Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.149.64.87 (talk) at 21:03, 28 May 2006 (Celtic Myth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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  • Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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

May 21

risk: the board game

i would appreciate someone helping me out with a good strategy for RISK the boardgame, i cant beat my friend, and ive tried all i could think of. any help would, well, help.--69.140.210.163 00:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start in Australia in slowly (I mean slowly), move out... The great thing about Australia is that it creates a bottleneck because it only has one entrance to defend... South America is also good to start with. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read our article about RISK? It's got a few strategic pointers, plus a few good links at the bottom. Personally, I've found that if you are playing only one or two other people, then holding continents is the most important strategy, whereas if you are playing a large number of opponents, then wiping out opponents (and getting their cards) is more important. --ByeByeBaby 07:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As both suggestions pointed out - in a game with 1-2 opponents, initially put all efforts in taking Australia. Then, take Russia. Once you have have the continent bonus for both Australia and Russia, it is just a matter of being lucky with the dice. --Kainaw (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no continent of Russia in Risk, there's Asia isn't there? Skittle 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I just always called it Russia - or green. Whatever mood I was in at the time. --Kainaw (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you're playing with, but going after Asia has got to be the worst possible strategy. I've never played a game where anyone who has gone after Asia early in the game has actually won. If I were playing, and someone were to go after Asia (and thereby spreading their armies extremely thin), I would definitely block it by taking at least one Asian territory, which would be quite easy, the way I place my armies. The Australia strategy is definitely a good one, but the next continent to go after would have to be South America, then Africa etc... all the while blocking all the other players from gaining any continents. Loomis51 00:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're playing with 3+ players, the best way to win is to convince another player that you are his ally. Then, hang out in Australia or South America and let the others fight it out, then kill off the weakest guy just before someone else does, take his cards, and dominate. Then try to console your "ally" that you did the best you could for him. If he buys it, then he may help you win another game. If not, you're toast, since once another player has it in for you, you won't win, and neither will he. -K

I'm a member of the Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne online Clan R1sk (US West). We have multiple strategies and although it is a computer game, the board and gameplay is extremely similar. My reccomendations are to empire as fast as possible, or have an adjacent north-south hemisphere continents like North and South America, Europe and Africa, or Asia and Australia. You should try to convince other players that you are on their side, while building up armies. If they are in danger, tell them you will try to help, but don't put very much effort into their defense as it might sacrifice your own. Also, you should try to secure continents that are easily defendible, like Australia, Africa, and South America. They are almost always harder to conquer. More advanced players can easily defend a larger continent like Europe or Asia, and be on the offensive at the same time. Hope that helps.Pckeffer

IF you love risk, then you might love to try Cold War Risk. During the Cold War there was always a fear of nuclear and atomic bomb attacks. Well now you can take control of an empire and devastate the world with your own Risk board. If you want the instructions for free you can e-mail me at cgtrajan@gmail.com for them!

Ex-Representative, Mr. Ron Dellums- I need to get in contact with him

Hi,

How can I get in touch with Ex-Representative Mr. Ron Dellums? I've just seen the movie based on his daughter Piper's story, read your bio on him, and frankly admire his work. He is the type of representative I would've voten for if I had been an adult when he was a politician, even if I'm caucasian. Can you help me? I'm very interested.

Thank you!

Mary Hill

He is currently running for mayor of Oakland, Calif. Here is the contact info for his campaign office. --Cam 03:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian dramatists

Who are the great italian dramatists, comparable with Shakespeare, Racine, Goethe etc?

There are none. Come on, the list of the world's dramatists that are "comparable with Shakespeare" is a pretty short list. I think you'd have a heck of a time putting any Italian playwrights in the same league as the three you mentioned; this is particularly difficult because it's hard to compare across eras, and the best dramatists from Italy aren't from the 1560-1830 range of your three models. For modern times, look at the list of Italian dramatists and playwrights; the ones with the best reputation are Ugo Betti, Luigi Pirandello and, to a lesser extent (depending on your politics, really) Dario Fo. But, of course, there's also the Ancient Roman dramatists and playwrights, where I'd note especially Seneca the Younger. --ByeByeBaby 06:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plautus is pretty cool. <shrug> T.S. Eliot famously said of poetry (not drama), "Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them. There is no third." Geogre 18:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18th. century Atlantic Voyages

Please help me to locate articles containing description of Atlantic crossings circa 18th. century--Ken73 09:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of Atlantic crossings? If you are refering to the slave ship crossings try the articles on Slave ship or the Atlantic slave trade Colonel 11:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information but slave ships are not what I am after. I need personal accounts of any voyager sailing from England to the Americas ( or reverse) and depicting their observations of the voyage. I have seen such an account in the past but cannot remember the who and cannot find a reference on my usual reference sites.

leonard davinci painting of the last supper of Chrsit

please help me The record shows Davinci was born in 1452 but the last supper was when?

where did he get the information about who sat where at the last supper?

what was his religious background?

how many years after the death of Christ to the life of Davinci?

Thank you. Charles Ola

Yes, davinci was born in 1452. The last supper took place around 30 AD. He based it on conjecture, and guess work. Perhaps putting appostles and associates of Jesus who where in, Davincis opinion most important closest to Jesus, and or important to that part of the story. Mary madalines inclusion at all is entirely an educated guess, since I do not believe the bible specifically mentions Mary Magdelin attending the last supper. As Davinci painted mileniu after jesuses life Their is no reason to believe davinci had any special incite, or historical knowledge on the life of jesus that does not exist today. Da Vinci was a main stream Roman Catholic Christian. Their is not evidence that he held hetrorthodox beliefs, relating to the story of jesus. He also had no involvement in proto reformation religious groups. His arts focus on religion is fairly attipical of art of the the time.

There was approximatly 1420 years beteen Davincis birth and Jseus' death.

Minor correction: "Mary Magdalene's inclusion at all is an uneducated guess by Dan Brown who doesn't understand the contemporary traditions of St John the Evangelist and his depiction." It is a rather odd interpretation of the painting, not the painter's interpretation of the Bible. Skittle 15:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More corrections. I don't think Leonardo based his painting on "conjecture, and guess work", or that he even tried to accurately portray the table setting of the _real_ last supper. He made his decisions on artistic grounds: on the one hand he created a strict symmetrical composition by arranging the apostles in four groups of three, on the other hand he heightened the drama by having each one respond in a different way to Christ's announcement that someone would soon betray him. Also, there is some evidence in Leonardo's notebooks that he was not a very strong believer. David Sneek 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with David Sneek: His composition is based on 500 years of art history and tradition of how the Last Supper should be treated. Although a renaissance painter with a fantastic control of perspective, it was theologically and artistically necessary that the middle point of the painting, and the center of focus, be the most important figure, Jesus, and that the eye move in a line. The painting is a masterpiece because every element of the viewer's experience is carefully controlled by the artist. As for the Magdalene being there: she isn't. Was she at the real Last Supper? She's not mentioned as being so in the Synoptic Gospels, and unmarried men and women would probably not eat at the same table in strictly conforming Jewish houses. Dan Brown's claim is poppycock, historically. Geogre 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, the painting obviously contains a great degree of artistic license. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, it's just quite odd when you think about it, of all those people sitting at a dinner table facing the same way (forward...toward the perspective of the viewer). At Jesus' actual "Last Supper" (if indeed this event occurred at all) you'd almost inevitably see the backs of about half the attendees, which wouldn't make for nearly as aesthecially pleasing a work of art, which is likely why DaVinci took the artistic license to have them positioned the way they were. Second, the attendees in the painting are all much "whiter" and "European looking" than those depicted almost certainly were. Finally, unmarried men and women do indeed sit together in strictly conforming Jewish houses, but then again, who ever said that Jesus was a "strictly conforming" Jew? The New Testament is filled with statements made by Jesus as to how the "old way" was no longer appropriate. On the contrary, an entire religion was started based on his "non-conformity" with traditional Jewish precepts, one of which, could very well have been, that there's nothing wrong with unmarried men and women sitting together for supper. Loomis51 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with you, and Jesus specifically criticized the dietary codes of some of his contemporaries. However, there really aren't any indicates of Jesus dining with women, although there are examples of Jesus being in a house with unmarried women (the Mary and Martha parable, e.g.). At the same time, Jesus definitely was a rabbi and conforming on many points of the old levitical law. Whether this particular one is one of those or not, I don't know. I think, though, the accounts of the last supper in the Gospels make a point of its being a cloistered moment, when Jesus went with "the twelve" alone. I'll re-read Mark's and Luke's account and report back. Geogre 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to pre-empt, Geogre, as I'm SURE you're aware, Jesus lived at the time of the existence of the second temple. At that point in time, the religious leaders were the priests, or kohanim. The term "rabbi," at that time, had a vastly different meaning than it does today. A "rabbi" is simply derived from the Hebrew "teacher", and certainly during the time of the temple, a "rabbi" at that time carried with it no special religious status, with absolutely no "ordination" process similar to priests and ministers in Christianity. Of course today there is no temple and "rabbis" have been forced to take on a more central role in Judaism.
In any case, my point is that the fact that Jesus is often referred to as a "rabbi" would have meant quite little at the time to the Jewish establishment, and should not be confused at all with the "rabbis" of today. I believe it is rather uncontroversial, be it to Jews or to Christians, to point out that most of Jesus' teachings, in particular the ones repeated in the gospels, were specifically meant as arguments against the traditional Judaism of the time. The examples are endless. Loomis51 22:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "rabbi" was "teacher," and it wasn't an ordination process, but it was still a social and religious designation. Thus, Jesus not marrying would be much less unusual in a rabbi and a prophet than in a temple priest. As for the teachings being against Judaism of the day, that's... Well, yes... and no. Certainly the contemporary Jews and Christians regarded them all as Jews, and Jesus argues against an overly literal levitical teaching, but so did the Pharasees. He preached the coming of the kingdom, as did the Pharasees, but he taught that the kingdom had come, that the kingdom was faith, which the Pharasees absolutely wouldn't hear of. It's ... complicated. As a Christian, I can see the New Testament as strictly an unfolding and unbroken line from Moses, but, of course, it was radical (and should still be, IMO). Geogre 02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you said about rabbis marrying. What I do know is that rabbis (at least the rabbis of today) are not only not required to be celibate, but on the contrary, they are required all the more so to comply with the commandment "be fruitful and multiply". In fact today an unmarried rabbi would not be as highly regarded as a married one with many, many children. I can't see how things would be much different in Jesus' time. I therefore don't quite get what you mean when you say "Jesus not marrying would be much less unusual in a rabbi and a prophet than in a temple priest". As for the "coming of the kingdom", that has been and continues to be a central tenet of Judaism to this day (of course it wouldn't be the coming of Jesus!) In any case, your views are interesting and much appreciated. Loomis51 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So there's no truth to the legend that Jesus said, "If you want to be in the picture, sit on my side of the table"? -K

Reference to Scott Wilson

The reference to Scott Wilson (legislator) under Richard Hickock is wrong. It should be linked to Scott Wilson (actor), which doesn't exist yet. Who should I be sending this to in the future?

Thanks and keep up the great work! I love Wikipedia!

Andrew

Well, if it's just a matter of changing the link, you can do that yourself right now! If you're want someone else to do it, usually the article's talk page would be the place. If you want an article on Scott Wilson (actor) to exist, the best plan is to get an account (all you need to give is a name to be known by, no other details, no email confirmation) and create the article yourself. Then other people can add to it if need be. There are places to request articles, but it's quicker to do it yourself if you know anything about the subject. Good luck! Skittle 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the artist?

I am trying to find the name of the artist for the following painting. I know that it's an early work of this artist, but not the name of the artist or the period in which the artist lived. Would anyone be able to help? Please?

File:Who is the Artist.jpg

--JimCollaborator «talk» 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed Picasso and the early 20th century, but quite a bit of browsing didn't confirm the speculation. --Halcatalyst 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely early 20th century, but I'm not convinced by Picasso. it's closing in on the borders of the Expressionist movement, but that could be anyone from Chagall to de Kooning (though I doubt it's either of those two). It looks like some Die Brücke art - possibly someone like Emil Nolde? Grutness...wha? 03:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Grutness! Emil Nolde was the guy I first thought of when I saw the picture, but I couldn't for the life of me remember his name. (Just the fact that he'd been a Nazi supporter.) From searching, it doesn't seem like it's an actual Nolde painting though. --BluePlatypus 06:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been given a hint: this work was painted in 1938 and was painted by someone at least fairly well known. I'm searching, too.

--JimCollaborator «talk» 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the entire painting? It looks more like a detail from something bigger. --vibo56 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It does look like a close-up of a larger image. It also looks kind of Cubist to me. Zepheus 01:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a close up. I've seen it before in a random coffee table book. It's not Nolde, the edges are too clean and the idea too...not straightforward, but you know what I mean if you're considering him. It's the same style, just not quite there. If I don't figure this out I hope someone does, this is gonna bug me. Teke 03:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean a hint? How did you find the date? Does someone know more details and is not telling you or something? This is not recognisable as the typical style of a major painter. If you say it's an early work and it's 1938, that rules out the German Expressionists. Jackson Pollock's early work was kind of in this manner and he would have been 26 at the time. I'm not saying it's him though! Tyrenius 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BINGO! It's Orange Head by Jackson Pollock. well done, Tyrenius! see here. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a result, or what! Tyrenius 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was awesome, Tyrenius and Grutness! Truly collaborative synergy! I'm working on figuring out a Geocaching puzzle, and this is the first part of the puzzle. Thanks, everyone!! --JimCollaborator «talk» 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one could possibly be given "star question" status, or whatever the system is. Good question that required teamworrk to get the answer... but we did it :) Grutness...wha? 06:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, not an obvious one and deceptively in (sub) Expressionist style. The star system is only being trialled at the moment with Science questions though... Tyrenius 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mount Soledad cross

Was the cross erected by the City or by a private group, under a conditional use permit, or what?70.95.234.119 16:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Soledad is a fairly common name, so you'll have to give a more precise location (city and country, for example). Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 00:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume they are referring to the one in San Diego, based on my Google search for "Mount Soledad Cross." It appears that the cross was put up by the City of San Diego, because they are the ones being fined [1]. I see no mention of a second party's involvement, so based on that omittance, I would hazard a guess that it was erected by the city itself (i.e. people hired by the city). Zepheus 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of Confederation

Under the articles of Confederation, the National government was A.) less powerful than the State government. B.) could do little more than try to reconcile disagreements between the States. C.) was dependent on the States for financial support. D.) all of the answers are correct. 

 Which answer is correct?
As much as I like the idea of a multiple choice reference desk, it's still important that you do your own homework. Have a look at Articles of Confederation. David Sneek 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I DDon't necessarily DDDisagree with DDDDaviDDDD, (but I just can't help answering). You shoulDDDDD really DDDDDDo as he says and check out the page on Articles of Confederation. The Reference DDDDDDDesk is really not for homework. Loomis51 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, you won't learn anything by not DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDoing your homework.
...and if you do expect us to answer, you should at least tell us whether you're referring to the United States, Australia, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, India... Grutness...wha? 03:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's A. Your teacher told me when I had the class last year.--Teutoberg 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rule I often use on Multiple Choice questions. If there's an answer that's either All of the Above or None of the Above, that's usually the correct answer. Zepheus 16:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

handshakes

What is name for group/line handshake in which at the end everybody has shaken hands with all the other people in the line? People line up. First person shakes hand of second person, then third, and so on. Second person follows, shaking every person's hand in turn. When it's completed, every one has shaken hands with every one in the line

It's called the end of a baseball/softball/hockey/etc...game/series. Loomis51 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A specific name? Generally, it's a reception line, but a specific name for that kind of glad handing? If it has a name, it'll be interesting to hear. Geogre 20:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Players used to shake hands with their opponents after a game, but now, it seems, they only shake with their teammates. --Halcatalyst 22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Major League Baseball, at least, this is because fraternization between teams is expressly forbidden (rule 3.09) — Lomn Talk 14:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently what Lomn says is true, but apparently as well, the rule is not strictly enforced. I've been to many games where, for example, the first baseman and the opposing runner at first are frequently having a friendly chat or kidding around with each other. Loomis51 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right -- the casual stuff isn't enforced. However, there was a deal a few years back where schoolkids petitioned the New York Yankees and a rival (probably the Boston Red Sox, and probably after some significant on-field brawl) to have a concilatory team handshake as originally mentioned, and MLB quashed it under the above provision. — Lomn Talk 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop of York

Hi there,

Thanks for taking the time to read this email.

I know that in the beginning of Christianity in England that Augustine arrived in Kent and that he became the first Archbishop of Canterbury.

The then king of Northumbria - Edwin - took a Kentish/Frankish princess - Aethelburh as his bride, but she would only travel north to marry Edwin as long as she could take her priest - Paulinus.

Aethelburh persuaded Edwin to become a Christian and he was baptised in Eoferwic (York) by Paulinus who became the first Archbishop of York.

My question is quite simple, why do we have two Archbishops in England when Wales, Ireland and Scotland only have one

Thanks for any help you can provide

Ian Thomson

England was not a unified country - note your own reference to the Kingdom of Kent. There could have been a half-dozen or more if each kingdom in modern England needed its own. Rmhermen 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until at least the time of Alfred the Great, England was several kingdoms, with the Mercians, Northumbrians, and Essex kingdoms all as powerful as Wessex. After the Norman conquest, there was a single state of Angelond, but Northumberland, Scotland, and Wales were all still resistant. All the way to the 19th century, "England" was something like two nations, with two centers of power -- York and London. The ethnicities were different, the organizations were different, and the governments were different, with England gradually unifying more and more. Therefore, it made sense to have two centers of ecclesiastical power. Wales, on the other hand, and Scotland, were both more unified and more coherent (or more uniformly non-unified), and so one archbishop apiece made sense, again. Ultimately, these decisions are administrative more than anything else. Can you administer all of the population with one bishop? Two? Three? Until Henry VIII, the decision came from Rome that all of the south of England could be administered by one guy, all of the north by another. The fact that the conquering kings came from London and were beholden to Canterbury wasn't part of the thinking (else London would have been the see). Geogre 21:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a way its surprising we only have two. France, for example, has fifteen RC archbishops. Jameswilson 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, for fear of seeming anti-Gallic or a Little Englander (when I'm an American), but the low number for the UK is a testimony, really, to how historically peaceful the place has been. As an island, and as a notoriously tough place to invade and conquer, it has had the sorts of domestic peace that mean that there were four divisions, and only four, despite population increases. In France, the place was split among very powerful leaders (cf. split among much less powerful leaders in Germany), so each was rigorously independent. Italy, of course, was split 100 ways to Sunday, too, but the presence of the Vatican cut down on some of the ecclesiastical divisions there. Geogre 13:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Cross and Congressional medal of Honor

Why is it so few of these have been awarded in the War on Terror/ the war in Iraq?

Perhaps because there hasn't been that much combat? --Halcatalyst 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Victoria Cross is very rarely awarded anyway. You have to really do something amazingly brave/stupid under enemy fire to get it. I don't know about the Medal of Honor. Skittle 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes not much combat, but I wonder what answer the questioner was after? If you were thinking that the numbers might be a reflection of the relative unpopularity of the war then... I don't know really. Certainly in the UK, this sort of thing would not happen without intense scrutiny and consideration by the Government's PR people. BUT (I have some faith left) I think any influence the (PR faction of the) Government might have would only run as far as negotiating or deciding on the timing of any announcements. It's hard to imagine a situation in which a gallantry medal story didn't play positively anyway, whatever the bigger picture. But let's hear your conspiracy theory, questioner! --The Gold Miner 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)...........[reply]

It has to be a WAR for the Victoria cross.Georgie boy said the war in Iraq is over(ha ha ha) and the war on terror is just a verbal conceit hotclaws**==(81.136.163.210 10:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Both the U.S. and UK have awarded one of their highest award for service in Iraq. The most recent awards before that were 1982 for the UK (Falklands War) and 1993 (Somalia). These awards are just very rare recently. Rmhermen 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is some info on Iraq and the Victoria Cross on BBC Online. Tyrenius 03:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

Kansas Territory

I'm making a particular map of the history of the USA, and I ran into a strange conundrum. According to all sources, Kansas Territory became a state on January 29 1861. And, again, according to all sources, Colorado Territory was created from, among others, part of Kansas Territory on February 28 1861.

So... What was that chunk of land between Jan 29 and Feb 28? Was it Kansas Territory, even though Kansas was a state? Was it part of Kansas, and that land was ceded to Colorado Territory after a month? (This seems like the most logical, except for the fact that all sources specifically say Colorado Territory included land frmo Kansas Territory, not the state of Kansas) Or was it unorganized, something I don't think is allowed once territory is organized?

It's strange how much this is annoying me, but I really would like an answer for my map. I'm trying to capture each step in the evolution of the USA's borders, so I need to know what to put for the "1/29/1861 - 2/28/1861" map. --Golbez 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I got the strong impression from reading this interesting article on "Big Kansas" vs. "Little Kansas" that from the start Kansas achieved statehood as "Little Kansas". It seems rather unlikely to me that land previously part of a state could revert to territory status, and I see no particular contradiction in the State of Kansas only being established in part of the Territory of Kansas.--Pharos 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but that was not my problem. My problem is, the state of Kansas only took up the eastern half of the Territory of Kansas, in January. The western half only became part of Colorado Territory in February; what was the official name and status of that western half for those 29 days? --Golbez 09:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Pharos' interpretation of the article. Also note that Congress passed a law to organize Colorado Territory three days before Kansas became a state, although President Buchanan didn't sign it until February 28. So by Congress's intention, the area you are asking about was supposed to be Colorado Territory. De jure it may still have been Kansas Territory until Feb. 28, but de facto it was probably governed by Jefferson Territory. --Metropolitan90 08:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. I can see that, and certainly with the infrastructure of the day, such edicts may not have typically been announced the same day they occurred. Still, we have a de facto issue of what the western half was for 29 days. Only because I need to label it on my map! :P I'm tilting towards labelling it "Kansas Territory (deeded to Colorado Territory)" or something like that. As for Jefferson, I could try that as well, since they were essentially living in the area that became the part of Kansas Territory deeded to Colorado Territory. Huh, I might do that, say "de facto" and such. A nice power vacuum filled. Or maybe I should just condense it into one event - Kansas joined union, Colorado Territory formed, with a footnote explaining the difference? Sigh. Thanks :) --Golbez 09:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, was the split of the Kansas Territory due to the free state/slave state politics of the day? If memory serves, Kansas was introduced as a free state because Missouri was introduced as a slave state and they had to keep the numbers in balance. --Kainaw (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think (note: entirely my opinion/guess) it had entirely to do with how undeveloped the western part of the territory was. It wasn't common to split a territory when statehood occurred, but it did happen - the Dakotas, for instance. However, I'm trying to think of an instance as far back as I've gone (1861) where only part of a territory became a state, and the other part didn't, and I'm not able to find any. It may have happened further back, though. Let me check... Yep, just as I thought - when Oregon became a state in 1859, the remaining part of Oregon Territory was made part of Washington Territory. So it has happened, and that's probably what I'm dealing with in the Colorado Territory situation - just delayed by 4 weeks.
I don't think Kansas Territory was split because of the slave/free state issue; the western portion, which became Colorado, didn't enter the union until 1876, long after the slave/free state issue was resolved. As for the Missouri Compromise, that had nothing to do with Kansas in specific - it said that, if Missouri is a slave state (And it was), then the entire remainder of Missouri Territory (hey, there's another example) must be free. This includes most of what we now call Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Wyoming, Montana, et.al. So the compromise wasn't specifically about Kansas, but it was a factor as to why Kansas was admitted as a free state (and was the third state from the Missouri Territory to be admitted, after Minnesota and Iowa).
And in fact, thank you for asking that question. I had previously thought that organized territories could never revert to being unorganized (see Palmyra Atoll). However, Missouri Territory states that when Missouri was carved from the territory, the rest of the territory reverted to unorganized status. Therefore, it is possible, and that's what I'll do for the Kansas situation. Maybe. :) --Golbez 21:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And then I see my issue was backwards the whole time - Palmyra is incorporated, but unorganized. I had it the other way around. :P --Golbez 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in Catauplt room USS Lake Champlian 7th Aug 1953

Thanks for your reply, and the links that you gave. I have tried to send an e-mail to **************** (email removed) but my message was returned twice. Authentication required and user unknown were the reasons given. www.historycentral.com/Navy/Cv39LakeChamplain.html was the website where I got the address. Do you have any suggestions of other addresses?

Thanks Liz

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shimgray"

What I wrote was, hmm... "[contact] the US Navy's history department; a query under the Freedom of Information Act should tell you if such a fire ever took place..."
historycentral.com is simply a site reusing US Navy material; they've nothing to do with the US Navy as such. history.navy.mil is probably the people you're after, but a paper letter might be more effective... Shimgray | talk | 23:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i walk the Line

Was'nt the song written in response to the comment from June carter Casha bout Johnny and the rest of the band mates, when she told them "You can't walk no line?"

Nick Rayfield68.94.223.24 04:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're basing that comment on the film Walk the line, it isn't necessarily (or likely to be) accurate in terms of dialogue. AllanHainey 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victims may decide fate of prisoners

The British government is considering allowing victims of crime to have a say on whether offenders should be freed [2]. What are the arguments against such a policy? --Richardrj 08:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It replaces the concept of justice with one of revenge?
It replaces society as an arbiter of justice by interested parties.
It would get rid of the long-standing principle that the ultimate victim in any crime is society, and that is who should deal with it.
The views of victims are likely in the vast majority of cases to be entirely predictable and based on a narrow & self-interested view of the case/circumstances.
It introduces an element of populist pandering into the judicial system.
Victims of crime are likely to know a lot less about the efficacy of rehabilitation, the balancing act between keeping certain criminals in jail & making room for new criminals, the relative merits of different offences, effectiveness of monitoring of criminals, prison service resources, whether a criminal has done his time, etc than professionals. AllanHainey 08:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, is this being considered? Sounds like canned stupidity to my ears. I hope this isn't as black and white as it is made to sound here. Henning 09:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be clear about what this is. The question here is worded to imply that a victim can choose if the criminal will be jailed or freed. The actual legal discussion is about victim representation at a parole hearing. Currently, there is an argument that not allowing victims to speak at a parole hearing puts too much emphasis on the criminal. So, some people (John Reid, for example) want to discuss allowing victims to have the right to speak at a parole hearing if they want to. --Kainaw (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. The article the questioner has linked actually discusses something very different from what the wording of the question (or the title of the linked article) implies. Shame on the BBC for their selection of language that sacrifices truth and accuracy in favor of attention-grabbing. They're slipping. --DavidGC 12:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't as bad as a CNN headline I saw a week or so ago: "Higher Cancer Risk in Non-Smoking Men". The article was about a study that found non-smoking men who get lung cancer have a higher mortality rate than non-smoking women who get lung cancer. --Kainaw (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's really poor. I understand the issue of space constraints, and the lead editors have probably placed limits on the number of words in an article's title, but there are certainly better ways to express these. --DavidGC 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until in a murder trial the victim's brother walks up, saying "Yeah, he was a cunt. Good thing he got killed, he had it coming." Dr Zak 15:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German tank silencer?

Is this for real or am I a total idiot?

http://www.collegehumor.com/pictures/6514/ --mboverload@ 08:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] for a different opinion (it might be some kind of measuring equipment). --212.202.184.238 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! --mboverload@ 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I merge two images i.e the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper for example. Would the new image be entitled to a copyright? At first, I thought that as a new image it would be entitled to a copyright. However, the merger doctrine seems to suggest that ideas that can only be expressed in a limited number of ways is not copyrightable, would such a fusion face such difficulties? Any ideas?

Another way to look at it... If I print my own Bible, can I copyright it? Yes. I can copyright exactly how my version appears (where I placed the page numbers, what font I used, how I indented each chapter and verse...) If I printed my own map of the United States, can I copyright it? Yes. In fact, there is a big stink about map companies that purposely misspell the names of tiny towns so they can claim more of a copyright on their maps. When it comes down to it, you are asking if you can copyright something that already exists (like the Bible or maps). Yes, you can copyright your specific version of it - meaning that I cannot print and sell your specific version of it. But, you cannot extend your copyright to a different version of it. --Kainaw (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, all of these examples are of things that are without copyright now. If you take Rand McNally's map and paste in Lorime's map of your town, the resulting work is kind of double copyright infringement. The amount of individuality the finished work has to have from the originals is something that copyright courts have to decide. Yes, the facts are always free, but the expression isn't. Geogre 15:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It works like this: If you use a copyrighted work to an extent which is significant, that is, beyond what is qualified by fair use. For instance, copying a chapter from a book as opposed to quoting a line. Then that makes your work what in copyright law is called a derivative work. Now, a derivative work is entitled to copyright in itself (provided that it has some creative input, be it the addition of original content or just the mixing of existing content). However, derivative works have derivative rights. You own copyright to the derivative work itself (whatever creative parts you added), but not to the components. So to distribute it and do anything else which requires license from the copyright holder still does. If I translate a book, I own the translation, but I can't publish and sell it without the permission of the original copyright holder, just the same as if I was publishing and selling the original. Now, in the case of works which are in the Public Domain and no longer covered by copyright, then you obviously do not need any license, since you wouldn't need it for the original either. And you will own the rights to your derivative work. So if you publish a translation of Shakespeare, for instance, then you will own the rights to that translation, and it will have full copyright protection. However, there is of course nothing stopping someone from doing their own translation, which would then not infringe on your copyright even though it may be very similar. If you contrast this to a new book, the amount of creative expression is higher, so if someone published another book which was just as similar as in the previous example, it would probably be deemed infringing. So in summary, you get less copyright protection with derivative works, because there is less creative input to protect. Don't take this as serious legal advice though. See also the disclaimer at the top of the page. --BluePlatypus 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Moussaoui Case Closing Statements

Does anybody know where to find either a transcript of the closing statements in the Moussaoui case or a comprehensive summary? I've seen it cited as a source in news articles, so it seems that it's available to the public, but I can't seem to find anything on google, findlaw, or the virginia court website. --65.205.197.85 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

grandma moses

hello, my name is sara i am 15 yrs old and i am writing a report for art class on different techniques used by artists i was assigned grandma moses. is it tru she used magazine and newspaper clippings in some of her artwork?

Hi Sara, we are not going to do your homework for you, but we can help you get to the right sources. The wikipedia article on Grandma Moses is short, but has some good links for more info. You should also check out the website of your local public library U.S. [4]. Most of them have access to subscription databases that you can biographical information and articles with your library card. Don't trust everything you read on the net and always double check sources. Nowimnthing 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, be sure to look at the articles on collage and primitivism, as both will help you understand the alledged incorporation of found objects into the art. Geogre 19:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, our primitivism article could use some help. It seems to go spinning off into tin foil hattery at a certain point. Geogre 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gettysburg

Anybody notice the title has been changed to "Battle of Hoogerblager" on your main Gettyburg page?

Thanks- now fixed. HenryFlower 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case it isn't said enough... If you see a typo in Wikipedia, just click the friendly little "edit this page" tab and fix it. This isn't the Encyclopedia Brittanica (yes, I said it. I ain't 'fraid none them EB guys) --Kainaw (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy assassination

Jay Skaggs took several color photos of President Kennedy at the corner of Main and Houston streets, and several photos after the shooting. Mr. Skaggs made these photos public only about ten years ago. Where on the Web, or elsewhere, is a complete collection of these photos? 66.213.33.2 18:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The collection seems to be at The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza. I do not believe that they are freely available on the web anywhere at this time. --LarryMac 20:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

underdiver in Winged Watchman

What is an 'underdiver' in the book, 'Winged Watchman'?

Is this a Sunday School question? Zepheus 00:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMPOSITION OF COMPOSER

Hi, what is the opus (KV) number of this piece File:Mozart - KV 570.ogg. It is not the sonata known under kv. 570, infact it aint a sonata but instead it seems to be some kind of concerto including a flute and a piano. appreciate some help. -- Funper 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post questions more than once. HenryFlower 09:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart might give you some help. --Halcatalyst 14:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful music, and definately sounds like WA Mozart. The key is Bb major, if that is of any help. Did some googling for Mozart midi files for flute and piano in the key of Bb, but didn't find it. Could it have been written for another instrument originally (violin?), and transcribed? --vibo56 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I played the sound clip at work during lunch today, and one of my colleagues (who plays the clarinet and piano in his spare time) immediately recognised it, and knew that he had played it. He wanted to check out his sheet music at home, and has now sent me an email which reads as follows: "This is a sonata for the violin and piano by W.A. Mozart, K378 (also known as K317d in the Köchel revision 6/1994), the key is Bb major. It was probably arranged for the flute and piano by the great French flutist Marcel Joseph Moyse. The sonata has also been arranged for two clarinets by Wilhelm Sadowsky and Otto Büttner, as the first of six duets for two clarinets." My colleague recognised the music because he had played all six duets. As you probably have seen from the tagging within the .ogg file, it is a live recording by Albert Tipton (flute) and his wife Mary Norris (piano). --vibo56 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Funper 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what would have happend if george washington dies in the war before becoming presedent?

what would have happend if george washington died in the war before becoming presedent??? I was wondering because im doing a project on it and i need to know. Pretty me 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He wouldn't have become President. The world would be immeasurably different. The end. Do your own homework.
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check George Washington. Anything he did after the war, he wouldn't have done. It is highly likely that John Adams would have become President instead. Since Adams did become President, it is not likely much of history would be different. --Kainaw (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't the first President of the United States, anyway. His personality did have a big effect on the limitations of the powers, but fictional history isn't really a reference desk sort of question. (If the Babylonians had gunpowder, would Iraq be invading the US now? Woooooh.) Geogre 00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course George Washington was the first president of the United States. That various nonsensical Internet pundits posit otherwise—merely, it seems, for the frisson of swimming against the current—doesn't make it so, and the reference desk isn't a place where misinformation should be dispensed, either. - Nunh-huh 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, what if he died during the war? would we have won? or would there have been enough siggies on the declaration?Pretty me 00:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar nitpick: "What would have happened if George Washington had died..." —Keenan Pepper 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Small spelling nitpick: that's not how you spell "presedent", let's start with the small stuff--64.12.116.72 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why no one has given you a serious answer, but serious historians do indeed play around with virtual history because, besides being a good way to sell books, asking "what if?" helps to gain a better understanding of what did happen and why. There are a lot of these type of books out there. I don't know if anyone has published their take on "What if Washington had died in the war?", but several points leap to mind:

  1. As suggested above, the timing of his death would have been important, because his heir apparent as Commander in Chief varied. If Washington had died when Charles Lee was his second in command, things would have been very different. Lee disagreed with Washington's approach of building a conventional army; Lee wanted to go to full-scale guerilla war. This made sense from a practical viewpoint, since building a professional army was difficult and essentially meant playing to Great Britain's strength. However, as John Shy suggests in A People Numerous and Armed, popular guerilla wars tear up a society in a way conventional wars of the era did not, so it's a good thing (for the U.S.) that Lee's approach wasn't taken.
  2. Britain probably could not have won an unconditional victory under almost any circumstances (geography and demography were against them), but the death of Washington might have undermined key support and prompted an earlier negotiated settlement. (Great Britain offered various peace terms during the war, which the Americans rejected, but might have accepted had Washington been killed.) Washington was not a great battlefield tactician, but most of his subordinates were not either, and some of them (like Charles Lee and Horatio Gates) were practically incompetent. None of them had the standing to keep the army together like Washington. Washington's best generals -- Nathanael Greene, Henry Knox, Lord Stirling, Daniel Morgan, Anthony Wayne, Lafayette -- were not directly in line to replace him.
  3. Perhaps no other general had the prestige to keep the army from revolting at the end of the war, as the Newburgh Conspiracy demonstrated. If you wanted to write a "what if" novel, make Alexander Hamilton emerge Napoleon-like at the end of the war to lead a military dictatorship. Hamilton was always the smartest guy in the room and had ambition to burn; John and Abigail Adams destested him and thought he was looking for a chance to become dictator. Had Washington died...
  4. Even had the war ended about the same way, it seems improbable that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 would have been pulled off as it was, since most delegates supported a new government with the implied understanding that Washington would be the first president.

That's just a few "what ifs" to get you started. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 07:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice response, Kevin. ¶ David McCullough's recent history 1776, a good read, reveals that Washington's hold on the Continental Army was fairly tenuous at the beginning. The British were far more numerous and better trained, and so they expected to win the war within months. If they had, US history might have been more like Canada's --Halcatalyst 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot! this is really helpful!Pretty me 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

poverty

Hi I have a question. Canada did something similar to Live Aid the following year or 2 years later. What was is called and when?

Do you mean Band Aid? Canada had a spin-off of that, Northern Lights. Adam Bishop 03:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year of the Pig

What day did the Year of the Pig begin in 1899? Wiwaxia 05:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this listing of Chinese New Years from 1645 to 1899, it was February 10. —Zero Gravitas 08:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Friday.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is an awesome site! 24.7.97.151 04:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Vibrations (title added)

I am trying to find a copy of the first release of the Beach Boys song Good Vibrationsn which Brian Wilson reworked in many locations and sections..... Mayone get a copy of that first version? thanks jeannie

We have an article on Good Vibrations. According to the article, Wilson did indeed record the single in many different locations with lots of musicians. There isn't any mention of any intermediate versions being commercially released. --Robert Merkel 23:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the audible documents of how Good Vibrations were put together are audible on the Smiley Smile/Wild Honey two-fer. Most notable is the first instrumental take after the words "take one, let's go". (Good Vibrations - Various Sessions).
As for the first version, the closest you're going to get to that is hearing the version with Tony Asher's original lyrics... for which I'd have to root further to attempt to salvage from my collection, but one of which is the following track from the two-fer, labelled "Good Vibrations (Early Take). Another useful version is on the fifth CD of the Good Vibrations Box Set, the second time The Beach Boys performed this song live, on October 22, 1966. (The version where Mike complains about having to play the "woo-woo machine"). Bobo. 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peristeri laconia

i am very new at this i would like you tell me please the latest news of peristeri laconia in greece no politics thankyou

Interestingly, we have articles on both these localities: Peristeri, a suburb of Athens, and Laconia, the ancient name for the region of Greece inhabited by the Spartans. You might like to read these articles and perhaps you will find links to (non-political) news. --Halcatalyst 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'Éminent Méthodiste

At last I found him : Who is the "Jorge Luis Borges for the Space Age" ? --193.56.241.75 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was. The Space Age began on October 4, 1957, Jorge Luis Borges died on June 14, 1986. David Sneek 09:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about Lem, I can tell. --DLL 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities + Culture + Tangratiu

ćHI there, in fron of my working place there is this this dragon.like sculpture standing around which is supposed tp protect the builind and the pople in it somehow. A former volunteer from Bulgaria built it and its name is : Tangratiću Can anybody tell my more about its meaning? Thanx 195.145.245.249 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Yahoo nor Google search produced any hits for Tangratiću. What country are we talking about? --Halcatalyst 14:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some info that might be helpful under the entry for zmey here on wikipedia: zmey

Modern Druids - what do they believe?

Wikipedia has a section that talks a lot about the history of the Druids, but there is no discussion of what modern Druids believe. This is the best site that I've found thus far. http://www.druidry.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=1&page_id=30

Anybody have a "concise" view of the modern practice of Druidry?

Here is a shorter description of modern druidism [5]

Nowimnthing 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also wicca. Shouldn't druids and wicca link, or are there people judging they have nothing in common ? --DLL 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary Druids believe that they are like the old druids. Contemporary Wiccans believe that they are reviving a White Goddess cultus that is universal, or at least pan-European, and not specifically English. Both are modern theosophy-derived movements that involve a great deal of ... speculative history. After all, how do you revive the religion of a pre-literate people put down by the Romans? They didn't leave much. Even finding documentary evidence of Norse mythology's actual religious practice is difficult, and those nations were literate before conversion and didn't convert overnight and were studied by monks who kept notes. So, would the ancient Druids be related to Wicca? In no way. Would modern druids be related to Wicca? Yes, in origin. Geogre 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was neo-Druidism in the 18th century Iolo Morganwg era, long before anybody ever heard of Theosophy. Of course, Iolo Morganwg was a fraud... AnonMoos 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting far afield, here, but what you mention is interesting. There was a proto-Nationalism developing in the late 18th c. in England. It would flower fully a hundred years later, but there was this emphasis on finding the "real Englishness." The vogue for Ossian, for the ballad, the increasing descriptions of how the climate and soil make an English character, etc., were all part of an effort at finding the national essence. Some of the freethinkers romanticized (before Romanticism) the "bard" and "scop" and "druid," so the druidic revival of that era was extremely naive...somewhat related to Deism and nationalism. It wasn't really a movement as much as a few individuals with idiosyncratic expressions. At least that's my impression. If they ever organized and did much, please let me know, as I find all of that quaintly interesting and mildly revolting. Geogre 03:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Name of Australia

I was told, by an Australian, the original name of Australia was something similar to: Vandeamon. However, I can find no reference to this name. Can you assist?

You are probably thinking of Van Diemen's Land. DJ Clayworth 17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Australia" was a legendary name, as well, like Thule or Hyperborea or New High Brazil, so, in the end, "Australia" is as much a descriptor as a name for the early explorers. (It's tied in with the ancient belief in the Antipodes.) Geogre 23:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean Hy-Brazil. Rmhermen 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It goes by so many names that guessing which one we had for a link was bound to turn red. It's Brasil, Brazil, High Brasil, High Brazil, New High Brasil, etc. The only form I've never seen is "Hy-Brazil," but I'm sure it's well attested. Geogre 10:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Latin adjective "australis" (southern) goes back to antiquity, and the Dutch had their adjective "Australische". But the noun "Australia" in that exact spelling seems to first appear in 1693 (in a translation from French). Then there was a gap of 78 years before it was used again (1771). And it didn't really start to become popular until 1814. See Australia#Origin and history of the name. JackofOz 03:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Van Diemen's Land" was only the name of Tasmania - New Holland was the name used for the whole of Australia. Grutness...wha? 03:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War

I am looking for a Civil War commander who ordered his troops to burn their boats after landing on an island on the Mississippi river. I think it was Island 10 but there is no mention of this in the text. He was a Union commander, rank is unknown to me.

I would like the commanders name and any reference to this story.

Thank you very much

So, just to be clear, you're asking about the American civil war? Skittle 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Mississippi sorta narrows it down a bit, don't you think? alteripse 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, didn't the martians fight some sort of civil war with the jupiterians? that was in mississippi wasn't it?--64.12.116.72 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I try not to assume anything on the reference desk; I've been surprised before. Skittle 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Island 10, too. Puts it with Grant's campaign. Sherman's campaign was more western than that. Shelby Foote's history does cover the Mississippi campaign with great detail, and there was an island where the Union forces had to send their boats back to pick up more troops, but I don't remember reading any accounts of burning their boats (to suggest, "we're staying here and not retreating"). For one thing, those island-taking missions weren't really long battles, so it wouldn't be as if they would plan to stay all that long to begin with. It might have happened, though, and my memory may be at fault or Foote might not have recorded it, believing it to be apocrypha. Geogre 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no memory of boat burning during the Civil War. The person that story is normally attributed to is Hernán Cortés - burning his boats when he arrived in the Americas because he refused to allow for retreat. However, the story of him burning his ships is completely false. --Kainaw (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a friend who knows more about the Civil War than I do. He said that John Hunt Morgan claimed to do the same thing (burn his boats so there could be no retreat). However, there is no evidence that he did so. --Kainaw (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

Finnish rock bands

Why do Finnish rock bands - and, I'm guessing, other Scandinavian groups - seem to record songs nearly exclusively in English? (I'm extrapolating from only three prominent examples I know of - Lordi, The Rasmus, HIM - so maybe this isn't entirely true.) English isn't an official language - does their primary audience really all speak English? Is just a bid for audiences in the UK/US? zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true? English isn't an official language? schyler 01:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also the Finnish guy who performs Elvis songs in Latin...  ;-) AnonMoos 02:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found European music tends to be in English much more often than one might expect—more than I expected, anyway. It's not just Finland. And it isn't even necessarily a bid for American or British audiences, but people outside the country in general. Lots of people speak English, but how many non-Finns speak Finnish?
(and as a footnote, to expand the list of Finnish bands recording in English: Nightwish, Sonata Arctica, Stratovarius...) —Zero Gravitas 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While that is true, I just wanted to point out that in Europe there is a thriving pop music industry in many other languages - particularly German, French and Italian (that I can directly comment on - I'm sure there are others). — QuantumEleven 06:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • English is a pretty common second/third language in Finland (depending on how people rate their Swedish skills) and all of Scandinavia (it's mandatory in Swe/Nor/Den, but not, I believe, in Finland). Most Finns speak some English. Now, Finnish rock bands do not record exclusively in English- It's just that you don't hear the bands that sing in Finnish outside of Finland. So yes, the reason they sing in English is primarily to reach a foreign (although not necessarily English-speaking!) market. Although some also feel that English is more associated with Rock music. And some just like the language. However, bands that have emphasis on lyrical content usually sing in their native language. Of course, you can't really go by official languages for usage - Swedish is an official language in Finland, but not in Sweden. :) --BluePlatypus 04:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just looks like that. I'm pretty sure there's Scandinavian rock bands that don't record in English, but in those cases, people in foreign countries generally don't know about them. - Mgm|(talk) 08:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finnish rock bands do record songs in Finnish, but they only normally get released in Finland. Bands that record exclusively in Finnish are never normally released in other parts of the world, and so the bands aren't often well known. Sometimes Finnish bands do albums exclusively in Finnish, but they don't normally mix two languages on one album, to get a more specific target market. English is not an official language in Finland, but it's the de facto lingua franca so songs released in English will be more likely to do well internationally. Abbyemery 19:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedometer lovers

(moved to the Language Desk) --DavidGC 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pants

I read what the Wikipedia website had on pants, but I still wonder who were the first culture to wear pants and where? And in the 15 or 16th century when pants may have been introduce to Europe or Western World, who introduce them to Europe or Western World?

Did you? It's given in the article on Trousers (assuming that's what you mean by 'pants'):
Nomadic Eurasian horsemen/women such as the Iranian Scythians, along with Achaemenid Persians were the first to
wear trousers, later introduced to modern Europe via either the Hungarians or Ottoman Turks. However, the Celts
also seem to have worn them in Ancient Europe.
In ancient China trousers were only worn by cavalry. According to tradition, they were first introduced by King Wu
of Zhao in 375 BC, who copied the custom from non-Chinese horsemen on his northern border.
So there's your answer. I guess it's fairly natural that they seem to have developed independently from riding cultures, since they're undoubtedly more practical if you're on horseback. As a bit of useless trivia, an Indian friend of mine said he considered the introduction of trousers to India to be the greatest accomplishemnt of the English, since it's more practical than traditional Indian garb for modern work. --BluePlatypus 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. The causality bothers me a little. The Anglosaxons and Scots and Norse rode, but they didn't wear dresses. The standard article of clothing, the "sark" in Old English, was a long tunic. It went down to the tops of the thighs, so, when a man got on a horse, his legs were free to straddle. In fact, interestingly, "shirt" and "skirt" are doublets. "Shirt" is the Old English derived term, while "skirt" is derived from Old Norse from the Danelaw, and the two words originally referred to the same garment. Both words were retained, the English term for the top part and the Norse term for the lower part. Geogre 10:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money transactions...

Hi, how are you?

You will see, my question is very simple. I would like to know the amount of money wich is produced and used in transactions everyday worldwide.

So much thanks!

Try in the external links on Banknote, I think one of them should at least be able to direct you to the right place. Nowimnthing 16:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When was John McCrea born?

I'm trying to figure out the birthdate of John McCrea, lead singer of the band Cake. So far I've struck out on Wikipedia, Google searches, newsgroups, and librarians. The best information I've seen is from Contemporary Musician, (vol. 27, 2000), and says: "McCrea, born around 1965 in Sacramento, California..."

Any suggestions? AEton 05:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find out, please add it to the article. I tried a while back to find the same info for him but came up with even less than you have. Dismas|(talk) 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could hit the library and look at archives of the 1965 Sacramento Bee. I would be really impressed. Zepheus 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Premier League

Is that any player had ever won the English Premier League title with two other difference team? 60.48.92.221 08:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC) at its end.[reply]

I don't think so. (Only four sides have ever won it, after all). But Alan Shearer and Dwight York both came close having won with a team and placed second with another. --BluePlatypus 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little movement of players between top english domestic clubs, unlike other leagues in europe, most notably the Italian Serie A and Spain La Liga. However there is solid proof of Ashley Cole (Arsenal) being suited by London rivals and current back to back league champions Chelsea. He may be a good bet to become the first player to achieve this feat, (sic)98

At a slight stretch, you could have Juan Sebastian Veron. Played occasionally for United in the 2002-3 season, and was still on Chelsea's books in 2005 (albeit actually on loan to Inter). HenryFlower 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cantona was in the Leeds squad that won the old Division One in 1991-2 - the last pre-premiership season - and then in Man U's premiership squad for at least one of their top-flight wins. Grutness...wha? 06:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Shirt With Black Things

http://www.1860.com/images/accessories_marcella_wing_shirt_big.jpg - why has this shirt got black button things, what are they, and is it necessary to wear a white bow tie with a shirt that has black button things? --Username132 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are called studs. You can pretend you are one when you wear it. The answer to your why question is of course, as in all things couturial, "custom". alteripse 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to wear a bow-tie because it's a wing-tip collar. Or alternatively, you need to wear a wing-tipped collar because you've got a bow-tie. In this case it's a bit strange (IMHO), because it's a white tie, which you would wear with tails. However, black studs like that would not look very good with tails. They would look pretty good with a white tuxedo though. But then you'd wear a black tie. (Or some other non-white color. Although I think that's a bit gauche). --BluePlatypus 12:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like your use of the word couturial, which I wasn't even aware existed. Zepheus 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tele-evangelist

How would one go about getting into the audience of a tele-evangelist in the US? Which shows currently play and where? I'm not a fan of anybody in particular - I'm just going to the US and want to see something like this. Gardar Rurak 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could wear a plaster cast or neck brace, etc hang about outside & tell one of the staff that you're happy to be 'healed' during the show. AllanHainey 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a great idea :] However, I still need to know where and when to look for the place and the staff. Look, what networks show this stuff and where are they taping it? Gardar Rurak 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might help if we knew where in the U.S. you will be. There are tons of small local tv station televangelists, sometimes they are the more colorful and interesting (or even outright wacky). Then there are the big names who tend to be a bit more mainstream (take that with a grain of salt.) Interesting, idea, televangelism as tourism, lol. Try these:
Jerry Falwell [6]
Billy and Franklin Graham [7]
Benny Hinn [8]
Jimmy Swaggart [9]
Nowimnthing 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal - thanks! Well, in fact I'm going to be all over this place from June to September - I'm starting off in Florida but will most likely end up on the west coast. I'm also visiting a UFO group in Nevada, the Michigan millitia, a prison rodeo in Texas and a civil war re-enactment in Ohio. As might be evident I'm looking for sub-cultures where the most interesting people might be found so the most "whacky" tele-evangelist would actually be preferable. I have never actually seen one so I'll take whatever advice you people have for me. ANd other suggestions as well of course :) Gardar Rurak 16:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, looks like you are getting the full American-stereotype trip together! Looks like fun. Try this directory for some of the smaller names [10]. Google any of their names to see 'real' descriptions of what they do. Out of the list above, Benny Hinn is proabbly the wackiest. He does a lot of the faith healing stuff on stage. Most of the others grub for money a lot more. Nowimnthing 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try also the Crystal Cathedral. DJ Clayworth 18:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite is Joel Osteen. You should avoid him if you like fire and brimstrone. --Nelson Ricardo 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Popoff and Reinhard Bonnke are two of the more exuberant, classic "be healed!"-style faith healers currently operating. (Benny Hinn also would be in this category.) Any of these three would provide the type of experience I think you're suggesting--healings performed before your very eyes, the crowd surging forward to recommit themselves to their faith, etc. The others mentioned are "tele-evangelists": watching Joel Osteen preach would be another American experience, but it would lack the kinetic energy and showmanship of a faith healer at work...essentially you'd just be attending a particularly well-funded, flashy worship service at a church larger than most football stadiums. If you have interest in the topic, I'd suggest The Faith Healers by James Randi. A book that focuses more (though not exclusively) on the calmer ends of the evangelical subculture in America would be Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory by an author whose name escapes me. Jwrosenzweig 05:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transport Hub

http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=123ni.jpg

I`m stuck again on my quiz apparently this is a busy transport hub unfortunately I don`t have a clue where it is.

Chek everywhere. The answer might fall into your Lap. It will be like dawn, when the Kok crows. ---LarryMac 15:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Riddles... I understand.

Well if I don't get to win the quiz myself, I at least should get to have some fun. Just be thankful I went with the rooster meaning on that last word, it could have been so much worse ... --LarryMac 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please spell this out? There are many people reading this, myself included, who either (a) are not native English speakers and don't understand the puns, or (b) are not smart enough to solve the riddles. --vibo56 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here it is, no puns involved... --vibo56 19:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first Roman Emperor, Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar?

I see conflicting answers to this question with most sources citing Augustus as the first Emperor. If so, why wouldn't Julius Caesar also have been considered an Emperor? What is the distinction between that and his title "Dictator for life"? 18:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)18:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)~~

See Roman Emperor. You'll see that nobody was Emperor. It is a title retroactively given by historians. --Kainaw (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that. That doesn't answer the question though. Why wouldn't Caesar (retroactively) be considered an "Emperor"? What was the distinction about his position that set him apart?

I think the section on First Roman Emperor in Roman Emperor answers that question about as well as it can be answered. It seems the short of it is that Julius, while accumulating a great amount of power and setting up the conditions where there could be an emperor, did not quite make all the qualifications the majority of historians agree would make him an emperor (one of those qualifications being that he didn't inherit his rule). Nowimnthing 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He assumed the powers of dictator and had not relinquished them when he was murdered. Consequently, he was the first "dictator that needed the Senate," which is kind of what the emporer was in Rome. His adopted son, Augustus, formalized and codified most of the apparatus necessary for making it a legitimate head of state, although a great deal more occurred during Tiberius. So, the first to do it was Julius. The first to have it as a legitimate and life-long appointment was Augustus. Take your pick. They're both the first one. Geogre 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for attempting to come up with an answer thus far. Hopefully somebody will help us get to the bottom of this.

If you read what people have answered so far, you'll see that you're already at the bottom. It's a semantic issue. Exactly what is your definition of emperor? -lethe talk + 19:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it's not "my" definition of Emperor. LOL! Historians have seemingly made a distinction that Julius Caesar was not an Emperor. "Because he didn't inherit the position" doesn't quite seem to wash. For instance, Qin Shi Huang is referred to as the first Emperor of China, yet he did not inherit the mantle.

How about this: Augustus was conferred the title of princeps, while Caesar was not. -lethe talk + 20:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: Ceasar was a dictator for life who disguesed his power under a republican form (dictator was an office in the Roman republic) and before he could be crowned he was murdered. I grant you that the evidence for his planned coronation is rather flimsy, nevertheless that was the official reason of his assassins. Flamarande 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flamarande - Thanks. That's a logical and reasonable explanation. I appreciate yours (and everyone else's) assistance in trying to understand this distinction).

Florida drivers license

How long does it take to get a drivers license issued in Florida from the point where you pass the test?

You have to have a learner's permit for a year and you have to get a specified amount of driving experience (with an adult with a full license in the front seat) in that time. Then after a year you take another test and if you pass it you can walk right out with your full license. —Keenan Pepper 18:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this one of those "terrorists everywhere" questions? If you present a valid license from a recognized agency, most states will allow you to take the written and road test and walk out with a license. Most European nations are recognized. My German friends showed their German licenses, took the tests, and left with licenses the same day in North Carolina. Stopping that would make a huge hassle. Geogre 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Keenan Pepper's answer describes how to get a license if you are still a student in a Florida high school and are seeking a driver's license for the first time -- in other words, how most natives of Florida receive their license in that state. The process has absolutely nothing to do with terrorists and everything to do with making sure that kids know what they're doing when they drive a car for the first time. --DavidGC 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe if you're over 18, you can take the permit test and the driver's test the same day and walk out with a license, although in practice that is probably not wise...especially if you haven't driven before. Mike H. That's hot 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And my answer is how long it takes if you already have a valid license from another state. :-) Why this could be a barbed question, though, is that various news accounts and shouting heads on talk radio like to talk about the fact that the 9/11 hijackers had gotten legitimate ID and that it's all too easy. This is usually a prelude for some poll-tax-like call to issue identity cards or forbid immigration or require specific ID before voting. I.e. it's not an innocent question, and the person who asked gave too little information to let us know whether the juvenile or adult form of the legal process were being asked about, much less why he or she wanted to know. Finally, of course, it has flip-all to do with Humanities, but, then, most questions are unrelated. Geogre 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here I thought it was just a simple (and, yes, innocent) question from someone wondering how long they were going to have to wait for their license. I guess I really need to learn to read between the lines better, in order to find that ever-elusive ulterior motive.  :-) --DavidGC 06:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your best answer can probably be obtained by contacting the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles directly. This page lists some contact information that you might find helpful. --DavidGC 07:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested Development

On the show "Arrested Development", during episode 2AJD18 (The Righteous Brothers), there is a song that plays during the first montage (Prison Sequence) and during the "On The Next" epilogue at the end. What is this song? Thank you.

Howdy stranger. Is there a clip of this available online somewhere? That would sure help. Zepheus 00:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. However, it is readily available on DVD. It is the last episode of the second season.

Have you checked The Righteous Brothers (Arrested Development episode)? That article makes mention of the Bryan Adams song "Everything I do". Is that it? -lethe talk + 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, "Everything I Do" is not the correct song. I did however, thanks to CC, find out the lyrics featured, if that helps. The part they play includes, "What could be better to hold things together? So good to come clean". Let's find this song!

I did a few google searches and it seems your lyrics are likely not accurate (given that lyrics for almost every song in existence are hanging around in googlespace, I feel semi-confident in making this statement). I'd humbly suggest you're mishearing one or more words...if you come up with different words or phrases, by all means share them, and perhaps we can find the song. Jwrosenzweig 05:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give me some time to get a hold of season 2, I will listen to it myself. This is of course no promise that I will recognize anything, but I can do an audio capture and upload a sample. If you don't hear back from me on the reference desk in a couple days, please remind me on my talk page. -lethe talk + 05:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've listened to the episode. I can say this: the lyrics you cite sound correct to me. Since Rosenzweig is correct, all lyrics are to be found on google (and I also found nothing through google), maybe this means that it is original music composed for the show? That is one option, but this music sounds like Electric Light Orchestra to me, though I don't recognize the song, so that's just a stab in the dark. Anyway, in case any one else would like to take a stab, here are the audio captures: clip 1 and clip 2. -lethe talk + 17:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sausage Costumes

How does one go about making a sausage costume? --Username132 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what type of sausage are we talking about? Blood sausage? Bockwurst? For the casual, everyday sausage clothing I recommend the Bratwurst which is an acceptable sausage in most cultures. Gardar Rurak 22:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bet the questioner wants to do something like the Milwaukee Brewers' Sausage Races. -- Mwalcoff 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but oh so appetizing: sausage carpets. --212.202.184.238 17:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looking for a philosophical term

What is the term given to the feeling that, at some fundamental level, one can't grasp anyone else's sentience but one's own? Is it solipsism? Is there a better term?

Check out the detailed article on Solipsism. --Halcatalyst 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oddest person I ever encountered was an evangelical solipsist. --Serie 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean someone who tries to convert other people to solipsism, or someone who tries to convince people that they are figments of his/her imagination? —Keenan Pepper 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He tried to convert people. --Serie 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard this in philosophical contexts referred to as "the problem of other minds" (i.e., how do we know they are similar to ours), and in ethology as having a "theory of mind" if an animal seems to behave in such a way that they seem to be simulating the mental processes of another. alteripse 02:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

Kosher meals and drug treatment facilities

Is there any law that requires a drug treatment facility to provide Kosher meals to clients?

Is there a specific country/state/county/etc. that you're thinking about specifically? Dismas|(talk) 04:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As practice, kosher meals at drug treatment facilities are probably standard in Israel, not so in other countries. However, I'm sure in a country with a decent-sized Jewish population you can find specialized facilities that will serve Kosher meals.--Pharos 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear though, if your question is because you or a loved one requires treatment for a drug addiction, according to Jewish law health comes first, meaning, if your health and/or well being are at serious risk (which is undoubtedly the case in situations like drug addiction), you are not only permitted, but actually required to break Jewish dietary laws if that's what it takes to get proper treatment. Loomis51 09:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Loomis, I didn't know that. --mboverload@ 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be an exception within the law? I mean, if it's a requirement, then how can it be contrary to the law? JackofOz 11:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a different angle, an institution that requires persons to perform actions that are in violation of their religious beliefs (or alternatively starve), would in my opinion be in gross breach of medical ethics, and a case of malpractice, irrespective of what a country's law requires. Eating non-kosher food can in no way contribute to recovery from drug problems, but providing good nourishment is essential. Providing only non-kosher food, knowing that your client is Jewish, is careless and negligent, to say the least. --Seejyb 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that perhaps I may have spoken too soon. The issue is a controversial one, and many rabbis would probably tell you to try your best to make sure there isn't a kosher rehab centre available, before resorting to a non-kosher one. Personally, having two brothers who've been stricken with drug addiction, my sole criterion would be simply which rehab centre is most effective in dealing with this terrible disease, regardless of whether it's kosher or not. But that's just my personal interpretation of Jewish law. (BTW, that's one of the defining features of Jewish law -- there is no central authority to set out the rules in black & white. In fact, Jewish law is meant to be discussed and debated and argued over and over and over again ad nauseum by rabbis, scholars etc...) So what I'm saying is use your best judgment. As I said my best judgment tends to lean strongly towards the "health comes first" line of thought.
The good news is that I somehow forgot that there are indeed quite a few kosher rehab facilities. I'm not sure what country you live in (as a matter of fact, I'm not even sure if the question was merely out of curiousity, or if you're actually in a real-life situation where you or someone close to you needs this type of help). In any case, Chabad is an organization of Hassidic Jews who devote much of their time towards works of a philanthropic nature. In fact, they actually have a drug rehab programme (which is obviously kosher!) called "Project Pride". In North America, Project Pride has two main "full-care" facilities: One in Los Angeles and the other in Montreal. Even if you don't live near one of these two cities, they'd surely do their best to find some kosher rehab centre, even if it's not affiliated with their particular organization. (For example there are certainly many in New York City, but apparently not affiliated with them). If you're interested, their website is www.chabad.org. These people are extremely generous and are extremely eager to help anyone in need. Money is not an issue. If you're dirt poor they'll help you all the same. However if you happen to be well off, a nice donation is always welcome! (Just in case you're wondering, although their main aim is to help out and bring spirituality to those in the Jewish community, at the same time they consider it a mitzvah to help out anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. In fact there's a special term for the mitzvah of helping non-Jews, it's called Tikhun Olam (roughly translated as "helping the world"). For non-Jews, they certainly would not try to proselytize, as proselytation runs contrary to Jewish Law. As for non-observant secular Jews, they are extremely non-judgmental, and though they may mildly encourage you to participate in a few Jewish practices, they certainly would never insist on anything if it's uncomfortable to you.
I feel like I'm running an ad for Chabad here! In fact I'm not a very observant Jew at all, and I'm certainly not Hassidic. I just have a special place in my heart for Chabad because my father grew up very poor and they were the only ones willing and eager to give him a Jewish education and help out in whatever way they could. Hope this helps, and if you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to click on my name and ask me on my userpage, I'd be glad to help...good luck! Loomis51 00:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for your question, Jack, I suppose I may have phrased the principle in a confusing manner when I essentially said "the law requires you to break the law". I realize that what I said sounds like a logical contradiction. In Jewish Law, (just like in ordinary state law), there is, for lack of a better term, a "hierarchy" of, in the case of state law, felonies, misdemeanors and regulatory infractions. So for example, while it's a regulatory infraction to go through a red traffic light, ambulances, firetrucks and police cars are required to "break" this "regulation" in the case of emergencies. Similarly, Jewish dietary laws, in the general scheme of Jewish Law, are of relatively low importance, somewhat akin to regulations, especially when compared with those laws concerning the sanctity and requiring the preservation of human life. (A perfect example is of a Jew starving to death in the wilderness, just when a pig happens to be strolling by. Under those circumstances, the Jew would not only be permitted, but required to "break the law" and eat the pig). But the "red light example may be a poor one, as allowing these vehicles to go through red lights may not be considered "breaking" the law, but rather, these vehicles can be said to be merely "exempted" from the law, in instances when the situation warrants it. As a better example, suppose, for example, the state passes a "good samaritan" law. Say the law requires that, for example, in a situation where a citizen witnesses an assault, the citizen is required to do his or her best to apprehend the perpetrator, with the use of physical force if necessary. Under normal circumstances, the "good samaritan" would have "broken the law" by using force to apprehend the perpetrator. S/he would be guilty of the crime of common assault. However, the "good Samaritan law" would apparently require the citizen to "break the law". In other words, when it comes to the greater good, "the (higher) law requires you to break the (lower) law". Loomis51 00:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oi vey! Thank you, Loomis. JackofOz 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian foreign policy post 1972

hey, i was wondering if anyone could help me on this, i was wondering what the foreign policy was during the Gough Whitlam era and also, did it change significantly after his dismissal? ZakkyPoos

The last sentence in History of Australia may be useful. The link in that sentence - to Gough Whitlam may be even more so, since it gives a comprehensive run-down of his government moves. The article on Malcolm Fraser should be equally useful. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Contact

Officially or unnofficially, does the United States, or any other major world power, have any kind of protocol in place in the unlikely event of a First Contact with an extra-terrestrial civilization? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Outer Space Treaty might be of interest to you. Though I don't think the treaty states it explicitly, I recall reading an article in my international relations studies that indicated the commonly accepted protocol would be to alert the UN Secretary General, and a Special Session of the UN would likely follow immediately. However, this may differ significantly with what might actually happen in this unlikely event, as sometimes well-organized protocols simply vanish when an event actually happens. I can easily envision a scenario where whichever state is most powerful at the time would quickly gather a coalition of states best equipped to respond to the situation, and this group would take the lead in responding. --DavidGC 07:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... skimming the Treaty, it appears that that it only governs the interactions of countries in space or on cellestial bodies. Nothing that could be interpreted for use in a First Contact situation. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure lying in a dusty classified archive somewhere, somebody in the Pentagon wrote up a policy on this back in the 1950's. Heck, I'm sure the Soviet Union did too. I doubt they've been updated much, though. Ultimately, it would come down to circumstance and the personalities of the world leaders involved at the time. It you're feeling really interested, put in a FOI request on the matter and see what turns up :) --Robert Merkel 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what if the aliens are atheists?!?--Teutoberg 17:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is an appropriate question to ask you. I have done an exhaustive search myself and turned up absolutely nothing. In 1993-1994 I lived in South Beach Fl..One day i walked into a young [early 20's ] artists studio.I read in different literature's that there had been comparison's to Michangelo and there was even talk of this young artist being the reincarnation of Michangelo and so on. This artists name is Louis More'.He was a master at the age of 22 or so .I saw a portrait Lorenzo de Medici,a sculpture of Jesus Christ on the Rock and a whole bunch of other artwork by this artist.I am now movced away from there and want to find out what has become of him and if he is still working etc.,but haven't been succesful.If I'm not mistaken he was commisioned to do the artwork for the logo for the Summit of the Americas around that time period.

Searching "louis moré" - st -saint -st. on Google turned up nothing useful. You might have the name wrong. --Halcatalyst 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could try contacting the Art Renewal Center who promote this kind of work. Tyrenius 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

titles

A dozen or so titles of hollywood films of the 1940s please

Have you looked at the articles 1940 in film to 1949 in film? Grutness...wha? 06:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or History_of_film#The_1940s:_the_war_and_post-war_years for an overview.-gadfium 06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Quotes

Are there any quotes in the Bible regarding pre-marital sex? --Shadarian 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a very closely related tangent is "Thou shalt not commit adultery", from the ten commandments, but the New Testament (particularly the letters of Paul) has several exhortations to avoid fornication (sourced from Strong's concordance, KJV) — Lomn Talk 15:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In one of the early law books (probably Leviticus, but I don't have time to find it) there are prescriptions of the punishements for sleeping with someone before marriage. They are considerably less severe than the punishment for adultery (which was death in most cases). If I recall, in the case of fully consenting pre-marital sex the punishment for the man was marriage to the woman, with no possibility of divorce. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Exodus 22:16,17 it says "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall sureley endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." --WhiteDragon 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that there was very little pre-marital in Biblical times in which to have sex. 8-) As a rule, parents contracted marriages in those days very early, sometimes at birth. As soon as the child reached puberity, they would be married off. There were celebates, like Jesus, in spite of this. From the arguments made against adultery and fornication (sexual immorality in general), though, it is clear that all sex outside of marriage is condemned. --CTSWyneken 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, polygamy was practiced regularly. So, if you wanted to have sex with someone, but you were already married, just marry the new person also. --Kainaw

(talk) 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, only royalty and the rich could afford such. "Husband of one wife" was the rule.--CTSWyneken 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus marrying someone brought responsibilities, so it's not just a case of marrying, shagging and dumping as many people as you liked. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering how Wyneken concludes that in Biblical times "as a rule, parents contracted marriages...very early, sometimes at birth"? In fact, the Bible seems to indicate quite the opposite, that Biblical characters tended to marry, if anything, at unusually old ages. Abraham married Sarah rather late in life (by today's standards), same with his son Isaac's marriage to Rebecca, and their son Jacob's marriage to both both Leah and Rachel (according to his agreement with his father-in-law, Leah and Rachel's father Laban, he put in some 20 years of hard labour before finally getting to marry his true love, Rachel). As for Moses, he only met and married the daughter of Jethro long after he was banished by the Pharaoh from Egypt as an adult. So just what Biblical characters is Wyneken refering to? Loomis51 00:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are from the patriarchal period, not the Israelite period (the farther back in Genesis you go, the more ages are magnified). AnonMoos 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos is correct. Please note the "as a rule" part. Also, note that most of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus died during the forty years in the wilderness. Moses was, by that time, an exception to the rule. --CTSWyneken 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Jesus Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount intensified the prohibitions on fornication, saying that fornication is adultery and that lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one's heart. The emphasis was not to say how evil the world is but that the Kingdom is in the heart, that being legal about sin was the wrong path. Geogre 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol results

In a high-profile event such as American Idol there must be a big scramble to be the individual who gets to edit the article each week to show the latest results. Is there an agreement among administrators to assign a particular user the task of updating the article? Does opening the article for editing lock out other users until changes are saved?

Articles might be locked if there is much debate and reverting going on - such as controversial topics as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (currently locked BTW). However, locking an article is a last-resort and with topics such as Idols rankings and results it will probably not be an issue - first come, first serve will be the rule - which really shouldn't cause too much of a problem. Agreeing to whom does what is next to impossible on high profile articles with many hits - there is simply too many people some of which might not read the talk page. Gardar Rurak 19:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The few times I edited a particular current event article and feared others would cause edit collisions, I've put an {{inuse}} tag at the top asking them not to edit while I was busy. I case of Idol or Eurovision Song Contest results, that worked for me. When two people try to edit a page at the same time, the first edit is saved, the second is informed of the collision which is called a edit conflict. Articles aren't locked if they're opened for editing, sometimes people do this to see code without the intent to actually edit, meaning such a close could lokc up a lot of pages unneccesarily. - Mgm|(talk) 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady of Shalott

in the lady of shalott, what is 'tirra lirra' from. it's what Lancelot sings as he goes past the tower Thanks--81.151.8.56 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may find "Tire lire" in some old french rhymes. The sense is not obvious. --DLL 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just an example of rhyming redulplication, just like airy-fairy or mumbo-jumbo, or roly-poly, stuff like that. There's more in our reduplication article; we don't have a separate rhyming reduplication article, unfortunately (we do have an article on Shm-reduplication, however!). СПУТНИКССС Р 02:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint John and golden eagles

Sirs, Please can you tell me WHY? the anglican St John is associated with golden eagles, as he is depicted with them in several medeavel tapistries and hence the golden eagle shaped lecterns in some Anglican churches. Many thanks, Greg

Four Evangelists, four very old symbols (lion, eagle, bull and man), I'd say arising from Ezechiel's vision or some Chaldean divinities (for now, let's say from the Book of Revelation). Who made the links, some father of the early church ? --DLL 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a possible pagan connection with the four symbols and the zodiacal signs at the times of solstice and equinox - Taurus, Leo, Scorpo, Aquarius (the eagle was often used as an alternative symbol to the scorpion for Scorpius). Grutness...wha? 01:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the New Advent article on St. John the Evangelist: "Early Christian art usually represents St. John with an eagle, symbolizing the heights to which he rises in the first chapter of his Gospel." --Seejyb 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Gore

The Connecticut Gore was a strip of land claimed by Connecticut as late as the beginning of the 19th century that extended along New York's southwest border with Pennsylvania. I came across this topic while writing New York v. Connecticut, a 1799 suit in the U.S. Supreme Court that arose from a private land dispute in the Connecticut Gore, the answer to which hinged on which state the land was actually in.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disposed of the case without answering that question. It's obviously now part of New York, but aside from very insubstantial references, I've been unable to find a history of this region or, what I'm chiefly interested in: when and how was New York's claim over the Connecticut Gore finally resolved? It might have been tied to the disposition of the Connecticut Western Reserve (which is now northeastern Ohio), but again, I can't find that anywhere.

As a possible lead, some rare bookdealers online are selling books that advocated Connecticut's side and reproduced 17th century documents; I've included these references under "further reading" in the New York v. Connecticut article. However, I think those would at most give background on the region, because they predate any resolution. I've also posted this question on Talk:History of Connecticut. Cheers, Postdlf 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a question? If so what is it? This is certainly an interesting topic but from what I understand the RD is for questions.
Since I can't find any question in the above text, I'll ask one:
I'm having trouble picturing where this particular piece of land is. From what you explain it doesn't seem to be contiguous with the rest of Connecticut. Are you saying that Connecticut was claiming a patch of land several dozen miles away from the rest of Connecticut? A map of the area including what area was claimed by Connecticut would be very informative if it were on the page. Another question: Any idea why it was given the unusual term: The Connecticut "Gore"? At first I thought this was a question about the Democratic 2000 presidential election ticket. Loomis51 00:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, see the boldface text that ends with a question mark for my question. Postdlf 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are on the right track. Some of the original colony charters granted in the 1600s ran to the western coast of North America in their original wording. Some of the early maps look quite peculiar to someone familiar with modern state boundaries, as several of the colonies were endless stripes west across the continent. In most cases the western boundaries of the new states were settled sensibly and quickly just before or just after the Revolution. The connecticut claims were more complex, involving non-contiguous western areas, overlapping claimed territories of New York, Pennsyvania, and several Iroquois nations. These areas were being actively settled by colonists from several colonies in the mid 18th century, before the Revolution. There were a number of conflicts, even some actual or threatened bloodshed over several parts of the western extension of Connecticut, especially the Wyoming Valley of northeast Pennsylvania, and the Western Reserve Area of Ohio. In the Revolution, most of the Iroquois backed the wrong faction, and their lands were considered fair game by many former colonists as the British withdrew their claims and their support for the Indians. This is off the top of my head and I will try to look up some details and references this weekend if no one can provide a fuller answer sooner and you want more. I realize I have not provided a source for the word gore, but suspect it might be an archaic description of the appearance of the western Connecticut land claims on a map. alteripse 03:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be based on the shape, as "gore" can mean a small triangular patch of land (see Gore (road)). Unfortunately, I have been unable to find a map illustrating it. My understanding, from the oblique references to it in the court cases, is that it was noncontiguous with Connecticut proper. I also know that it overlapped with at least part of Steuben County (based on the assertions of the New York land claimant in the above case), and possibly Chemung. Postdlf 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Steuben County was newly formed in 1795 and Chemung was not formed until 1836... much of Western NY was Ontario County at the time of the case (1799). [11] KWH 15:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a map: [12] Here is a description: [13] Here is a description of the overlapping charters and ensuing conflict between Pa and Conn (let's blame the Brits): [14] alteripse 04:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of those reference the Gore...the map just shows the Western Reserve and the Erie Triangle (now PA's "keystone"). I don't think the Wyoming lands (Wyoming Valley, NE Pennsylvania) connected either. Postdlf 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this have anything to do with it? From History of New York:
"At the north end of the Morris Reserve, an 87,000 acre (350 km²) triangular shaped tract ("The Triangle Tract") was sold by Morris to Herman Leroy, William Bayard and John McEvers, while a 100,000 acre (400 km²) tract due west of the Triangle Tract was sold to the State of Connecticut."
See also Image:WNY5.PNG. KWH 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another book that mentions the matter and indicates that the Gore is now part of Pennsylvania. KWH 15:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It must've extended into both states. Postdlf 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Windsor's first husbands

I'm curious for more information on the Duchess of Windsor's (Wallis Simpson's) first husbands, Earl Winfield Spencer and Ernest Aldrich Simpson. Specifically, was Spencer married two or three more times after he and Wallis divorced? The article at Wikipedia gives two more wives, but I have read he was married four times. If so, when and with whom did he contract this fourth marriage? And when did his second marriage (to Miriam J. ______) take place? I'm also curious about Ernest Simpson's children-Audrey, his daughter by his first wife, as well as his son by his third wife. I know the latter eventually moved to Israel and married twice there, but what became of him? And was his daughter in regular contact with him or any of her 3 stepmothers? What became of her? Any information on his first and fourth wives' previous marriages is also appreciated. Hope this isn't too much to ask-- the Internet seems to be lacking in information. TysK 23:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

historic photos from POLEN by Dr. Wilhelm Nölting, 1936

Searching for German/Polish/Europe web site containing historic pictures of Poland/Germany from book "Polen" by Dr. Wilhelm Nölting, published in 1936 - Berlin, Germany. The images may be have been shown in a gallery also.

This site has over 100 images and IS NOT at PolishRoots.com, which only has a few. Thanks for your help.

--152.163.100.72 23:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A google image search wasn't helpful, sadly. Polishroots.com seems to have 42 of the inages, and the cover is shown at www.detlef-heinsohn.de, but nothing else turned up at all. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

International Yacht Captain

My husband is an International Yacht Captain from Turkey. I am a U.S. Citizen. We are going through the red tape of the Homeland Security System for my husband to get his work permit here in the US. To me it seems that since he has an International License to Sail under 7 different Flags (including the U.S. and Canada), he should be able to work as a Yacht Captain here, or under any flag on his License. I have searched Maritime Law, Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard Regulations and general Google to no avail. He is going crazy to get to work at his trade. (Our immigration attorney cannot find anything on this and says he has to await his work permit then get a travel permit.) Any clues where to look??? Hundreds of on-line hours and no luck. P.S. So glad I tripped on this site!

Humanities/Law

My question concerns bank accounts for social groups like Adventure Scouts. One scout, the patrol leader, opened a joint account with another scout, the treasurer. This sounded like a bad idea to me since, for example, if one scout disappeared with the deposits, the other scout might be liable to any other scout members who contributed money.

I looked at the articles on nonprofits and fundraising, but I'm still not clear on what exactly to do. Does the Adventure scout group need to incorporate itself as a social club with its own EIN, articles of incorporation, bylaws, etc or is there some simpler way. I've heard of a "child" nonprofit group using the EIN of its "parent" group for fundraising, but how would that work with bank accounts? I imagine this question comes up a lot, I'm just not sure how it's normally handled.

I'm sure it depends both on the country and the organization. Non-profit organizations in the U.S. with which I'm familiar have strict restrictions on financial accounts of their entities. --Halcatalyst 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be for the U.S. Just generally, what kind of restrictions?

In the UK you can open an account for a group without going through the legal process of incorporating. However there are certainly a few things you should do, whatever country you are in. 1) make sure the account is in the name of the group, not the individuals. 2) Require two signatures on cheques and other withdrawals. Appointing three officers of the group and requiring at least two to sign is a good way to do it. 3) Create some sort of constitution for the group, specifying how officers are chosen. Your bank will probably require you to do this with any account in an organisation name.

As part of a larger group such as scouts this has almost certainly come up before. Check with the parent organisation. DJ Clayworth 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site says: "No, you may not use an individual member's personal bank account. A voluntary association of individuals-such as your student organization-operates in the name of the entity and not in the name of the individuals who are part of that organization." The article covers most pitfalls and solutions. I'd suggest you discuss the issue confidentially with your local bank manager, or, as above, with your parent organisation. Your organisation basically needs written down financial rules and regulations, about members, about officers, about authorisations and financial reports etc. and the bank needs to know what your rules are, and to approve of them as being reasonable and safe. --Seejyb 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the Saudi-Arabian Minister to Iraq on Nov. 10, 1944

I have an item that was given as a gift and it is engraved:

"To Col. P.H.M. Converse Cav. U.S. Army From H.E. Asa'ad Al Fakih Saudi-Arabian Minister to Iraq Baghdad 10 November 1944"

Can anyone help identify who these folks were (or are) or what this date represented for these countries?

Thanks, Stacey

17th century theories of insanity

Can anyone tell me how insanity was explained in Europe in the mid-1600s -- especially schizophrenic type insanity -- hallucinations, voices etc? If someone can provide a quote or two from scholars at the time, that would be a nice bonus too.

Thanks Adambrowne666 09:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The insanity article has a brief section on historical perspectives and it states that insanity has historically been attributed to supernatural or divine causes. I would suggest that this would be the case in the mid 1600s - that people who were insane would be treated as if the were possessed by demons, witches or just generally being punished by God.
However a google search highlighted this webpage webpage about witches in England in the Tudor and Stuart periods and it mentions contemporary physicians being familiar with writers who saw mental disorders as non-demonic and in some cases "natural" Colonel 11:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A book which might be of use is Mad Princes of Renaissance Germany. There is a review of it here which points out some of the more interesting points to the way insanity and courtly medicine worked at the time. --Fastfission 23:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all - I've also found some stuff about hysterical madness - the notion that the uterus caused insanity in women - the womb rising up through the body to inflame and compress the brain! Watch out! Adambrowne666 06:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

funny little word that found its way into my vocabulary without a solid definition

maccobb is a funny little word that found its way into my vocabulary without fining a place of proper spelling or of a solid well held definition.

hi, some how I cant find the correct spelling or proper definition for the word "ma-cob" i understand it to some degree having to do with mystery and fascinating oddness. the movies Brazil and Eraser Head are to pieces of macobb expression. i think it may not be an English word.

may i beg your trouble for some assistance in my quest?

Perhaps you mean macabre: adj., 1 having death as a subject, comprising or including a personalized representation of death; 2 dwelling on the gruesome; 3 tending to produce horror in a beholder (Merraim-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary). —Wayward Talk 11:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you are pronouncing it correctly. The "re" is silent and it makes many people shudder when they hear people say mack-ab-ruh.--Fuhghettaboutit
That depends on where you're from, F. In many places, the "re" is not silent. JackofOz 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think of the last syllable as greatly de-emphasized, as is true for many French words. English speakers aren't used to de-emphasizing something to such an extent that you can barely hear it, so typically say it normally or leave it silent. BTW, the Language Ref Desk would have been a better choice for this Q. StuRat 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a punk band called "Corn on Macabre". —Keenan Pepper 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My late Dad used to pronounce it like Micawber (in Dickens' David Copperfield). JackofOz 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is wonderful, living history, a reminder to remain humble when studying human language. If macabre is the true "root" of maccob - and from the meaning the writer describes, that is likely - then is this not language living, growing, changing, seen in real time, originating from a single identifiable source? Surely not a common event, when the word is not consciously invented and published as such. One wonders how long it would take for the spelling to spread, the meaning to be slightly altered, here and there, and from time to time, so that future lexicographer ends up randomly speculating about the origin of this word (with Great Authority!). --Seejyb 11:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. Not knowing how to spell a word is neither uncommon nor wonderful. HenryFlower 11:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Henry, Henry... --Seejyb 17:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whaaa...what is it, Min? Grutness...wha? 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoacoustics question

I've read the psychoacoustics and music theory sections of Wikipedia, yet I still don't understand why certain segments of a piece appeal to some persons and not to others. Obviously some aspects are learned or cultural, but what happens in the development of a person that is "turned on" by certain notes?

Why do some people like works of art and not others? Why do some people like certain kinds of food and not others? It's not a matter of music theory, it's a matter of taste. I guess the physiological properties of the ear might have something to do with it, as in people with less accurate hearing find more temperament of consonances acceptable, but that can't be more than a small part of it. —Keenan Pepper 17:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is a good one, but I doubt that it has an answer that can be written in words. If I knew the formula of how to write music that predictably sends shivers down people's spine, I would have been a rich man. --vibo56 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone would know of studies where individuals would listen to varied pieces of music while simultaneously recording EEG or MRI etc.

You might find something here. This one is maybe also of interest. --vibo56 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

school porject

Hi, i have a school porject i need a need avery intresting fact for the year 1992. Like a jaw dropper that will leave people amazed. Would you happen to know one or two?

Take a look at 1992, and select whichever event that makes your jaw drop. --vibo56 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol Bush vomiting on the prime minister of Japan would be a good one. see Jan in 1992 Nowimnthing 15:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone knows proper etiquette demands that visiting heads of state should vomit on the Emperor first. (Note that this was Bush Senior.) StuRat 16:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the smart thing to do. Why vomit in your own lap? --BluePlatypus 17:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, 15 June's During a spelling bee at a Trenton, New Jersey elementary school, U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle erroneously corrects a student's spelling of the word potato by indicating it should have an e at the end. Joe 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It slightly disturbs me that Dan Quayle and the "potato" incident would be a candidate for inclusion in a (probably secondary) school project. Even worse, it makes me feel very old (and I'm not even 20 yet!). --Sporkot 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was mere logic from the vice. Doe, toe, potatoe look English ... Orlando, diminuendo, ado are latin (Spanish or Italian). --DLL 18:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what's so foolish about it. Attempting to apply logic and consistency to English spelling is madness! --BluePlatypus 20:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Am I right in saying this is an anatomical diagram of the heart vessels?

http://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=14a4jh.jpg

Actually, it appears to be illustrating the circle of Willis, in the brain. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure it was the heart I thought I recognised some of it oh well my mistake thanks mate.

No problem; let me know if I can be of further help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video of the consecration of the Eucharist in Roman Catholic Mass

Greetings,

May someone please point me to a video of the consecration of the Eucharist in Roman Catholic Mass?

I thank in advance whomever will reply,

Grumpy Troll (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Check out Google Video here. There are 23 videos as of 27 May 2006. There's also a great fourteen minute video of World Youth Day 2005 on the page. Cheers! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply,
Grumpy Troll (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Entry for John Keegan

I reciently completed an extensive paper on John Keegan and his historical work. It could be of use to a Wiki volunteer to expand his entry and maybe create entries for those books I analyzed (I could not obtain copies of all his books).

If a wiki volunteer would like to use it you can contact me at < e-mail removed >

I would ask that the full text of the paper not be posted, as I don't want to find a future student with a paper I wrote as an undergrad.

John Keegan. You should look and see if you disagree with anything, or if there is anything you can add. By the way, Wikipedia says it's not for original research.--Teutoberg 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miitary Capes in Fascist Spain

I am assisting on the opera Carmen at the Santa Fe Opera. We would like to be correct in our use of military uniform capes in fascist Spain (1950's-60's). When was it appropriate to wear the cape element of the uniform? Was it for ceremonial purposes only? Or was it worn any time as desired purely for warmth? Was it only certain ranking officers that wore them as a part of their uniform? Thanks so much. --Ari98el 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was normal uniform, with a more fancy get-up for ceremonial occasions, but you could e-mail this police museum to be sure. Jameswilson 02:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

Piano Music in Little Britain

Those of you who have watched the first seasons of Little Britain might have noticed a sketch with a piano player (played by David Walliams) who always interrupts in the middle of a recital to do something mindless. What I know is that he performs Mozarts "Turkish March" (3rd mvt from K. 331, 11th sonata) in the 1st episode and the 2nd mvt from Beethovens "Pathetique" sonata (Op. 13, 8 sonata) in the 6th episode.

But it is rather "unclear" what pieces he performs in the 3rd and 8th episode. From what I know he played:

  • Episode 1: Mozart K.331 (3rd mvt) "Turkish March"
  • Episode 3: Unknown
  • Episode 6: Beethoven Op. 13 (2nd mvt) "Pathetique sonata"
  • Episode 8: Unknown

I have added a link to the soundtrack from the 3rd episode, if it can be to some help:

http://www.badongo.com/file/750022

I would be forever grateful if someone could help me complete the list (especially episode 3).

Sincerely -- Funper 00:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The file you linked to is the third movement of Beethoven's Mondschein Sonata, op.27 no. 2. David Sneek 08:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Always known in English as the "Moonlight" Sonata. JackofOz 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what are the first names of these former Yugoslav leaders?

hello,

I am doing a biography on the following individuals I have last names but no first names making them extremely hard to find please help if you can!!! thank you, ash

Breshneu Andropou Gorbacheu Glasnost

P.S. I have allready found Joseph Broz Tito, Joseph Stalin, Lavernty Beria and Nikita Khrushchev thanks to Wikipedia's help but I am still in need of the others.

They have nothing to do with Yugoslavia. The first 3 Brezhnev, Andropov and Gorbachev were the heads of state of the former Soviet Union, and the 4th glasnost was not even a person but a word to describe Gorbachev's policy of openness and transparency. JackofOz 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I watched Andropov take office Andropov dead just 16 months later. :-) StuRat 13:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then, when Chernenko dropped dead after only 13 months on the job, the Soviets decided it might be a good idea to put someone in office who wasn't older than the Revolution, which, inadvertently, meant they didn't care about it. Hence, the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. StuRat 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Macedonian Conquests

I have a question about ancient Macedonian conquests. Is there any real reason for why Macedonia didn't campaign in southern Italy? Alexander the Great goes about 2000+ miles in one direction, but never in the next 100-150 years do any Macedonian kings every go 50 miles across strait of Ortanto to southern Italy. Dose anybody have an explanation for this? The only theory I could come up with was that the Macedonians didn't have the male population to form an army at the time.

There was no real civilization to speak of (hence no wealth) to the west of Greece until after the rise of Rome. -lethe talk + 05:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Pyrrhus of Epirus AnonMoos 06:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orkut in Brazil

What is the cause of orkut's overwhelming popularity in Brazil. The article describes it but doesn't go into the causes. deeptrivia (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's an expression of the Network effect. The benefit of an Orkut, MySpace or what have you is to connect to other people, particularly those who are like you. (I doubt that many high school anglophones want to connect to 50 year old Swedish tax accountants, for instance.) Once Orkut began to be the leader in the Brazilian market, then anybody who wanted to engage in social networking would find that most of their friends were already on Orkut, that there were more people speaking Brazilian Portugese on Orkut as compared with other networks, and so on until Orkut was the overwhelming leader in the market. The root causes may not be particularly clear. In The Tipping Point (book), Gladwell mentions connectors, mavens and salesmen as particularly influential people -- if a small community of these people started using Orkut when social networking began, then it wouldn't take much to snowball to the whole population. It's quite possible that even the people at Orkut have no idea why they caught on in particular with the Brazilians, but once it was clear that they had, they did what they could to increase their market share there. --ByeByeBaby 09:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can Muslims be monkeys and pigs

Something has been bothering me lately.

  1. Son of a Jewish mother is a Jew
  2. Son of a Muslim father is a Muslim
  3. The holy Quran says Jews are monkeys and pigs

So if a Muslim man marries a Jewish women and they produce a son, would not the son be both a Jew and a Muslim.

And if so, would it not be possible for (some) muslims then to be monkeys and pigs too?

Ohanian 07:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating stuff - however, it seems the Quran is confused on some issues. You can not technically be a pig AND a monkey at the same time. It could possibly be some sort of mix between the two species of which we do not know today - a "pinkey" of sorts. Another sollution might be that people of Jewish descend are either pigs OR monkeys but this would suggest two separate Jewish lines of descend between which there can be no interbreeding. Neither the Bible, the Torah nor the Quran mentions any such thing - so it would seem the "pinkey" creature is the most obvious sollution despite any lack of evidence of it's existance.
Should a Muslim man marry a female Jewish "pinkey" the offspring would as such genetically be half human/pinkey and half Muslim/Jewish - not half man/woman however (except in rare instances). The question is really if your Muslimness dissapears when you also hold Jewishness and Pinkeyness within you - the Quran must have some sort of answer to this.
Summa summarum: It's possible as long as the Quran 1) Allows Muslim men to marry Jewish women. 2) Weighs the Jewish descend more than the Muslim descend. Gardar Rurak 09:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that answer was meant to be tongue-in-cheek ? Incidentally, the word you want is descent, descend means "to go lower": "People of African descent are more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia." "After you descend the staircase into the basement, turn right to find the freezer where I store the bodies." StuRat 13:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simplest understanding is to read the original (untranslated) text, and if you can't read Arabic, sit with a friend who can translate for you. The issue becomes something of a non-issue. --Seejyb 16:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Brozman

He plays hawaiian music and would like to request an article about him. Love the site just haven't posted anything yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.60.66 (talk • contribs)

Looked him on Google and Allmusic. He gets 300,000 Google hits, including an article on NPR's website. He's been releasing music for 25 years as well. Sounds fairly impressive. Here's what I recommend 71, follow this link: Bob Brozman, then click Add a Request for It. Follow the instructions on the next page. Simply paste this into the appropriate category: [[Bob Brozman]]
If you have any questions, you can ask me on my Talk page, or paste this code onto your own talk page and wait for someone to come help you: [[helpme]]. Zepheus 16:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop/American Idol winners

hi, over in the UK we're all big fans of kelly clarkson, but we haven't heard of any of your (america's) other 'idol' winners (i gather there has been lots of series) - does any one know if theres a specfic reason for this (i.e. all the other ones are rubbish) or is it just becuase shes pretty and maybe all your other winners, like the current one, aren't? also, i've heard it on the grapevine that Will Young (the UK pop idol winner) wasn't promoted internationally becuase he didn't sign a contract which obligated him to keep schtum about his sexuality - can i anyone confirm (or deny) this? cheers!87.194.20.253 14:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put it bluntly, Kelly Clarkson is the only Idol winner with a successful career. Carie Underwood seems to be reaping the rewards, but that's more of country music so they wouldn't play it in Britian. --mboverload@ 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Clay Aiken, who came in second in the second season, has had a pretty successful career. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "successful carrer" means "late-night gay-joke punching bag," sure =) --mboverload@ 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executions in imperial China

How many executions for year there was in imperial China? Vess

Imperial China lasted well over 2000 years. That's an impossible question to answer. HenryFlower 15:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the late XIX century. More than 10,000? User:Vess

Paedophiles and homophilophobias

I was wondering about the construction of some words like 'homophobe' which taken litterally, would be a fear of people with a similar characteristic (e.g. men not liking other men) rather than what it actually usually refers to which would be 'homophilophobe' - why isn't it just that? Also, there are people that claim a 'paedophobe' is someone that dislikes paedophiles when it's actually, as it should be, a person that doesn't like children/babies. Would it be safe to say that someone who doesn't like paedophiles is actually a padeophilophobe? What about homophobophobes? --Username132 (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language isn't always perfectly consistent, but is flexible and can conform to different ideas of word length, ellipsis, and implied understanding. Furthermore, English isn't here to be a morpheme for morpheme translation from Greek. We may borrow stems from Greek into English, but our definitions are our own. -lethe talk + 17:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of such inconsistencies. Look at the word "paedophile" for instance. To be consistent, it should be "paedophiliac" - paedophile simply implies someone who likes children (and not in a sexual way) in the same way bibliphiles like books, anglophiles like things that are English and jaundoparamantuophiles like yellow plastic raincoats (OK, so I made the last one up). Words denoting sexual infatuation end -philiac", like necrophiliac, mysophiliacs, and all the other --philiacs with varieties listed in Category:Paraphilia. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The central problem is in the construction of "homosexual" to begin with, which mixes Latin and Greek. Since then, "homo" has been used for "man" (Latin) and combined with various Greek suffixes. In Greek, it's "same," and the compound would be "homophilia" for "same loving." It's when you stick the Latin "male" for "homo" that you get the confusion. At this point, the dam has burst and the waters have flowed...not much point trying to be pure now. Geogre 11:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Jeopardy

I saw a film where a woman was put away for killing a man who didn't die and was still alive. Can she really then go out and actually kill him after her release and there be nothing anyone would do, since she had already served time for it? --Username132 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. That film is based on a misinterpretation of the law. Killing her husband one day, and killing her husband another day years later after she got out of prison are different crimes in the eyes of the law, so they can certainly convict her again. This is explained in our article Double Jeopardy (film). In the future, please search the encyclopedia for your answer before asking here. -lethe talk + 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The answers to this sort of question also depend on the laws of the country in question. See double jeopardy. --Shantavira 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually check the double joepardy article, just not the one of the film (didn't occur to me). I think it's really unfair that people can get locked away for years for a crime they didn't commit and then the person they supposedly killed gets away with it. What's the penalty for pretending to be dead so someone goes away for your murder? --Username132 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfair every time anyone gets convicted for a crime they didn't commit. This unfortunate occurrence is known as a miscarriage of justice, and it happens, though obviously the system wants to avoid them as much as possible. I suppose setting someone up for murder is a form of fraud, and the penalty would be up to the judge or jury, and I expect how long the innocent person had been jailed would be a factor. I expect that this might also be a factor in the sentencing of Ashley Judd for her second murder. She'd still be convicted, she committed a crime, but they might give her a much lighter sentence due to time served. (On the other hand, the second murder is highly premeditated and deliberate, which some might not view favorably). -lethe talk + 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its also worth noting that some countries have abandoned double jeopardy. In britain, for example, for about a year now its been perfectly legal for the police to keep hauling the same person in fron t of judge - regardless of how many times he's found not guilty. what fun times we live in! 87.194.20.253 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bolan again- Signed this time - age challenged newby

Did Mark Bolan publish novels? I work at a library and have a patron who is sure he published books in England but I haven't been able to find any information that I trust.I hope this is being signed correctly. Mroberts2002 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Bolan of T-Rex fame? If so, this article says his first name was spelt Marc and also that this was a stage name, his real name being Mark (with the k) Feld. I managed to find a volume of poetry (under Marc Bolan) on http://www.copac.ac.uk called The Warlock of Love, published 1969. I was a librarian for a short while in another life - good luck. --The Gold Miner 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist states and religion

The communist states never paid clerics and never financied any religions. Vess

Which I'd say is A Good Thing in general. Was there a question, though...? —Zero Gravitas 18:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they did -- the few surviving priests and monks were essentially state employees, and the few surviving churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples were government buildings. AnonMoos 20:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do a lot of non-communist states. The point being? --BluePlatypus 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose - if you stretch your definition of "religion" far enough - you could say that Communism became the state religion in those states. Certainly the philosophical tenets of Communism aren't that dissimilar from those in some religions. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ideology of Marx was far less important than the ideology of Stalin in the Soviet Union. Usually in states such as these you end up with a cult of personality which is little more than a leader elevated to the role of a diety. --Fastfission 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Communist party designed the "Soviet" to specifically replace religion with "the Soviet." That, of course, is not very Marxist, not very Socialist, and certainly not Communist. Geogre 12:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a "communist state." It's possible to have a state of communism, but no State. Communism as defined by Marx and Engels is a classless, stateless society. Pckeffer

Well primitive Communism and end-stag communism were different things. The state was supposed to "wither away," but, well, there was room for plenty of argument about whether there would be no state at all. Geogre 12:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Shoes

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=9323079632&indexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting

What is with the funky white parts on these shoes and are they suited for wearing with a tuxedo? --Username132 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • They're based on a style called spectator shoes. Those soles pretty much rule them out for tux wear; if you're serious, the only shoes that go with a tux are black pumps (some prefer patent leather.) On the other hand, if you're talking those multicolored frilly outfits you can get in tux rental places, you can pretty much put whatever you want on your feet. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

Adam Abdul-Hakeem fka larry Davis

I would like to know as much as possible on the subject of Larry Davis, who at the age of 19 was framed by the NYPD for four murders. He also had a shoot out with police when they tried to kill him. He beat these charges but faced an outrageous sentenced o other charges. He waas also brutalized while incarcerated.

Larry Davis was a minister who misappropriated church funds... A Clown in the Dark 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who would prosecute this?

If I got a sniper rifle, and went down to the US/Mexico border and shot someone on the Mexican side from the US side, who would prosecute me? This is only hypothetical, not like there's anyone I want to kill. A Clown in the Dark 01:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both countries would want to, and they'd probably reach an agreement as to who would. It's no different, really, from the numerous cases where people send drugs abroad, commit international wire fraud, or blow up an international airliner. Middenface 01:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the feds would take jurisdiction from the state (which usually handles murders)? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to criminal jurisdiction, when shots are fired across a state line, either state can prosecute the case. I suppose the same thing would apply to an international border.
Interestingly enough, one day I was driving west on U.S. 22 out of Pittsburgh when I saw skid marks just before the West Virginia border. The marks continued across the border onto the other side, where a truck had fallen into a shallow ravine. The Pennsylvania authorities were handling it. It turns out that when a vehicle accident crosses a state line, the state where the accident started is in charge. -- Mwalcoff 03:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A movie

There was a movie that came out a few years ago - a French movie, I think - set in World War I. I believe the main plot dealt with a soldier who had left the military for some reason and then met up with a woman and her child, and they were traveling across the country... That's really all I know — does anyone recognize/know the name of this movie? Thanks. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only similar movie I can think of is A Very Long Engagement --mboverload@ 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not that one. I saw that one, actually, because I thought it might be it. In the one I'm thinking of, there's a man who (sort of randomly) comes across a woman and her child, whereas in A Very Long Engagement, the love story is a little more convetional (guy goes off to war, leaving loving girlfriend behind). zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was released (in the US) within the past few years I (2003? 2004?), so it wasn't Marthe. It had a relatively wide distribution - newspapers in your average large market would surely have had a review of it... But that's all I can think of. Perhaps I'm conflating more than one movie in my mind, though I don't think so - at any rate, thanks for trying to help. (Side question - is there any way to search movies by tags or something like that? It might help me.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 09:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going way out here, but you're not thinking of La Belle Epoch? Just being sure. Geogre 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so, but I'm not sure what La Belle Epoch is. (I thought that was just a time period around the time of Gilded-Age France; IMDb turns up nothing.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 14:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt I've got the title wrong -- Spanish film, young soldier in with a very wealthy family of women, intrigue ensues. It's an excellent film, but I don't want to hijack your question by offering another poser. Geogre 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would just like to add that "Un long dimanche de fiançailles" is the original French title for "Very long engagement" (even though the title is not completely literal).Evilbu 16:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking information about Burlesque Comedian Harry Evanson

Harry Evanson was a great uncle of mine. He shows up in one wikipedia article about Bud Abbott which mentions that he once worked with Harry Evanson as burlesque comedians. Internet searches have yielded nothing further.

I'd appreciate any information or suggestions for where I might be able to find more information.

Thanks,

Stephen Silberman StephenSS 04:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC) --""""[reply]

Contemporary philosophy

What do contemporary philosophers think/say about mystical systems's claim to 'absolute truth'? ( even those who have sound logical foundations?). --Cosmic girl 05:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, of course, on the philosopher. Daniel Dennett is famous for being very critical of religion and anything that resembles religion. The title of his latest book says it all: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Chl 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US House of Representative electorate boundaries

I've been editing several Florida representative articles, and I see that Corrine Brown's district is shaped very awkwardly, running from Jacksonville to Orlando, with many random cities and towns in between. I know Corrine Brown is popular with the black electorate of Jacksonville, so was she given the white rural areas to even things out and assuage gerrymandering? I just think her district looks very awkward. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

 I do believe that you are correct in saying that Ms. Brown was given
 the rurals. Knowledge Bank 15:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yin & Yang

I see that one of the principles of Yin Yang is that they can transform into one another , yet I've read that the transformation is conditional ( ie depends on time and readiness ) . My question is : Is it really conditional in the original philosophy , and if so how can the transformation be a principle of yin yang when it only happens occassionally , and not all yin and yang transform into each other ? Maybe it means that all yin can be yang but must apply to the conditions ?thank you Hhnnrr 12:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do stock exchanges close?

Why do stock exchanges close every evening? Surely in our 24 hour, global, hi-tech economy we should be able to buy and sell anytime. What would be the problem with not closing? Thanks. --The Gold Miner 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that like any job, stockbrokers would like to work "normal" hours, and probably get back to their families at a proper time for dinner and such. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European WW1/WW2 graveyards

This question has been troubling me for some time and I hope someone can answer it. Why were so many Americans buried in Europe during the wars? The names are on the gravestones, so we knew who they were. So why were they not sent back to their grieving families? Sometimes you will even see several brothers buried together. I know most were, so it wasn't just logistics. Thank you in advance for your kind help. P. Crawford

It has only been recently that American dead were repatriated. It was definitely a logstics thing. Look at the large numbers of dead at Gettysburg, their homes were considerably closer than the homes of the dead in Europe. Bodies were not returned home. Can you imagine ships full of, excuse me, rotting bodies making the long journey home from Europe? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Myth

Are there any Celtic world origin stories? 172.149.64.87 21:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=55626843"