of the environment, not just why governments would dislike it.

Are you referring to any specific government? In most western countries, the government will not imprison, persecute or arrest people who speak up in defence of the environment, unless they are breaking the law by doing so (for instance, blowing up an oil terminal in protest at excessive use of oil is a criminal offence, even if you are doing it 'to speak up in defence of the environment'). In some of the more autocratic countries of the world, people can be imprisoned etc for speaking up in defence of the environment, but that is almost never the 'given' cause - for instance, holding a rally to protest deforestation in a country where unsanctioned public gatherings are forbidden could well land you in jail - but only because you held an unapproved demonstration, not because you were protesting deforestation. In some countries, if you speak out in any way against the government, it's a punishable offence - so if the government is doing strip mining and you say strip mining is bad, you can land in jail - but, again, only because you broke the law. I personally don't know of any countries which persecutes etc people for the sole reason of supporting environmental causes - no more than it would persecute people who hold views incompatible with theirs. The Amnesty website is a bit misleading in this regard. (unless, of course, someone gives me a counter-example! :)) — QuantumEleven 09:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a bit of a clearer explanation - that was too general. There are some countries which rely heavily on exploitation of their environment (for instance, a country which is polluting its countryside to tap the oil fields underneath). If someone speaks out against this, they can be seen as harming national interests and so could be 'silenced' - however, this generally happens only under autocratic or corrupt regimes. But companies do this somewhat more regularly - they have business interests to protect, and those pesky environmental regulations just make them lose profits, y'know? So they try to discredit anyone who makes such ridiculous claims such as their dumping of their waste into a nearby river. And, in some countries, the government is so closely linked (or even controlled) by business interests that they become an extension of company policy. Does that satisfy you as an answer? — QuantumEleven

So you're saying that some governments try to stop people from speaking up for the defence of the environment becuase they listen too much to businesses.But why?Why would governments(both democratic and autocratic) listen too much to businesses, I mean listen much more to them than to environmentalists and environmental groups?

american indian citizenship

Are american indians citizens of the United States? Does it depend on where they were born? How do they accquire citizen's rights and obligations such as the right to vote and to pay taxes?

As far as I can see, if they are born in the US, or have US parents, they are American citizens, with the same rights as all US citizens. Why shouldn't they be? --Shantavira 11:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful. The questioner is right to ask, as the Indian nations have some forms of sovereignty. I think the question's answer may be somewhat complex. (Remember: the various Indian nations were negotiated with by treaty, not by law.) Geogre 11:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Indians weren't U.S. citizens before the 1920's, but all of them are now if they're born inside the U.S., or meet other general citizenship requirements. AnonMoos 15:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does being born in a sovereign Native American state such as Navajo Nation count as being born inside the US though? -lethe ^{talk +} 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note for example, that people born in American Samoa are not US citizens, but only US nationals, and American Samoa isn't even a sovereign state, it's a US territory. Citizens of Guam were only granted US citizenship in 1950 by the Guam Organic Act of 1950. The article Native Americans in the United States says

There are 563 Federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. The United States recognizes the right of these tribes to self-government and supports their tribal sovereignty and self-determination. These tribes possess the right to form their own government, to enforce laws (both civil and criminal), to tax, to establish membership, to license and regulate activities, to zone and to exclude persons from tribal territories. Limitations on tribal powers of self-government include the same limitations applicable to states; for example, neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or coin money.

which leaves me wondering. And the article Political divisions of the United States says

Indian reservations are a separate and special classification of political division of the U.S. Under U.S. law, Indian tribes are sovereign nations, meaning that their legal authority to exist derives independently of the state and federal governments. However, under this definition of tribal sovereignty, they cannot act independently of the federal government, but they are immune from regulations under state law. Until the late-19th century, agreements between the U.S. government and Native American groups were generally called treaties, however these are now considered domestic legislation despite their name, and, since the passage of the Dawes Act in 1883, no new treaties with Indian tribes have been concluded.

Which still doesn't answer. Finally, I find in the article Tribal sovereignty:

Though Congress on June 2, 1924 extended national citizenship to include members of enrolled tribes, the court concluded two Oglala Sioux defendants convicted of adultery under tribal laws did not enjoy legal protection afforded to other citizens by the US Constitution. The court cited case law from a pre-1924 case that said, "when Indians are prepared to exercise the privileges and bear the burdens of one sui juris (not under the power of another), the tribal relation may be dissolved and the national guardianship brought to an end, but it rests with Congress to determine when and how this shall be done, and whether the emancipation shall be complete or only partial ..." (U.S. v. Nice, 1916). The court further determined, based on the earlier Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock case, that, "It is thoroughly established that Congress has plenary authority over Indians." The court held that, "the granting of citizenship in itself did not destroy ... jurisdiction of the Indian tribal courts and ... there was no intention on the part of Congress to do so." The adultery conviction and the power of tribal courts were upheld.

So, in 1924, citizenship was granted to the sovereign tribes, but it's somehow not equal citizenship. They do not get full protection of the constitution, they are somehow independent. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I read about this, it was still a sensitive and ambiguous area. American Indian tribes have traditionally wanted more sovereignty, and this they eventually received, but where does this leave American Indian individuals? Since the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. states cannot legally violate the civil rights of residents of their states. But does this limitation apply to tribes? Tribal governments do not want the U.S. Federal Government interfering in their internal affairs. Therefore, if a tribal government violates the U.S. civil rights of their Native American members, can the Federal Government intervene, as they do with the states? Last time I read, this was still ambigious. I don't know the current interpretation, and my information may be out of date, but this was the state of affairs ten years ago, when Fergus Bordewich's Killing the White Man's Indian was published. Bordewich noted, by the way, that American Indian tribes are, by definition, race-based governments. Non-Indians who live on tribal lands (there are many) are not represented in the tribal government, cannot serve in the local government, and do not enjoy equal protection under tribal law. --K

Thanks: I know the Chamurro Indians of Guam are citizens and the Puerto Ricans are and I'm glad to learn that we (the gov't) does not discriminate against the native Americans

The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act made citizens of all Indians born in the US (or of US citizens). --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

congregation

in hinduism, sikhism and buddhism, which day is their congregational prayer?

Buddhism does not have a "special" day of the week (or "prayer" as such, though most Buddhists "worship" their ideal). Many Buddhists (certainly all "traditional" Buddhists) meditate at least once a day, either alone or, especially if they live in a Buddhist community, with other Buddhists. The full moon day once a month is traditionally a time for meeting together for talk and study, but most Buddhist groups in the west meet up at least weekly. In my own school of Buddhism, there are activities of some sort at the Buddhist Centre every night of the week and at weekends. --Shantavira 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation comes from a latin root meaning sheep. They have less sheep East of Jerusalem. --DLL 12:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's from the Latin word meaning "crowd" or "flock", but not specifically of sheep. "Ovis" means sheep. :--) JackofOz 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars

Can you tell me which person lost out on the part of Han Solo when Harrsion Ford was given the part?

Harrsion Ford? Never heard of him. To find out who auditioned for the role of Han Solo, you might want to check Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was Christopher Walken. This was back when he'd just done The Deer Hunter, and people took him seriously. Brian G. Crawford 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Renaissance

What period came after the Ren period? I know it was preceded by the Middle Ages....

I don't know that there's a single commonly-used term guaranteed not to overlap with "Renaissance", but "early modern" and "Counter-Reformation" are sometimes used. In English history, there's "Stuart". AnonMoos 21:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labels fall off most things. The glue on historical labels is pretty strong. Generally, after the Ren. we have Interregnum. After that, we have English Restoration. After that, we have either "18th century" or "Augustan" or "Enlightenment." After that, we get "Georgian," "Victorian," and "Edwardian," in England. For the world of the west in general, folks use the term "baroque" to go after "renaissance" and preceed "enlightenment." Also, before "renaissance" is not just "Middle Ages," although "medieval" can be used. After all, there is the Gothic period after the Dark Ages (a really not-used term these days), and then a number of breakdowns, like Tudor for the Henry VII - Henry VIII period in England. Geogre 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Interregnum is occasionally referred to as the Cromwellian or Commonwealth period, too. But yes, each country has its own history, so each country has its own set of labels for slightly different times. Grutness...wha? 03:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the question refers to England (which is not at all clear to me, but that's the drift the answers have taken), I'd say that most historians would call the period following the Renaissance "Early Modern"...certainly that was what it was called when I was in grad school specializing in that narrow little field. If we're referring to other countries in Europe, my sense is that "Early Modern" is catching on, but no doubt the situation varies a lot depending on who's talking and in what context. Jwrosenzweig 04:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I went to a very traditional place. "Early Modern" bugs me endlessly, because it suffers from the teleological fallacy, because it seems to be a way to make history "sexy" by doing a bait & switch to get students, and because I've heard and seen Chrétien de Troyes and Geoffrey Chaucer and John Milton and Matthew Arnold all called "early modern.") If that's really caught on or dominant, then I'm sorry to hear it. Geogre 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hitler

Hitler. David Sneek 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's Law. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Himmler has something similar. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Adolf Hister, of Essex. Geogre 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, Taunton has always been part of Minehead. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard on the radio last week that there is just one Hitler in the Berlin telephone directory today, so if you speak German, you could make a call and ask him/her. --Shantavira 08:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow clay coats the exterior of most buildings in Masouleh. This allows for better visibility in the fog.. --DLL 12:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please suitly emphazi your question. Brian G. Crawford 19:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whaling

I have looked at Japan's plan for whaling. They say the want to kill the whales to research the recent changes in Antartica. Why would you need to kill a whale to research it? I mean, what would they do...look at the whales brain and hope they figure something out? And if they are concerned about population changes, killing whales isnt going to help anything. What is the reasoning for this besides commercial value as whale meat?

If you want to find out what whales are eating, and how well they are eating, you don't have the usual zoologist options of getting a sample of whale poo and analysing that. Therefore, you might possibly argue that killing whales and looking in their stomachs is the only way to get this information. Whether this is really Japan's motive for doing so is pretty dubious. But then, I'm an Aussie, and I think kangaroo (cooked properly) is very tasty; I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd regard me as a barbarian for eating the stuff. --Robert Merkel 00:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is relevant info in these articles: Whaling#Japan_2, Whaling in Japan, and International Whaling Commission. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they may be researching the effect on stocks of a certain level of culling. If this is sustainable, then the original, stated, reason for the International Whaling Commission total moratorium is perhaps no longer valid. It's difficult to study the effect on whale population of killing whales unless you kill whales. (Remember, the IWC was set up, and whaling countries joined, because of a loss of stocks, not because of a popular view that whales should not be hunted. ) Notinasnaid 11:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What were the votes for Vatican II document Optatam Totius?

Can you show the votes for these documents by their titles?

Optatam Totius shows the vote; what do you mean by your second question? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

The Number of People per car in Switzerland

On average, how many people can be found in a car in Switzerland? 65.101.68.120 02:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Heather[reply]

According to this page, there were 476 passenger cars per 1,000 people in Switzerland in 1998. Which is of course about 1 car for every 2 people.--Pharos 03:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I greatly appreciate it!

Heather

Request for information.

There is a situation that has me baffled: it seems that there is some duplication of effort going on with a pair of articles. Can anyone explain the difference between the Lincoln Center and the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts articles?

Perhaps I am missing something... Folajimi 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't missing anything other than maybe the fact that anyone can be bold and write and edit articles, and where that is true, this sometimes leads to situations where two articles on the same subject are created under different names without the author(s) of the one, even knowing the existence of the other. Thanks for catching this. I have placed templates on the pages of each article suggesting that they be merged (the less complete one into the more complete).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it worse (actually, what is often the case) is that two principles of Wikipedia naming collide. Our overall practice is to locate an article at its most used name. Thus, the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts is most often called "Lincoln Center." However, we must also use the most precise and accurate name. Therefore, because dozens of cities will have a Lincoln center, we have the article at Lincoln Center for Performing Arts. The way that this is supposed to be avoided is that whoever makes an article at a location should think of the alternatives and create redirects. Had that been done, neither author could have been ignorant of the other. Suppose that -Performing Arts was the first one. Had that author created a redirect from the most-called name, then no one would have typed that in, seen "no article" and gone to create it. If "Lincoln Center" was first, then the author should have investigated the topic at least well enough to know that's not the legal name and then to have created a redirect at the legal name. Word to the wise article author: anticipate redirects and create them in advance. Geogre 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statutary Derivative action under Part IVAA of the Companies Ordinance

Can someone please explain the Statutary Derivative Action Undeer Part IVAA of the Companies Ordenance(Hong Kong) in simple English? I know it is about minority protection but I don't understand some of the tecnical terms. Because the legle language is quite tough and the sentences are long.

Thanks.

Do you have a link to its text? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Westerner in Chinese History

Help! I am really stuck, trying to remember a name that is stuck in my head but I can't get it out. It's the name of a famous doctor who travelled to China in the early 20th century; he was noted for founding something, possible the modern Chinese Health care system. He might have been Canadian, and he might have been from Quebec. If anyone has any idea who I am talking about, I will be very happy to know. Thanks in advance. Duomillia 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean Dr. Norman Bethune, a Canadian doctor who worked in China in the late 1930s (where he helped design a functioning healthcare system), invented the first practical method for transporting blood, surgical instruments and was an advocate of universal heathcare.

Yes! That's the name! Thank you! Duomillia 16:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beautiful women

I know theres no real right answer for this, but by common concencus or word of mouth or tradition or whatever- which country has the most beautiful women in the world? Id imagine it's russia or some other european country.

Using the Miss Universe article as a guide, either the United States or Venezuela. The US has had seven overall winners and the most semifinal placements, but Venezuela has the best overall performance. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not going to discuss who is the most beautiful woman in the world but hats off to Power of powder lols there seems to be tons of them.

But back to the topic for me my mom. She truely was the most beautiful in every way. She was a great woman.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course. The eventual person selected will depend primarily on the system by which they are judged and whom is making the decision. The idea that there could ever be a "common consensus" on something like this is somewhat silly. --Fastfission 17:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Paris had to make a definitive ruling on the subject, with the result that a war broke out. Geogre 17:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to lore, in the early years of French settlement in Nouvelle France (that territory later conquered by the British and known now as the Canadian province of Quebec) the French sent their most attractive women to encourage their men to settle in this new colony. These women were known as Les Filles du Roi (The Daughters of the King). This is how some people explain why French Canadian women are among the most attractive in the world. Of course, being from Quebec I'm biased, but I can tell you with complete honesty that when I visit other cities in North America and mention to guys I meet that I'm from Montreal, those who have had the chance to visit almost always point out how they were totally blown away by the women. Of course I'm used to them, so if you ask me, I'd say the most beautiful women are in Scandinavia. Loomis51 22:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some say the Filles de Roi were women without dowries, others say that at least some of them were prostitutes that the government wanted to get rid of from France... AnonMoos 07:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

casulties

in ww2 did more italians die on the eastern front or western front and can i have statistics? and did more germans die on the eastern front in world war 1 then the western?

Overall casualty figures are still debated today, but a good start for your answer would be at World War I casualties and World War II casualties. Neither divide casualties according to geographical location, but perhaps one of the references listed would. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they also had significant casualties on the African front. StuRat 12:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIBLE

Why do people beleive jesus as a God?

See Faith in Christianity. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no one does. No orthodox Christian faith believes Jesus is "a God," but all believe Jesus is one of the three persons of God (see also trinity). Geogre 12:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a bold statement there, Geogre. What exactly do you mean by "orthodox"? As for "all believe Jesus is one of the three persons of God" that's definitely not true. Many Christian faiths do not believe in the trinity. As for the statement "no orthodox Christian faith believes Jesus is "a God," what then, is the meaning of the commonly used phrase: "Our Lord, Jesus Christ."? Just so you know, I'm not a Christian at all, and I have no bias toward any one version of Christianity over another. Loomis51 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. To give one example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which I once was an adherent of, believes Jesus as "a god," but not the God. Trinitarianism, while widespread in Western Christian thought, is by no means representative of Christianity as a whole. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the terms technically. Orthodox Christianity is trinitarian. Anti-trinitarians are non-orthodox. The orthodox do not regard the Church of Mormon as Christian; they are ex communicate. In the west, the orthodox churches are all of those who have the Nicean creed. This creed requires a belief in the trinity and that Jesus was of one essence with the Father but not of one person with the Father. Therefore, Jesus is and is not God, but Jesus is in no sense whatever a separate god. Furthermore, from Moses onward, Judaism and Christianity and Islam have insisted that there is only one God. Therefore, Jesus can't be "a god," if there is God, and I would be very surprised if the Mormons actually saw Jesus as a god. So, among the orthodox, we can include Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and Coptic Churches, as well as their offshoots. The non-orthodox are the smallest of small percentages of the general run of "Christian." Thus, Christians (except for the heretics of antiquity, the neo-heretical movements like the recreated "Albigensians" who sprang up in the wake of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and the churches that the rest of Christianity rejects as not being Christian (Latter Day Saints) do not believe that Jesus was "a god." They have to believe that there is only one God, and that Jesus was of the same essence as God. (Incidentally, a lot of the heretics also don't deny that Jesus was of one essence with God, but they usually reject the holy spirit as a person of the trinity. The gnostics, on the other hand, reject the Father and the Spirit and regard Jesus as being Himself spirit only wrapped in the illusion of flesh, or imprisoned in flesh.) Geogre 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George, once you start making distinctions between true believers and "heretics", your opinions no longer belong in an encyclopedia. Again, I'm not a Christian, so perhaps I may have some perspective that you may lack. Once you begin speaking of ex-communication and such, again, your opinions don't belong in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia on Christianity is merely an as objective as possible description of the various forms which Christianity has taken.

For example, I am a Jew. An encyclopedic description of my faith, with regards to Christianity, is that my people reject any and all divinity, whether as a God or as one of the three persons of God, of Jesus of Nazareth. According to Judaism, Jesus was a misguided man, who misguided his followers into believing he had Divine attributes. But that's just Judaism. You may indeed believe me to be a "heretic", but that designation does not belong in an encyclopedia. Should you wish to write a treatise on Christianity, by all means, go ahead. But here is not the place to distinguish between "true belivers" and "heretics". Loomis51 03:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI

A search on "Moussaoui" shows there is not yet an article posted for him. However the following link Moussaoui Trial Phase II special Verdict Jury Ballot is to a .PDF file of the jury ballot for the Phase II Special Verdict. Where can I post this link in absence of an article on Moussaoui since I have no other information about him? -- PCE 09:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Zacarias Moussaoui. Middenface 10:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of phrase "Pearl of the Orient"

Hi! My class was asked to do research regarding the history of the term "Pearl of the Orient" or "Perla del mar de Oriente", currently used to describe the Philippine Islands.

I've so far found that it was used in 1896 by Philippine hero Jose Rizal in his farewell poem "Mi Ultimo Adios", and thought this is how the phrase was coined. Apparently, it was used previously already, by who exactly is what I need your help for.

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide!

the royal family

What is the surname of the royal family

There are many royal families in the world. Which one are you interested in? JackofOz 13:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current official "house name" of the British royals is "Windsor" ("Mountbatten-Windsor" when any of the Queen's children becomes monarch) -- but some claim that it should properly be "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" or "Wettin"... AnonMoos 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Properly? The house of Wettin was renamed Windsor in 1917. Does the house not have the right to rename itself? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC) This question is a grey area. Looking at Royal military enlistments, the Charles uses the last name Wales, ier lt. Wales.[reply]

There is no single answer to the original question. Some of the above answers are confusing the name of the royal house/dynasty, and the surnames of individual royal persons.

The name of the royal house has been Windsor since it was adopted by George V in 1917.
The queen's personal surname is also Windsor.
Her husband Prince Philip's personal surname is Mountbatten.
The personal surname of Prince Charles was Mountbatten at his birth, but was changed to Mountbatten-Windsor in 1960. Princes William and Harry have always been Mountbatten-Windsors.
The personal surnames of Princes Andrew and Edward (and all their children) has always been Mountbatten-Windsor.
The personal surname of Princess Anne was Mountbatten at her birth, and changed to Mountbatten-Windsor in 1960. It became Phillips on her marriage to Mark Phillips, and it changed again to Laurence on her 2nd marriage, to Commander Timothy Laurence (as he then was). Between her divorce from Mark Phillips and her remarriage, I assume it reverted to Mountbatten-Windsor, but I'm not sure. Should she and Rear Admiral Laurence (as he now is) divorce, I assume it would revert to Mountbatten-Windsor, but I'm not sure. Should they remain married but Laurence predecease her, she would remain Anne Laurence (unless she were to marry for a 3rd time). Princess Anne's children have the surname Phillips. Zara Phillips (aged 24) may change her surname when and if she marries.
When Prince Charles accedes to the throne, some experts say the name of the royal house will change to reflect his father's surname, Mountbatten. Others say it will reflect his own, Mountbatten-Windsor. Others say he will choose to decree it remain as Windsor. We'll just have to wait and see.
No matter what happens to the name of the royal house, Charles III (or George VII perhaps) will still have Mountbatten-Windsor as his personal surname (unless he also decrees it be changed to something else).
Aren't you glad you asked now? :--) JackofOz 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that it's only of academic interest as to what their personal surnames are. I think English law requires them to call themselves by their full name including surname when they marry, but that would be virtually the only time they ever use their surname. In the armed forces, Charles et al have been known by the surname "Wales", but that's just a convenience, it's not their actual surname. JackofOz 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of California?

Why doesn't anyone say call California a commonwealth like Massachusetts?Patchouli 13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the official name of Massachusetts is the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts", whereas the official name of California is the "State of California". Most U.S. states are "states", only a small number are "commonwealths". JackofOz 13:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not true commonwealths, as is Puerto Rico, for example. They are states that have "styled" themselves as commonwealths. You would not be wrong to refer to the State of Massachusetts, although people of the state may take exception. The other three "commonwealths" are Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. --Nelson Ricardo 16:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what definition of commonwealth are you using? I can't find any meaning of commonwealth in our article that would apply to Puerto Rico but not to Massachusetts. Henry ^Flower 16:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it has any official terminological status in U.S. law, but the word "Commonwealth" in "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" basically means that PR is an almost fully self-governing U.S. territory which is not a state... AnonMoos 16:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III question

Hi all. Apparently anti-money laundering regulations are defined for insurance companies in 31 C.F.R. § 103.137. However, I can't for the life of me find it in the Federal register for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005! It seems to skip it. Can anyone provide me with a URL to the actual regulations? The U.S. Government doesn't seem to have any issues in discussing the CFR, but seems to be reluctant to produce the actual final rule online for people to review! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the problem? It's here. (Found via the first external link in the Code of Federal Regulations article.) Lupo 07:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Ida Ortiz

Hi all, trying to find history on Flora Ida Ortiz, retired Prof. from UC-Riverside, specialized in latinos and/or women in Education. What I need to find is where she got her degrees and what universities she worked for and when. For a presentation I'm trying to do on one of her many articles, but I'll probably end up doing an entry as I've amassed a good amount of info on her out of interest.

Have you tried contacting UCR or Dr. Ortiz personly, I'm sure they would give you the information you need. I was able to find Ortiz' old phone and fax number, and e-mail adress [20], they might forward an inquiry to her. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 17:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Media and Prejudice

Hi!!! i need information regarding "Role of mass media and prejudice" or "Effects of Mass Media in increasing and decreasing Prejudice"... i shall be grateful !!!

Try Ethnic stereotypes in American media and Racism in mass media. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hara

Does anyone know Tameichi Hara's death date (it's unlikely he is still living). Japanese name is also needed, please. Brand 19:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAACP

I need informatiom aboutthe 65th NAACP Nationlal Convention............Can anyone help me locate ...

Try the NAACP website's contact page; there's a section called Questions for Youth & College that has a number of contact emails and phone numbers that would be able to tell you plenty. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

geography question about areas of countries

Hi, the intelligence of this question might turn out to be dubious but here goes: I've looked up the areas of countries in different sources, and found different values for eg. the area of Mongolia. Now it's not rocket science to guess that if you include a wide perimeter fence you'll get a different area than you would if you excluded it. But: is this the only basis for the discrepancy, and why isn't there some UN body to decide the exact area of each country once for everyone? Also while I'm here, should geography questions go in the humanities section of the ref. desk or the sciences? The Mad Echidna 22:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

introspective diarists from the middle ages

Are there any real diarists from the Middle Ages (before about 1500)? I'm not referring to anyone like Anna Comnena, who could be referred to as a diarist, but is probably really an historian. I want to know if anyone actually wrote about their thoughts and other such waffle. The Mad Echidna 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pockets in historical costume

Hi - I was wondering, would a character in 17th France be likely to have pockets in his breeches. Was there any such thing as pockets? If not, what did one carry one's snuff etc about in?

Thanks Adambrowne666 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X's of the Cold War

I am doing a project for an AP European History class, and I would like to know if anyone could think of a word beginning with "X" that pertains to the Cold War or the Cold War era. Any help would be much appreciated, cause I can't think of any!

Xenophobia? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word per se, but X Article is extremely relevant to the Cold War. --Metropolitan90 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

Railway Length in Malaysia

Dear Wikipedia,

I went through the link of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Malaysia to find some information about transport in malaysia, especially regarding to the railways. Here's the data i've got (mentioned that the page was last modified 14:59, 25 April 2006) :

Railways There are a total of 2,418 km of rail tracks, of which, 207 km are electrified.

But i also checked through the Source link mentioned on your site : The World Factbook, which its last update was on 20 April, 2006(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html), and the data they provided about the railtrack length was :

total: 1,890 km (207 km electrified) standard gauge: 57 km 1.435-m gauge (57 km electrified) narrow gauge: 1,833 km 1.000-m gauge (150 km electrified) (2004)

Please kindly advice which one is correct and most updated. Your prompt reply / feedback upon my question will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks & Rgds! Beatrix Indonesia

If there's a conflict between Wikipedia and a published, reliable academic source, then always go with the other source. After all, the CIA factbook doesn't allow people from the internet to wander on and change track lengths... or add "M4l4yz14 iz d4 b0mb!!!!111" I'll update the article to reflect what you've found. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need two citations in French

I'm in a bit of a mess here...my girlfiend's MA thesis is due on Tuesday, and I foolishly promised her to check a couple of citations. I was able to track down almost everything, but the last two are giving me serious headaches...our uni library does not have French editions of these books (they're either stolen or taken out until the end of next year), and online searches have proven fruitless. If anybody has either of these two books in French and can look up something for me, my eternal gratitude plus the Barnstar of Tireless Research will be yours. Here's what I'm looking for:

In the first chapter of Bataille's L'Abbé C., "éponine", there's a passage that starts "Dans ce calme tendu, à travers les vaperus de mon evresse" and ends with "le vent avait soulevé le manteau qu'au monent ou le rire l'avait désarmé elle n'avait pu maintenir sermé". I'd need a complete citation with page numbers for that.
Genette's "metalepses" (in discours du recit) starts with (roughly translated from my German-language edition): "The transgression form one level of narrative to another can only be accomplished by the narration itself". I'd need Genette's exact phrasing in French of that sentence, plus a complete citation.

Heaps of thanks in advance...whoever manages to look up these citations will be included in my nightly prayers for years to come -- Ferkelparade π 01:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My library's only version of Abbe C. is translated, but it has a "OEuvres complètes. Présentation de Michel Foucault." by Bataille, so I'm guessing it should be in there. It's only copy of "Métalepse : de la figure à la fiction" is checked out, so I can't help you there. I'll try to get you the first citation soon; the second I can't help you with. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

What is the past tense of the verb "to mislead"? "Misled" - or is "mislead" correct as well? zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misled —Seqsea (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a boy, I would read "misled" and think it was the past tense of the verb "to misle". It took me a while to work out why "misle" was not in any dictionary. JackofOz 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pendants, medelations, coins of NAPOLEON III EMPEREUR

Was there ever two coins from 1870 ever made into pendant surrrounded with copper ? How much would it be ?

front of pendant back of pendant NAPOLEON III family crest EMPEREUR

EMPIRE ERACAIS

5 F.

 1870       
      B