Science	Mathematics	Computing/IT	Humanities
Language	Entertainment	Miscellaneous	Archives

How to ask a question

Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.

Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end.
Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in.
Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box.

Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers.

Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.

Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet.
Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic.
Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives.
Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.
Do not request medical or legal advice.
Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.

After reading the above, you may
ask a new question by clicking here.
Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.

How to answer a question

Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to.
Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.

Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question.
Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude.
The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

October 27

King Henry VIII

Did King Henry the VIII have control over the legal system of England? Nick 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)nicholassayshi[reply]

Hi Nick - our article on Henry VIII doesn't talk much about his relationship with Parliament, Parliament of England notes that it was under Elizabeth I the Parliaments began to become uppity (so before that point the Monarch, e.g. Henry, would have been in strong control). List_of_Acts_of_Parliament_of_the_English_Parliament_to_1601#1509_.281_Hen._VIII.29 is very thorough, but most of the acts themselves don't have articles, so knowing the King's position on them is impossible from this perspective.

Possibly the most important act passed in his reign was the Statute in Restraint of Appeals, which removed Papal authority, making the King the final point of appeal (i.e. cementing his control) - the most important interactions to consider would be those between Parliament, Monarch, Privy Council, and Church - Henry removed the Church from the equation, in theory controlled the Privy Council, and had to deal with the Parliament - an assessment of the success of his control of those would go towards his control of the legal system. You may also want to consider the view that at this time the monarch was not merely above the law, the monarch was the law. You'll probably find writings by Geoffrey Elton very interesting in this regard, his two main focuses were Henry VIII and political history. --Mnem e son 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have little to add to the above answer, intelligent and well-informed. However, I would question the contention that Henry removed the church from the general political nexus. He ended Papal supremacy, yes, but that is a quite different thing. Churchmen were still powerful players in Henry's court. I would also urge some caution over the contention that the English monarch was the law, which would make him the political equivalent of some oriental despot. Tudor absolutism always had a firm constitutional basis, and there were some things even the king could not do. Henry's Reformation would have been inconceivable without the active co-operation of Parliament. Clio the Muse 08:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little hazy on this ("it's not my period") but I would guess that Henry ultimately (theoretically) appointed the Justices of the Peace. I think that magnates still had the right to be judged by their peers and again, Henry had powers of appointment and removal. Church courts were also under his jurisdiction after his break from Rome. His own legal/religious wrangles were usually conveniently turned so that he was in the right, such as the thorny subjects of could he marry Catherine of Aragon and later could he divorce her. The only problem was that the Pope disagreed and Henry couldn't control the Papal court. So I'd guess the answer is yes, he pretty much did control England's legal system. Historians with better knowledge of Tudor England (ie most people) pls feel free to correct me!--Dweller 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry himself did not appoint JPs, the responsibility for whom lay with the Lord Chancellor, the chief legal officer of the realm. He, in turn, would depend upon local recommendations. The marriage to Catherine proceeded with full papal dispensation. Later papal resistence to the divorce was the occasion of Henry's break with Rome. It is important to remember that Parliament is the high court of England, and Henry, mindful of this, was always careful to secure full Parliamentary co-operation. There had long been an active anti-clerical mood in England, and deep resentment over some of the extra-territorial papal powers; so Henry's move against separate church courts, for example, was widely supported. The English constitution, I stress again, was always based on the active co-operation of Parliament and Crown. It was when this broke down that the problems started; and Parliaments both before and after the reign of Henry VIII showed no reluctance in curbing and removing unpopular monarchs. Clio the Muse 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Who appointed the Lord Chancellor? (that was what I meant by "ultimately"). --Dweller 09:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

What is the meaning of life it self?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.91.91 (talk • contribs)

Mu. Ziggurat 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe, The Justified Ancients Of Mu Mu?? 惑乱分からん 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Meaning of life. —Keenan Pepper 04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

42 -B00P 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That we need a FAQ.--Shantavira 06:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which we have. DirkvdM 09:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

42... that one is getting revoltingly cliched. -- Chris 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick it in there then!--Light current 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people stop asking the question, we will stop giving the answer. :) DirkvdM 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoof splurge?

A friend keeps emailing me pps files with (admittedly) pretty pictures, accompanied by a few gut wrenching platitudes, and usually ending with a story about a brave little disabled boy. I don't want to hurt her feelings by asking her not to send me this crap. It struck me that there must be some excellent spoofs of this sort of material that I could send her in return. Does anyone know where I can find same?--Shantavira 07:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to parody a disabled child ? If you don't want to offend her,just tell her that the files take up too much space or something.You don't need to make fun of disabled people to get your point across.Serenaacw 09:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, why so touchy? Spoofs of "this sort of material" don't have to mean parodying a disabled child. Even if it did, anything involving Timmy from South Park would work for me!Snorgle 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just remembered the following which someone sent me recently:

BILLY CONNOLLY’S CHAIN LETTER

Hello, my name is Billy and I suffer from guilt for not forwarding 50 billion f**king chain letters sent to me by people who actually believe if you send them on, a poor six year old girl in Scotland with a breast on her forehead will be able to raise enough money to have it removed before her redneck parents sell her to a travelling freak show.

And, do you honestly believe that Bill Gates is going to give you, and everyone to whom you send “his” email, a $1000? How stupid are we?

Ooooh, looky here! If I scroll down this page and make a wish, I’ll get

laid by a model I just happen to run into the next day! What a bunch of bullsh!t!

Maybe the evil chain letter leprechauns will come into my house and s*domize me in my sleep for not continuing a chain letter that was started by St Peter in 5AD and brought to this country by midget pilgrim stowaways on the Endeavour. f**k ‘em!!

If you’re going to forward something at least send me something mildly amusing. I’ve seen all the “send this to 10 of your closest friends, and this poor, wretched excuse for a human being will somehow receive a nickel from some omniscient being” forwards about 90 times. I don’t f**king care.

Show a little intelligence and think about what you’re actually contributing to by sending out these forwards. Chances are, it’s your own unpopularity.

The point being, if you get some chain letter that’s threatening to leave you shagless or luckless for the rest of your life, Delete it. If it’s funny, send it on. Don’t piss people off by making them feel guilty about a leper in Botswana with no teeth who has been tied to the arse of a dead elephant for 27 years and whose only salvation is the 5 cents per letter he’ll receive if you forward this email. Now forward this to everyone you know. Otherwise, tomorrow morning your underwear will turn carnivorous and will consume your genitals. Have a nice day.

Billy Connolly

PS: Send me 15 bucks and then f**k off!

(Formatting wikified --Anonymous, 23:10 UTC, October 27)

Snorgle 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, that one is quite funny. Not subtle, but certainly funny. I was thinking more of a Power Point presentation in the style of the ones I keep getting. Perhaps I could even turn that into one. I shall have to scout around a bit more.--Shantavira 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something similar as that on a Swedish art show once, with catch-and-response parodies: -"Are you poor?" -"Don't be lazy! Work harder!", -"Earning too little?" -"Get a sex-change!" etc... with the underlying notion that you always had yourself to blame... =S 惑乱分からん 13:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to being forwarded your email if you do create it! Oh, and I must comment that I'm sure Billy Connolly didn't *really* write that email, especially given the use of the term "rednecks" in it. It is funny to think of him saying it, though.Snorgle 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at each entry, but here's a list of stuff like that: [1] Anchoress 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I came over as 'too touchy',make fun of whatever you want,but not people who can't stick up for themselves.Serenaacw 11:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

religion

hey, i just wanted to find out what the fastest growing religion in the west is and why.

alot of people say its islam despite whats going on around the world but im not so sure.

See fastest growing religion (seems to need work) and [[2]]. Why? Possibly a difficult question to answer. BenC7 10:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: some people have a choice which religion to join. Some religions allow people to change to another religion.--Shantavira 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "fastest growing" is a rather silly concept. Let's say I start The Church of Kainaw. I'm the only member. I get one recruit. I've doubled in size in one day. Did Islam, any sect of Christianity, Hindi, or Buddhism double in size? I doubt it. So, the Church of Kainaw is the fastest growing religion! Woohoo! --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for this reason, "fastest growing" usually means "tiny". Now, if the growth is measured in the absolute number of converts, as opposed to percentage growth, then you might have a useful measure. StuRat 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this produces the opposite bias; popular religions like Christianity and Islam can gain millions of followers per year simply due to births outnumbering deaths, whereas smaller religions would have to gain huge numbers of converts to match them. --ByeByeBaby 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a "percentage of market share" change would be the best measure, then. That is, if we go from 40% of all people believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 50%, view that as 10% growth, not 25%. StuRat 06:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt either Christianity or Islam is gaining followers in the West due to births outnumbering deaths - across the West, the only country with a naturally increasing population is Iceland, the others are either growing through immigration (e.g. US, UK), or shrinking despite it (Germany). Unless they have unusual demographic curves, all organisations will be similarly losing people on the birth/death ratio, and if they're growing, they're making them back through immigration. Religion in particular is losing people on the age curve - whilst 63% of over 54s in Europe believe in God, it's below 50% for younger than that [3]. Conversion of people who already believe in something, or immigration from people who are disproportionately more likely to believe than not believe would be the best bet for any religion seeking to increase, not the birth rate --Mnem e son 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism. Because people get ever better education. DirkvdM 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that belief in God is a sign of backwardness and ignorance? Are you saying that devout Jews, Christians and of course Muslims are basically backward and ignorant? You seem to be implying that the great prophet Muhammed was either lying or delusional, and that belief in the divinity of the Koran is based on nothing more than naive stupidity and lack of education. Is that true? :) Ok I'm obviously just shit-disturbing again, just to make a point. No need to take me too seriously. :) Loomis 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say 'Yes, basically". But then you tell me not to take you seriously. Sure, can do. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said no need to take me too seriously! So I take it that it's your opinion that (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus of course), the prophet Muhammed either never existed in the first place (which is unlikely, even to secular historians) or if he did, he was basically either a lunatic who thought he was talking to Allah, or a sociopath who claimed he was? Don't worry, nobody knows your personal street address either. :) Loomis 12:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is atheism really a religion or just a lack thereof? Hyenaste ^(tell) 20:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you define "religion". Webster's seems to define it as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe...". In that sense I'd say Atheism is definitely a religion. But I'd disagree that it's the "fastest growing". Of course this is just an educated guess, but I'd say that the fastest growing religion has definitely got to be deism, or some variation thereof. Loomis 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I tell you that I don't know the cause, don't understand the nature and cannot figure out a purpose of the universe, does that count as a set of beliefs? If not, explain why that should be incompatible with being an atheist. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's truly the way you feel, then no, that doesn't count as a set of beliefs, rather, it counts as a set of unanswered questions. I'm sorry to tell you, but you're not an atheist at all, you're an agnostic. Put as simply as possible, the definition of an agnostic is one who says "I do not know". The definition of an atheist is one who says "I do know. And what I do know (believe) is that there is no God". Loomis 01:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis, we agree once again. This is getting to be scary. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me atheism simply means the absence of a belief in an omnipotent entity that can be ascribed a personality. It does not imply that you have discovered an explanation for the cause of the universe or subscribe to some higher purpose. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that atheism is arguably the most absolute of all the 'religions.' To assert, with complete certainty, that God does not exist, is bold in the extreme. If in doubt the most logical position would have to be agnosis-no knowledge-, that the existence or non-existence of God is not subject to any acceptable set of proofs. Clio the Muse 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe that the Universe is God. I think it's called pantheism. Well, how could you possibly logically exclude that? So then the only way to assert, with complete certainty, that God does not exist, is tantamount to asserting with complete certainty that the Universe does not exist. Which then implies that nothing exists, and in particular that atheism does not exist. So atheism denies its own existence. Therefore, clearly, an atheist cannot claim to be an atheist, because that would imply the existence of atheism, and therefore the existence of the Universe, and consequently the potential existence of God. Simple, isn't it? --Lambiam ^Talk 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But atheism isn't pantheism! When an atheist denies God, he doesn't adopt pantheistic believes for a moment and set God equal to the Universe. Atheism isn't dependent on pantheism or any other religion: the idea doesn't deny the existence of other religions, only of a supreme deity or more. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Your reasoning is somewhat circular, Lambiam. Loomis 01:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is not! Don't you see the difference between (a) not being to assert with complete certainty that it is impossible to define "God" as "the universe", and (b) embracing pantheism? Define a necessary difference of substance, rather than of choice of terminology, between the notions of "supreme deity" for a non-atheist and "laws of nature" for an atheist. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligence". No, that wasn't a cheap shot. What I mean to say is that the difference between the two concepts you mention is "intelligence". A "supreme deity" for a non-atheist, be him or herself a traditional Monotheist, a Pantheist or a simple Deist, is the sense that this "supreme deity" is a force endowed with a certain intelligence and sentience. The "laws of nature" to an Atheist are no less random and lacking in sentience than necessary for the universe to operate in the smoothe fashion it does. The difference is the belief in a supreme "intelligence" or "sentience". Perhaps I'm not explaining myslef well enough. Loomis 13:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly agree any more. Clio, have you been reading my previous posts? What you just said is exactly what I've been saying over and over and over (to no avail of course!) It's actually quite eerie. When it comes to a belief in the unprovable, atheism has got to be the ultimate. I've always maintained that I have enormous respect for agnostics, for having the courage to say quite simply: "I just don't know". Atheism, on the other hand, is the conviction, the steadfast belief based upon no proof whatsoever, that there is absolutely, positively, unquestionably, no God. If that's not a "religion" I don't know what is. Clio, this is eerie indeed! Loomis 23:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No mystery, Loomis: it's an argument with broad underpinnings in logic; and we have obviously reached the same logical conclusion. Clio the Muse 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sell yourself short, Clio. Wiki is filled with really bright people, yet no one has yet reached the same "logical" conclusion as we have (at least not in the year I've been here). Ok, now I feel like we're doing a bit too much mutual ego-stroking for a G-rated audience. :) Loomis 01:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, you should have paid more attention to what I say and you'd know that I am also of the same mind. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying then, Dirk, that you're a devout Atheist? :) Loomis 13:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, no, agnostic. Sorry, I hadn't read the entire thread. Did I misunderstand something? DirkvdM 07:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your original statement just confused me as to your position. ("Atheism. Because people get ever better education".) From that I couldn't help but take it that you saw Atheism as the most enlightened position; the result of the conquest of "education" over ignorance. But now you say you're Agnostic. Though I'm far more impressed in you for having arrived at the Agnostic's conclusion that "you do not know", I'm still puzzled by your initial response. Are you saying, (in a rather uncharacteristically humble way :), that you don't consider yourself well educated enough to be a true Atheist? I'm still a bit confused as to your position. Loomis 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teehee. Wikipedia isn't censored for minors so stroke away. I'll get my video camera and we can... uh... nevermind. :D Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That of course is true for strong atheism, but not necessarily so for weak atheism (see weak and strong atheism), which happens to be very similar to agnosticism . Also note that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive (agnostic atheism no less!). Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, Hyenaste. I've had a quick look at the pages you have highlighted, and I have to say that I find some of the argument a little difficult to follow. The suggestion that children might be considered 'weak atheists' seems to verge on the logically absurd. The same contention might be made for those suffering from profound mental incapacity or, for matter, all of the lower primates. It would seem to be that a 'weak atheist' is someone who either has not yet addressed the whole question of God, or for whom God forms no active part of their lives. Otherwise the boundries between a 'weak-atheist' and an agnostic seem to be so paper thin as not to be worth serious intellectual consideration. As for 'agnostic atheism' I can feel an infinite regression coming on! Clio the Muse 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is foolish to label children as inherent atheists. Antetheistic maybe? I sense bias in labeling atheism as a 'step' before theism, implying that theism is superior to atheism. As for weak atheism and agnosticism, it might take some more meditation to discover the big distinction (whatever it may be). Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I find the article on agnostic atheism interesting, because that's the way I've always defined simple atheism - as the article begins, "atheism is generally defined as "a condition of being without theistic beliefs"". I'm atheist - I'm a theist, I have no theistic beliefs. I don't believe and affirm that God does not exist, because that's a theistic belief, and I don't have those -it also seems to be covered by Weak atheism, the central assertions of which are difficult to refute. Concepts of theism seem to be one of those interesting ways that language can be used to mean something, something else, or nothing at all depending on what you want it to. --Mnem e son 01:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are indeed reaching the limits of language as the net of meaning, if it might be so expressed. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, davon muss man schweigen. Clio the Muse 01:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that I claim there's another Earth inside each and every electron. I also claim that no scientific experiment can ever prove, or disprove, my theory. Would you believe me? Why not? There's no proof that I'm wrong! It would be "bold in the extreme" for you to say "Bowlhover, you are absolutely wrong", because you have no proof. If you flatly deny my theory, then your belief is not a belief; it's a conviction, a steadfast belief based on no proof whatsoever. I have enormous respect for the people who dare to say, "I don't know if Bowlhover is right; maybe there's another Earth inside every electron. We can't know for sure!"

Now imagine if I overthrow the government of my country, and set up a dictatorship. Every citizen is forced to learn, and accept, my theory; if they don't, I'll have them tortured/executed. After I'm dead, my children will continue my dirty work. If this goes on for many millenia, I'm sure that my theory will be at the same position as Christianity is at right now. --Bowlhover 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, have you heard about Russell's teapot? It's very similar to your example. Also notice that it is an entire universe in each electron, not earth. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You heretic! Ten years in the dungeon for that anti-religious statement! What, what do you mean we don't have a dungeon? Yes, I've heard about Russell's teapot. I've also heard about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. But I wanted to come up with a different parody, because we all know about the more famous ones, and also because I wanted my arguments to closely parallel the ones made above by the other editors. --Bowlhover 02:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All religion is in the mind (ie just your musings) 8-) --Light current 01:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis you could say literally everything is in the mind, and the external world is no more than an ideal construct: Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius leaps to mind. Religion is an age-old attempt to make sense of the physical world and and the place within it of rational and mortal beings. It is both internal and external, present and transcendent. Clio the Muse 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting over-excited. It was just a joke. --Bowlhover 02:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bowlhover; the least thing excites me! Far too much intellectual stimulation. I don't see the joke, though. I thought Light current was making a serious point. But I'm happy to change direction-and tone-if you like. Clio the Muse 02:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light current has his own versions of emoticons, as explained on his user page. DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

politic lingo

what exactly does the term 'cash on hand' mean in political campaigns?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.154.88 (talk • contribs)

Can you give us some context please?--Shantavira 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In the period ending July 2006, candidate x had raised $2.5m, and had $220,000 cash on hand". It means the money they have available to spend --Mnem e son 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Often, people pledge money to a campaign. So, if I am pledged $100, I can say that I've raised $100. However, I don't have any cash on hand until the people hand it over. Then, when I spend it, it was still raised, but it is not on hand anymore. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual meaning is more like this: Cash on hand definition. It's an actual accounting term. They might have plent of money in the bank (checking account, etc.) available to spend, but it wouldn't be cash on hand. -THB 03:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Walter Bailey

i am trying to request an article on the above person. your request-an-article page is very muddled and exceedingly murky about how to enter such a request.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdhilliard (talk • contribs)

Well first off is he notable according to wikipedia standards? If so you can add the article yourself. Nowimnthing 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig court case

I would like to know the date of which Bentley and Craig first appeared before the magistrate to discover what the future held in store for them i am assuming it was around January due to the date on which Bentley was executed would it be possible to be informed of the exact date of which the court case took place? thanks alot.

They were both arrested on 2 November 1952. The trial opened on 9 December, conviction following two days later. Bentley was hanged on 28 January 1953. It was that quick. Clio the Muse 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By British practice, that was at the longer end of the normal delay between conviction and execution - the minimum delay period was "three clear Sundays"; 4-6 weeks was fairly typical. -- Arwel (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that they would first have appeared in a magistrates' court to be remanded in custody a day or two after their arrest (well, perhaps not in Craigs' case as he broke several bones in jumping from the roof). -- Arwel (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film title needed

My mother remembers an old B&W film, but since it was a while since she has seen it, details are sketchy. Plot points included:

A woman having a child with another man (she was married)

The boy being sent away (possibly war evacuation

The boy going on to a train and accidently going into a quarantined carriage with TB sufferers. He might have caught TB.

She also didn't see the end and would like to know how it turns out! Thanks in advance --Bearbear 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't TV a horribly infectious disease that causes your brain to rot away ? :-) StuRat 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its certainly succeeded in your (nut)case. Harr harr! 8-)--Light current 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:( --Bearbear 10:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's one of these: IMDB -THB 03:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, thanks --Bearbear 10:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mood amoung soldiers towards the end of WW2

The 20. of April 1945 Hitler kills himself. At this time, were the Germans "expecting" to loose? The mood amound the soldiers the days before the scuicide, was it hopefull? Did they have the feeling they were loosing? Soldiers on the other side, what were they thinking, how long did they think they had left to fight? Did they know they were winning? What was the reaction on both sides on Hitler being killed? Was it expected? No, this is not an essay question :) I am analyzing a war poem, and since I know very little about the second world war I am hoping that some people could give me at least some answers to the questions above, so that I get a slight impression of what soldiers were thinking. Thanks. Clq 22:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly explore what was going through the heads of so many men at any given time? The best you can hope for is to look out some war diaries and recollections, which might provide a degree of insight. What I will say, though, is that any German expecting to win at that point in the war would have been taking optimism to quite inconceivable levels of absurdity; either that or they were simply clinically insane. I would say that the general reaction to Hitler's suicide was elation on one side and despair on the other, though there may have been many Germans who secretly shared the sense of elation, believing the war would quickly come to an end. As far as the fighting men are concerned-and the only really big battle going on at this time was in Berlin-I imagine they lived from moment to moment, not daring to think too far ahead. But they were no doubt pleased by the news Clio the Muse 23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong evidence of the lack of morale in German troops by the time of Hitler's suicide. For example, they were surrendering in droves, not the type of thing they would do if they still thought they were winning. By contrast, the Japanese continued to fight up until the end, and may very well have thought they could still win, until the atomic bombs were dropped. StuRat 00:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point, though we are probabaly touching here on two quite different sets of cultural assumptions. In the west soldiers generally do not see the point in continued fighting when a battle is so clearly lost. I find it hard to accept that by the summer of 1945 even the Japanese retained any hope of victory; but in cultural terms death was, for a great many, still preferable to surrender, the ultimate disgrace for a soldier. Some were still holding out (refusing to surrender, that is) years after the war ended. Clio the Muse 00:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I heard (from eyewitnesses and other sources) was that most Germans were desparately hoping for the war to end. There's even a song describing this sentiment which somehow managed to pass censorship:

Wenn die Lichter wieder scheinen

und wir wieder unsern kleinen Abendbummel

durch die hellen Straßen machen

werden wir tanzen, werden wir singen,

babadubadabadubada

...

(and later:)

stör'n uns endlich mal keine Sirenen

...

Translation: When the lights will be shining again, and we will once again do our evening stroll through the brighly lit streets we will sing, we will dance ... (and later:) finally no sirens will disturb us for a change... — Sebastian (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, though it might bear a slightly different interpretation from the one you are making. It really only expresses a general, and rather sentimental, longing for the end of the war, which-by 1942-was probably not incompatible with official policy. The real issue, of course, was how the war ended. Now, for a real mood of-apparent-defeatism you could do no better than the song taken up by British Tommies in 1914, which contains the following wonderful line, You can send my mother, my sister and my brother, but for God's sake don't send me. Just imagine that being sung in the Third Reich!. Clio the Muse 03:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, this really helps. Greatly appreciated. Clq 07:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that some of the German military leaders hoped to fight on so they would be able to put up enough resistance against the US and Britain that those countries would make a separate peace, leaving out the Russians. There was a report this year or last showing that Churchill did have a representative negotiate with the Germans toward the possibility of such an armistice, so that the German Army (less the Nazi leadership) could fight with the West against Russia. It didn't pan out. If the Russians had moved slower against Germany, and if the Battle of the Bulge campaign had been more successful, this gambit would have had a better chance, although if the war had lasted a few more months the US Air Force would have had nukes available to use against Germany. As for fighting on when there is no hope of winning, consider the Confederacy in the last year of the American Civil War. After the fall of Vicksburg, no southern leader expected to win, and they were just delaying the inevitable, giving up land slowly, as in Joe Johnston's slow retreat in Tennessee and Georgia. After Vicksburg, they gave up even the hope that European nations such as Britain would enter the fray by using their sea power to break the blockade and resupply the Confederate Army by sea in exchange for cotton. Edison 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that Hitler, virtually to the end, hoped for a separate peace with the western allies, believing that they would join the struggle in the east. As far as I am aware, there is no convincing evidence that Churchill or anyone else took these proposals seriously, and peace feelers put out by people such as Himmler and Göring were quickly dismissed. That is not to say that the allies did not encourage anti-Nazi conspiracies in the German army. On your second point, Edison, I think there was still a reasonably high expectation in the Confederacy that the north might be fought to a standstill, even after the fall of Vicksburg. The hope was that the Union would lose the will to fight in the face of mounting casualties. By 1864 Confederate hopes focused on the possible victory of George McClellan over Abraham Lincoln in the presidential election, on the assumption that he would be willing to make peace. When this hope vanished all that was left was the war of attrition. Clio the Muse 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once read that 1942 was a turning point, a year in which the mood started to change and people in the occupied countries started to realise Germany and its allies weren't that invincible. (Am I correct about that?)Evilbu 19:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are right, though this probably came in stages. Possibly the first realization that the Germans in particular were looking at defeat came with the failure of the Moscow offensive in the winter of 1941. But the big turning points were Midway, Alamein and Stalingrad, all in 1942. Clio the Muse 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious Clio: Why would the Battle of Midway be of THAT much importance to German morale? Ok, so the Allies beat the Japanese in some battle way off in the Pacific. Those "racially inferiour Nips" were beaten by those "Aryan" or "near Aryan" Americans and Brits. But wouldn't that only prove Hitler's grand theory and embolden the Germans at least as much as discourage them? Okay, I could see how, if they thought it through, they'd realize that an Allied victory in the Pacific would only allow the Allies to focus more attention, effort and resources in Europe. Yet it must be remembered that the "Allied" Alliance and the "Axis" Alliance were two rather different creatures, excluding, of course, Stalin's very reluctant and completely self-serving participation with the Allies. Loomis 18:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was casting the net more widely to take in the general causes for the decline in German morale; and the end of Japan's runaway victories in the Pacific would seem to be one important factor. But you are right, I have no specific information on this. As far as the racial perceptions are concerned, though, I can say that the Nazis had defined the Japanese as 'honorary' Aryans fighting a 'mongrel' enemy. Clio the Muse 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That only begs a question that I'd thought I'd never have to ask: Were the swarthy Italians considered "honorary" Aryans as well? In the case the answer is yes, what then excludes one from being an "honorary" Aryan? Except of course being Jewish...but then again...even the Jews, were they actually considered "less Aryan" than the Japanese? No need to explain. It was madness so I suppose trying to derive any sort of sensibility to it is fruitless. Loomis 08:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

Sodomy in Ancient Bologna

I was told by a tour guide who described the waring of two factions outside the city of Bologna, Italy in which the commander of the victorious troops publicly sodomized the vanquished leader of his opposition, perhaps the commander was a representative or a warrior Pope, circa 12-13 century. I have search in vain to find a cite for this event. It was also briefly listed in a magazine article back in the 1970's. Can anyone tell me who and where and when with historical reference?

I'm not saying it's not true, but you should know that tour guides are very prone to exageration and fabrication. -THB 03:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the ancient world it was a way of degrading enemies. In Christian Europe, though, it was a cardinal sin, not openly practiced. Clio the Muse 22:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's Foreign Policy Toward Vietnam

Hi. I have posted my Master's Thesis under my userspace, but I am more than happy to put it out in the general circulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davejenk1ns/thesis Where is the best place for this? Wikipedia? Wikisource? Davejenk1ns 01:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it would make a good wikipedia article. -THB 03:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, because of WP:OR, which excludes any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. There is a wealth of material in the Thesis that can be used to improve existing articles, but inasmuch as the Thesis aims to gain insights about Japan's foreign policy and provide explanations for Tokyo's actions, that's excluded by Wikipedia's policies. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about it, but Wikibooks might be another option. DirkvdM 09:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RENE DES CASTES

SIR,WHO IS RENE DES CASTES FROM HIS CHILDHOOD TO ADULTHOOD AND HIS ACHIEVEMENTS?

HOLY SHIT YOU JUST EXPLODED MY HEAD IT'S RENÉ DESCARTES ALL HIS ACHIEVEMENTS ARE LISTED THERE. HYENASTE TALK 02:29, 28 OCTOBER 2006 (UTC)

I don't know? Or do you mean Rene Descartes (in which case you should read the article)? --Bowlhover 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas do not use all caps. It is considered as shouting! THanks--Light current 02:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would shout, too, if your head had been exploded! -THB 03:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What with? Clio the Muse 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair. Hyenaste's head exploded after the anonymous question... 惑乱分からん 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=D Now that I look at it again, if the OP ever returned, he probably didn't think twice about my use of caps... Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My head exploded a long time ago! I starred in Scanners 8-)

Chinese propaganda

I remember reading a propaganda article in my grade-3 Chinese textbook. It went something like this: one day in the 1940's, the CCP was having a battle with the KMT. (This story-starter is about as cliched in Chinese propaganda as "once upon a time" is in English stories.) The KMT soldiers were firing out through the embrasures in a fort, and the Communist forces could not advance under fire. To solve the problem, one soldier decided to block the embrasures with his body, providing some time for his comrades to rush past the fort. I also remember a reference to the "morning star" (Venus?).

I have three questions. First, what is the (fictional?) soldier's name? Second, is this story plausible? Third, if it is plausible, did it really happen?

I'm skeptical about whether a human body can block bullets coming out of a fort. Won't the soldier just fall down after getting shot? If not, can't I just poke at the body using my rifle, causing it to fall down? If that doesn't work, how about shooting through the body at whoever might be in my bullet's path? --Bowlhover 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda is the operative word here. Just how many 'embrasures' can one body block? It must have been a very small fort and a very narrow range of fire with (very) low-caliber guns. It's a political fairy story for small children; no more than that. Clio the Muse 03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the geometry, if a body could fall over the gun portal, and thus block it's view, that would make aiming at attacking soldiers impossible. This could possibly afford an opportunity for soldiers to approach to a range where grenades could be used effectively. StuRat 06:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty likely to me that the force of the bullets would quickly push the body back off of the wall, though. Any embrasure that would be at an angle where a body could easily "fall" on it and be stuck would be pretty useless for shooting anything other than people who could fly. --Fastfission 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets exert high pressure on the target, over a very short time period (impact force), but have minimal force associated with them (less than the kickback on the gun), despite Hollywood movies showing people being blown 10 feet backwards when shot. The low force exerted is especially true if the bullet goes entirely through the target. StuRat 16:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, a 9 mm fired out of a pistol has as much energy as a baseball thrown at 60 mph, or roughly around there. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can buy that. If a baseball weighs a third of a pound, that would mean it would cause a 200 pound soldier to move backwards at one tenth of a mile per hour, if we assume 100% of the force is transferred to the person and they are on a frictionless surface. [60 x (1/3) = (1/10) x 200]. Of course, neither of these assumptions are correct, so they aren't likely to move at all. StuRat 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe with a small embrasure, the soldier could fold his arms against his body and dive halfway in, so his arms were inside and his feet outside, then extend his arms. Then when he was killed, if he had a lot of stuff in his low-hanging backpack, they would not be able to pull him the rest of the way in, and with his arms sticking out, they could not push him back out. Thsy would have to get out their bayonets and carve him up, by which time the other side could have stormed the fort. Maybe his "comrades" could hold on to the legs to help with the blocking. It would be a great maneuver to teach in basic training, right after "throwing yourself on a grenade" and "throwing yourself down on barbed wire to make a human bridge." Not so different from American football. Edison 15:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. (Seriously, it is.) Of course, embrasures are usually just large enough to poke a gun's barrel through.

To Clio: this story is not just a fairy tale for small children, because nearly all Chinese adults know about it. It's simply propaganda. We all know how good China's government is at lying. --Bowlhover 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bowlhover. Clearly a fairy story for boys and girls of all ages! To the other contributers I have one simple observation: imagine, if you can, a fort that could be blocked by the body of a single man, imagine its height and imagine its width. The KMT must have occupied Lilliput. Clio the Muse 23:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all sounds suspiciously like the story of Arnold von Winkelried, the Swiss national hero.

PLEASE!! HELP ME, Polar-experts!!

I have asked it again and again...What was the name of the expedition - I think it was American - which used a snowcat too heavy for the eniroment they was going to explore. Eventually the snowcat drove itself stuck in the ice and snow.. I think we're talking about the 1940's or 50' here...Thanks!--Petteroes 02:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those who knew the answer ignored you because you were shouting. DirkvdM 09:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous time you asked you did not supply the information that this was supposed to be a relatively recent event, as far as Polar expeditions go, which would have helped to reduce the search space considerably, nor did you provide any feedback on the answers supplied, thereby possibly reducing the enthusiasm of the reference desk volunteers for answering your question. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you gave more information on another desk before. The fact that no-one responded strongly suggests that no-one found an answer then. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that there was such an expedition, but I haven't so far been able to trace it. Try working your way through our list of Antarctica expeditions and polar exploration. I'm not sure that snowcats as such even existed in the 40s and 50s. According to history of Antarctica, Hillary successfully used specially adapted farm tractors to get to the South Pole in 1957.--Shantavira 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shantavira! You're the only one who have actually answered my question without being sarcastic or arrogant. You see, most answers on this forum are from people who just want to correct the question, rather than trying to help. The reason I repeated my question, is simply because no one ever bother to read archived questions.

I seem to remember seeing a picture of the equipment (heavy tracked snowcats) abandoned in the polar region in National Geographic printed perhaps in the early 1960's or late 1950's. It might have been an Admiral Byrd expedition in the 1930's or soon after WW2. He had the backing of the Navy, so he could take lots of heavy stuff there. Edison 16:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exemptions for Warriors About to Wage Holy Jihad

I have a few questions about Islam. It’s my understanding that warriors who are about to wage holy jihad against infidels are granted certain “exemptions” from their normal religious restrictions – for example, they are permitted to drink and have sexual relations with women other than their wives. With this in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Is my understanding correct?

2. Were such exemptions granted to the 9/11 hijackers before they carried out their mission? And if so, did they take advantage of these exemptions as I have been told they did?

3. What is the official Islamic term for these exemptions?

4. Who has the authority to grant such exemptions?

I don't know about the name under Islam, but under Christianity, when such exemptions were offered by the Catholic church in exchange for money, they were called indulgences, and were one of the key complaints of Martin Luther which led to the Protestant Reformation. As for the 9-11 terrorists, I believe some of them did drink alcohol, I didn't hear anything about sex, though. StuRat 06:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Islamic scholar might be able to assure one that under certain circumstances actions that are normally forbidden are exceptionally allowed. For example, diabetics do not need to fast during Ramadan. The fact that the exception is allowed is not created by this assurance; it already existed even if perhaps unknown to the not equally schooled believer. If one wants to avoid committing forbidden actions, one should only follow the advise of trustworthy scholars who can speak with authority on such matters. No mortal being has authority to grant any exemptions to what God has ordained. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be the official Islamic line, but, in reality, the scholars do make up all the rules themselves. If not, they wouldn't all come up with different rules, like women required to wear burqas in some countries, a simple head scarf in others, and no requirement elsewhere. StuRat 13:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases it is not a clear-cut issue that that is considered a religious injunction (as opposed to a matter of "decency"), and even less so that the people prescribing this are considered scholars or authorities of Islam. To the extent it is, there are of course all kinds of interpretations and traditions. Take the fact that an observant Jew will not put butter on a meat sandwich. The Torah proscribes cooking the calf in its mother's milk, and it's not an obvious step from there to this interpretation of what is kashrut. But can you say: "The rabbis make up all the rules themselves"? They mostly just hand down the tradition, which they believe to be the best available interpretation. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would say that. I would also say the same of Christians, as in the mantra "abortion is murder", which they apparently made up, despite the lack of any such statement in the Bible. One possible exception may be the Quakers, who allow each member to come to their own interpretation, as opposed to imposing the questionable interpretations of some religious leader upon the flock. StuRat 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the self-serving nature of many of the interpretations. If a Muslim scholar decides it would be in his political interest to have his opponents killed by suicide bombers, then suddenly suicide bombers become the "will of Allah", even though directly in conflict with the prohibition on suicide recorded by Mohammed. StuRat 16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must correct the above assertion concerning Jewish Law. There does not exist any definitive interpretation. Rabbis do not "hand down" tradition at all. Even within the same stream of Judaism. Rather, Rabbis are scholars in Jewish Law, not "leaders of their flock". As such, Rabbis constantly engage each other in a continuing, ongoing debate as to a truer an truer interpretation of the Torah. This debate is meant to be ongoing, and though this may appear odd to outside observers, ultimitately without definitive resolution. Loomis 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it. There is no reason to continuously reinterpret a holy book unless they are trying to force an interpretation which matches their own beliefs or is in their own personal interest. The oldest interpretations, from a time when the culture was most like the culture of the writers, would tend to be the most accurate. StuRat 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to "buy" it. Just to "accept" it as how Judaism works. Open your mind a bit and perhaps you may understand. Loomis 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I'm not talking of any grand issues of any great import to non-Jews. I'm not talking of interpretations that can in any way lend themselves to any sinister motives or drive any even slightly malevalent agendas. I'm merely talking about issues as mundane as: "The Sturgeon: Kosher or Not"? Or, "The Sabbath as a day of rest and prayer: Though "kindling a fire" was, before the invention of the automobile, considered a violation of the Sabbath, is it more within the spirit of the Sabbath to not drive and to walk several miles to synagogue, or is it more in keeping with the spirit of the Sabbath to take it easy and drive there?" These are examples of the "constant debate" going on. No serious "agendas", this way or that, are being discussed. Yes, serious issues are discussed, but a good Talmudic debate is considered to be one without conclusion, one that leaves the participant with food for thought for the next discussion. Loomis 23:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is especially true if the opponent happens to be the Great Satan United States of America. Ohanian 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not true. There's no consensus on what Jihad is, so there could hardly be any agreement on specific details like that either, which would probably be highly debated even if there had been a consensus on the basics. --BluePlatypus 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is There Such a Thing as a Tribal Godfather?

The structure of the Mafia families was originally modeled after the old Roman legions, which were based on Regimes, Capos and Soldiers. Each family was ultimately controlled by a DON, who was insulated from actual operations by several layers of authority. According to popular belief, the Don's closest and most trusted advisor was referred to as the CONSIGLIERE ("counselor" in Italian). In reality, the consigliere was meant to be something of a "hearing officer" who was charged with mediating intra-family disputes. He also takes care of the economic side of the "business". An UNDERBOSS was possible as well, and beneath the underboss were a varying number of CAPOREGIMES, or captains, who ruled over a unit of soldiers, or "made" men, who conducted actual operations. This structure was depicted in the classic film THE GODFATHER, directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

My question is this: Do tribes in the Middle East or elsewhere have the functional equivalent of a Don, an Underboss, a consigliere, caporegimes and soldiers? And if so, what are they called and what are their responsibilities?

In the US tribe, the Don is called the President, the Underboss is called the Vice President, the main consiglieri have various titles such as National Security Adviser, Attorney General, and Secretary of Commerce. For the rest see our article on the United States Department of Defense. Their responsibilities are quite similar to those seen in The Godfather. Every tribe will have its own private terminology, but usually a quite similar structure. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a big stretch to call the President of the U.S. the Don. The Don is at the top of the chain of authority. The President is nowhere near the top. He has to get permission from Congress for just about everything he wants to do: Pay for troops to stay in Iraq - Congress votes on it. Appoint someone to the Supreme Court - Congress votes on it. Pay to help hurricane victims - Congress votes on it. Make an official statement that the U.S. does not hate all Muslims - Congress votes on it. Then, even if Congress gives the President permission to do something, the Supreme Court can overrule Congress. So, since the President answers to Congress and Congress answers to the Supreme Court, it would be the Supreme Court that is Don. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! Did I just misread that whole thing? Is Lambiam saying that the President is a Don or the Don is a President? --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's saying that the President is a Don, so your counter-argument makes sense. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of 'fringe' (in UK politics)

Hey, I'd like to know what a (or the?) fringe is, when the term is used to refer to the fringe at a party conference. Google/Wikipedia searches didn't really help : /

Thanks in advance, Iachimo 10:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fringe event, such as a fringe meeting, is an event organized at the conference but not part of the official program and not held under the responsibility of the conference organizers. Usually the purpose is to facilitate an exchange of thought between people sharing a concern that is not part of the current party line. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Iachimo 11:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It has a slightly different meaning in the US, where it's those with extreme views not embraced by the party. It can even be called the "lunatic fringe", to make their views seem even less acceptable. 13:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That meaning also exists in the UK. Fringe means on the edge and in the context given by Lambiam it can be used for non-political activities. For example - The offical Edinburgh International Festival co-exists with the Fringe Festival. But it can equally mean on the extreme wing of an entity e.g. the Celtic fringe Jooler 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains the term from the geographic location of the remaining Celtic nations at the "fringe" of inhabited regions. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People with views not embraced by the party line will be considered extremists and lunatic fringe by party bosses anywhere. Maybe the difference is that Britishers like to identify themselves as fringe. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have a more negative meaning to the general public in the US. StuRat 16:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a certain southern English county elected an M.P. from the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, would that make it The Surrey With the Fringe On Top? Clarityfiend 22:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands, with its many 'fringe parties' (to coin a phrase?), there is now a movement of young (wannabe) politicians (LuxVoor; http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux_Voor) who want to pull progressive movements within the various parties together into a unified front. Sort of a fringe movement by the above definition, it seems, but not quite the same. DirkvdM 07:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

difference of wizards and magicians in society

i need to do a project on the difference wizards and magicians id different societys around the world...cindy

Go right ahead. Did you have a question? You might be interested to read our articles on magicians and wizards.--Shantavira 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting you to the Hogwarts administration. Do your own homework. --Nelson Ricardo 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an un-identifiable memorial coin

This LeJour pocket watch (French) has on the face, stars surrounding it, such as the modern Greek coin. The back, (I was told) depicts the coin given to a specific colony during the French revolution. I cannot find any info on it. Who could help me identify this?

Can you describe what you see on the back? --Lambiam ^Talk 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The colony might be Haiti (Saint-Domingue), which began its own revolution in 1791. Clio the Muse 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "obdurate" mean?

U.S. News & World Report, Oct.23,2006 page 58 - "Not only has advanced neuroscience research revealed an obdurate mystery at the core of consciousness, but...."

See obdurate. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence given 'obdurate' may not be the best usage. The word 'enduring' would probably have served the purpose better. Clio the Muse 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps obstinate. StuRat 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "enduring" would change the whole meaning of the sentence. It would seem that the authors of the sentence are not simply trying to say that the "mystery at the core of consciousness" rather passively "endures". Rather, it would seem that what they mean to say is that the mystery far more actively and "stubbornly" refuses to yield even to "advanced neuroscience research". Dictionaries, even pocket sized ones, can be excellent little tools you know. And failing that, so can be the "Languages" RefDesk. :) Loomis 18:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very true. But my usage is more poetic; and science should never lose sight of poetry! Clio the Muse 08:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree that "obdurate" is definitely not one of the most euphonious words in the English language. Still, the meaning of the sentence seems to have great poetic potential. For some reason I'm reminded of Dylan Thomas' "Do not go gentle into that good night",

"Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's that terrific stubborness that the two have in common:

"Not only have the sharpest minds;

In advanced neuroscience research been thwarted;

Thwarted, and thwarted and thwarted once more;

By that stubborn, unyielding mystery that is the core of Man's consciousness;

but...."

Of course I'm no poet, and the above is likely crap. My particular training has forced me to focus on the exactidude of my writing, at the expense of any aesthetic quality. Oh well, at least I tried! :) Loomis 23:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

Treason question, based on last night's Battlestar Galactica

Template:Spoiler Spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen the newest episode yet, and pretty major spoilers for those who don't watch it (and you really should!) Wikilinks provided for ease of browsing, should that strike your fancy. Anyway, humanity has escaped from New Caprica and has begun trying and executing collaborators who worked with the Cylon government. Felix Gaeta anonymously fed government information to the Resistance but of course they don't know it was him, so he goes up on trial and is convicted, though he is exonerated at the last moment. My question is, how often has this happened historically? Have there been last-second or posthumous revelations of the truth, or do people falsely accused of collaboration generally go unexonerated? Are there any good sources about this phenomenon (if it has indeed happened in real life)? Thanks. Stilgar135 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last night in which country? Is this some re-re-rerun? DirkvdM 07:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was played in the US last night. This was its first showing. Stilgar135 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very first showing is on Friday on the Sci-Fi channel in the US [4]. We get it in Canada on Saturday night, and I'm sure other channels/countries probably do as well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think last-second reprieves would happen, but less often for posthumous reprieves, at least while the war is still on, as the government would likely be more concerned with the negative propaganda and morale implications than justice, during the war. StuRat 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

approximately 6 million people died in the beginning of the 20th century in world war 1. i want to know how to calculate the effect on humanity of that loss. were these people the loosers in life [ i hate to say that ], the winners, or were they just a random sampeling of so the societies they represented ?

perhaps, looked at another way, i wonder what the demographics are for who fights our wars. i understand there isnt ' an answer' for this question, but perhaps there is a field of study i might be made aware of. thank you so much, david mcgrew Davismac 03:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a header to separate this from the question above. --Cam 04:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle casualties for the First World War were most heavily concentrated among young men aged between 17 and 25, ever after known as the 'Lost Generation'. This figure incidentally is calculated at around 9 million-see World War I casualties. You will find references to these losses in the period after the war, particularly in literature. The most obvious demographic effect was to create a disproportion in the population amongst the countries most heavily effected, basically those that had been at war since 1914. However, you should also bear in mind that the total number of wartime deaths-for both men and women-was greater than those actually killed in combat.Clio the Muse 04:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another effect of this was that millions and millions of women never got married. This was especially true in Germany as well as in the UK and the other Commonwealth countries, since they lost a greater proportion of men as compared to women. One of the reasons why the women's suffrage movement emerged so strongly in the postwar period is that there were millions of women who had to work because they didn't have a chance to marry, and who felt that if they had to pay taxes they should be able to vote for the people in power. It's also one reason why there were so many little old unmarried ladies around in the 60s and 70s. --Charlene 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they died, they were obviously losers. :) What do mean by the term? Are you talking about class distinction? Of course there were more lower class people among the dead, because there were more of them. Whether that was disproportionate, I don't know. But there were several rebellions and officers shot by their own men who were fed up with going over the top. WWI certainly had a great effect on class change, with the Russian revolutions of 1917 being the best known example. But also in the Netherlands, a neutral but not quite unaffected country, there was a revolution (well, almost); Troelstra#Proclamation_of_the_socialist_revolution (I wrote that :) ). DirkvdM 08:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that they meant to ask if those killed had worse genes, on average, than those who lived, thus leading to a genetic improvement in the human race. I would think deaths were largely random, as in who gets hit by an artillery barrage. However, some behavior, like smoking a cigarette in an area known for snipers, could cause those with poor genes (a lack of intelligence, in this case) to be killed selectively. Also, those suffering from "excessive bravery", and enlisting at the earliest opportunity, would also be killed in larger numbers. And those who were susceptible to disease were likely to have died as a result of conditions on the front lines. In summary, while there might have been some genetic improvement as a result, I would expect it to be rather slight. StuRat 01:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat: As paleolithic times are long gone, our success in live does not depend as much on our genes as it used to be. Seriously, don't you think the OP rather thought of "losers" and "winners" with respect to their economical situation? That is a question that makes sense. After all, in wars waged by standing armies, most dying soldiers are probably "losers" in the sense that poor chances in other jobs made them enlist in the army in the first place. I imagine (though I do not know) that the US soldiers currently dying in Iraq mainly come from poor families. Also, it would be not surprising if civil casualities are higher among the poor due to lack of access to shelters, of means to leave zones of war and of emergency medicine. On the other hand, WW1 was a total war, i.e. it might have been harder as usual for the rich people to escape draft into the armies. Still, maybe they managed to stay behind the front lines and the poor fellows dying in the trenches were economically poor before, as otherwise they might have managed to buy their way out of their fate. (Compare with the fact that rich US citizens managed to escape the draft to the Vietnam war e. g. by bravely serving in the Texas Air National Guard.) So, who knows about the influence of economic wealth onto people's chances to survive WW I? Simon A. 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that genetic "fitness to survive" is less important now than in the past. It's still not completely irrelevant, however. Also, was WW1 really a "total war" ? I don't associate that war with the unrestricted bombing of civilian targets, as in WW2. StuRat 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the main armies fighting in WWI were recruited by general conscription, including the British after 1916. More 'poor' people died for the simple reason that they formed a higher proportion of the general population than the 'rich'. I will say, though, that by 1917 casualty rates on the Western Front among British subalterns, mostly from middle and upper class backgrounds, was in in the region of 70%, giving them an average life expectancy in combat of some two weeks. This was considerably greater than relative casualty rates amongst other ranks. And there were no exemptions-no $100 dollar men or National Guard opt outs. The dead included the sons of Herbert Asquith, the Prime Minister, and Rudyard Kipling, the author. Clio the Muse 23:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Is There Such a Thing as a Tribal Godfather?

With respect to my earlier entry at 12:29AM on October 28th - when I asked whether or not there is such a thing as a tribal godfather – I did not make myself clear. I am not interested in the parallels between the historical structure of the Mafia and the U.S. federal government, although I find those parallels very interesting. What I want to know is this: Are there any parallels between the historical structure of the Mafia and:

1. Various religious denominations within Islam – such as Sunni, Shi’a, Sufism, Salafis, Wahabi etc.

2. Other Islamic groups – such as Islamic fundementalists, Islamic extremists, Islamic terrorists etc.

3. Various tribes, especially those in the Middle East – such as the Bedouin tribes that are located throughout the desert belt in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

Also worth noting: I define a tribe as "a group of people bound together by family bloodlines, a certain way of life, economic interest, or a common belief system".

By the way, I am not asking these questions because I think Muslims are gangsters, or anything else along these lines. My interest is much more secular and sociological in nature.

Moritz Hochschild (aka Don Mauricio)

Hey there :-) I am currently doing researches about Don'Mauricio for a friend, but the web is not very clear and I don't find many articles in English. Would it be possible to know more about him? I found the German Article if someone is able to translate. Thanks a lot :) --Adys 04:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and translated the German article for you, see Moritz Hochschild. The second to last paragraph doesn't really make sense to me though, I think I may have mistranslated something there. If someone with a stronger grasp of German could take a look (particularly at that and the closing paragraph) that would be helpful. Anyway, I hope it's of use to you. -Elmer Clark 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited it a bit to make more sense, nice translating job thoughGraendal 06:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Penalty

Hi. I am wanting to know if the county attorney/district attorney, has to file certain paperwork in the beginning of a criminal case if he feels the case is a death penalty case. Or, can the county attorney just notify the defense attorney sometime during the case, that he is now seeking the death penalty instead of life imprisonment? Does the death penalty charge have to be decided on at the very beginning of the case? And if so, what particular information or documentation is needed? Please advise ASAP! Thank you, Dianne

That would depend entirely on your jurisdiction. In many US states, for instance, they would have to charge the accused with "First degree murder with special circumstances" in order for it to be a death penalty case. StuRat 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Wasatchaka

Who is Chief Wasatchaka? I cannot find a reference on him anywhere on the web that is not a copy of the Salt Lake City and County Building Wikipedia article. If he is important enough to have a ~~statue on~~ portrait in that building, it would seem like there should be some information on him somewhere. Is that article perhaps mistaken, or maybe is the name spelled differently? -- 70.59.241.153 07:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He may have just been a local chief in the area at the time it was settled, which might make him notable enough for a statue but not enough to have a Wikipedia article already written. However, hopefully we will have an article on him some day. StuRat 07:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says portraits. However, looking through google, the most mention I've found is that there are portraits of former mayors and some civil leaders. No mentions of any chiefs. The pages I found were the Utah City Guide and Utah's travel site. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they meant Washakie? --Cam 17:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems likely. StuRat 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative strategies not violating human rights

Alternative strategies not violating human rights 196.35.140.250 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See human rights. Do you have a question? -Elmer Clark 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is unclear. For example, do you mean stopping violations of human rights, as in Darfur ? StuRat 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Liberal party between 1906-14

Evaluate the problems that the British liberal government faced between 1906-14.(They were in the top in 1906 what happened after that especially?).

a-Suffragettes

Do --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

b-Conservatives

Your --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

c-Irish MPs

Own --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

d-Labour

Homework --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Radical-Labour

(You may want to read our articles on the History of the United Kingdom, the governments of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and H.H. Asquith, Liberal Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK) and Women's Suffrage. Or, you know, your notes from class.) --ByeByeBaby 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a huge question and you will really need to do the detailed work yourself. Try and get a hold of George Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England. It may be a bit dated now, but covers this whole area, and in my view anyway is one of the best history books ever written. To give you a general hint the areas you need to look at are Ireland, the legal status of trade unions and labour militancy in general, votes for women, taxation and parliamentary reform with particular reference to the People's Budget, the arms race and international relations up to 1914. Clio the Muse 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler, Goebbels, Joe Lou--Charlene 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)is, Max Schmeling, radio Broadcast 1938

Wikipedia's article on Max Schmeling contains the statement:

"Joseph Goebbels ordered that the broadcast of the fight to Germany be cut off."

However, German sports writer with the Associated Press, Roy Kammerer , based in Berlin: wrote in 2005 that "The fight was a huge event worldwide and left a lasting impression on his era of Germans, who followed blow-by-blow on radio."

And there is this letter to the New York Times:

July 3, 1988 No Knockout Of Broadcast LEAD: To the Sports Editor:

To the Sports Editor:

The Title Fight That Was Bigger Than Boxing (The Times, June 19) was of great interest to me. You write, Part of the postfight lore . . . is that the German broadcast of the bout was cut off before the fight ended. It was not.

As 13-year-old students at the Jewish boarding school Internat Hirsch at Coburg, Germany, and interested in heavyweight boxing, we asked to be awakened at 1 A.M. that day to hear the fight. Some of the kids missed it because it was over before they got to the radio.

I have never forgotten the German announcer's plea: Get up, get up Maxie, please get up - oh no, oh no - stay down - it's over! Weeks before, the German newspapers showed pictures of Louis's right thumb as being overly long as well as other statistics to imply unfair advantage over Schmeling.

We applauded Louis's victory as a ray of hope for us. We had grown up among Nazi pomp and muscle flexing, witnessing repeated accommodations of the West to Hitler and almost believing that they were unbeatable and that all others - including ourselves -were as inferior and weak as they wanted us to believe.

LUDWIG (LARRY) STEIN Chappaqua, N.Y.

I'm not quite sure what to do with the above information in regards to Wikipedia's entry. Talk page, discussion, edit?

Thanks, Mario Asbury Park, NJ

Hi Mario. Why not add what you just wrote to the article itself? Don't reprint the whole thing, of course, but you can say that the story of the radio feed getting cut off is a myth, then cite the sources you have. -- Mwalcoff 15:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mwalcoff, but I'm new and not quite sure what you mean. Do I edit the article itself? Or use the talk/discussion pages?

Yes, just edit the article itself. Don't worry if your edit isn't perfect; others can fix it later. The important thing is that the article reflect published sources... it sounds like it doesn't do that right now, and that you can help. Click on this link for an introduction to Wikipedia, and thanks for your interest in helping! --Allen 16:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Allen. I just made the changes.

I would also add the story to the talk page, as it may be removed from the main page because it's "original research". The talk page version is more likely to last. It's a good story that really shows the significance of the fight in Germany. StuRat 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also, StuRat. I added the information to the discussion / talk pagel

You know, the two paragraphs don't necessarily contradict each other. Goebbels may have had the radio program cut off in Germany, but if it was being broadcast in Austria (was this before the Anschluss?), France, Denmark, the UK, etc. virtually every German could have picked it up. Radio signals can carry far, especially at night. --Charlene 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and depending on how the signal was distributed to the various radio stations, it might not have been possible to cut them all off immediately. StuRat 03:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar

Why was akbar considered a great ruler?Please tell in detail--59.144.247.39 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Akbar. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. . --Shantavira 15:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have read the page on Akbar I would be happy to deal with any more specific questions you may have. Clio the Muse 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil marriage

I believe there was a long dispute between the Catholic church and various countries about the question of whether officials other than clergymen should be able to marry people which was still going on at the end of the 19th century. I would like to see information on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.155.106 (talk • contribs) .

Did you try Catholic marriage or marriage? You might have to be more specific, such as asking more specific questions, because what you want seems pretty broad. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there is an dispute between the Catholic Church and varoious countries about this subject. this is because marriage is an institute of god and not man or law. the latter two embraced it though and started making it more of their own. Graendal 06:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Long before there was a Catholic Church, marriage was an institution of law. - Nunh-huh 06:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not exactly; there was no institution marriage, though something did exist as being a couple. personally I have read sources from the ancient greek time in which was spoken of a wife. after wondering the very same as you said before me nunh-huh I decided to check it out and it turns out that it is a common mistranslation and that it is actually companion/life companion and not an institutionalised marriage. - unsigned

No, there's no mistranslation involved. Marriage was a matter of law - civil law, not religious - centuries before the Catholic church existed. See [5] for an example of a marriage contract. - Nunh-huh 21:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure what you're talking about -- most Mediterranean cultures in ancient classical times had some kind of ceremony or formalized agreement between families, according to which a woman was thenceforth supposed to be exclusively sexually faithful to one man. This was very much true for the ancient Greeks. If the woman's children by the man are recognized as the man's full legitimate heirs (as was also often the case), then it seems to me that this quite adequately satisfies the definitions of marriage most commonly used in cross-cultural studies. AnonMoos 08:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my home country, Germany, it was until the end of the 19th century, that the churches (Catholic and Protestant ones) kept the civil registers that recorded births, deaths and marriages, and a marriage had to be performed by a clergyman in order to be valid. To move these duties to the state's responsibility was a major part of Chancellor Bismarck's moves to reduce the influence of the churches in Germany (see Kulturkampf for the story in short). Today, people have to marry at the Standesamt, the community authority for registering births, deaths, marriages and the like, but the majority chooses to then repeat the ceremony at a church (either because they are religious or because the church ceremony is so much more splendid than the state one). Bismarck's move is commonly called the introduction of the Zivilehe, i.e., the "civil marriage" ("civil" in the sense of "secular"). This brings me to my question: I have notices that in texts by US Americans, the term "civil marriage" seems to mean "living together as a couple without being formally married". Why do they call it that way? And isn't it customary in the US as well for a couple to live together for a few years to see if they fit together before they "marry for live"? If so, why do I always sense a certain undertone of unusuality in the term? Simon A. 14:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the term "civil marriage" really means too much in the United States, since religious ministers have always had the authority to marry people here, and there's no significant movement to take that power away from them. Some people do get married down at the local city-hall (the office which deals with marriage-licenses), but that's generally considered utilitarianly functional and hopelessly unromantic (done by those pressed for time and money), and I doubt whether too many of those who marry in this way would be familiar with the term "civil marriage". Maybe you're thinking of "Common-law marriage", which is quite a different thing... AnonMoos 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the 'grey area' about civil marriage is undoubtedly the recent use of the term to describe same sex marriage. It's also very close to 'civil ceremony' which is often used to describe a 'city hall' marriage as noted above. Anchoress 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Civil union" is the term most often used to refer to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships which fall short of the legal definition of marriage in a particular jurisdiction. We have "civil unions" and "civil ceremonies", but I don't think the phrase "civil marriage" is very often used... AnonMoos 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it all the time in Vancouver, Canada. And if you google '"civil marriage" "same sex"' there are almost 300,000 hits, and the top ones are Canadian. Anchoress 15:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the term "Civil Union" being used to describe any sort of heterosexual arrangement, yet, as I'll describe below, I suppose it's theoretically possible. The legal semantics are complicated and at times completely inconsistent. A "Civil Marriage" is indeed NOT a contradiction in terms. Rather, a "Civil Marriage" is used as a term to distinguish those marriages solemnized by secular authorities, as opposed to "Religious Marriages". On the other hand, a "Civil Union" is a term used to describe that relatively new and peculiar innovation, that "half-way house" of sorts, as exists in Vermont for example, to describe a legally sanctioned relationship between two individuals, somewhat short of a "Marriage" per se, yet with pretty much all the legal implications of one. I suppose a heterosexual couple could enter into a "Civil Union" rather than a "Marriage" (Civil or Religious), and in fact, I can't see how they could be forbidden, (after all, what jurisdiction in the world would actually forbid to heterosexual couples what it allows for homosexual ones?) In any case, in Canada at least, Homosexual Marriage is legal, be it Civil or even Religious (for those denominations that accept the concept). In that sense, the whole idea of a "Civil Union", be it heterosexual or homosexual, would seem to be somewhat unnecessary and redundant. Of course the state of the law here, as in the US as well as many other jurisdictions is quite fluid, so I wouldn't let go of that concept of a "Civil Union" just yet. Loomis 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanations about civil / common-law marriage. Seems that such matters are a bit more sophisticated in common law systems. Simon A. 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No No! :) I think you must have misunderstood me! Being from Montreal I'm actually familiar with both the Civilian and the Common-Law traditions. What I said had absolutely nothing to do with any distinctions between the two. The terms "Civil Marriage" and "Common Law Marriage" actually have absolutely nothing to do with the distinction between the Civil Law and the Common Law! I realize that the vocabulary is all screwed up. I'd love to clarify any questions you may have about the difference between the two systems, but once again, what I wrote above had NOTHING do do with that distinction! Sorry for all the exclamation points, it's not that I'm angry at all. I'm just disappointed in myself that I may have inadvertently misled you! :) Loomis 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics

It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that the value placed upon mathematics by Western culture has greatly decreased in recent centuries. Many of the founding fathers were mathematicians, the Declaration was inspired by Euclid's elements[6], and Garfield even came up with a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. But nowadays it seems that the definition of an "intellectual" excludes mathematical (or scientific, for that matter) pursuits, and would suggest more of a political commentator or philosopher. The article on Euclid's Elements states, "Not until the 20th century did it cease to be considered something all educated people had read." Why do you think the value placed on mathematics has so greatly declined, or do you not think this to be the case? --JianLi 22:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive that intellectualism itself has seen its share price decline in the 20th and 21st centuries. How long has the epithet 'nerd' and its variants been around anyway? Was there ever any notion in antiquity that a person could be too interested in books, learning, and academia? -- Chris 23:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, about the use of "nerd": it seems to me that while the word "intellectual" is reserved for non-scientific/mathematical intellectual pursuits, "nerd" is applied to intellectual pursuits that are mathematical/scientific. So even if intellectualism is suffering a decline by being branded as "nerdy," mathematics and science are the fields disproportionately suffering.

The important point here is that Euclid was broadly within the comprehension of most educated people, not just mathematicians. By the twentieth century mathematics was pursuing a course impossible to follow for those who were not specialists in the subject. Clio the Muse 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, no. Actually what you're pointing to with Euclid is an altogether different phenomenon, which is the devaluation of the Western Canon. Which is the old idea that we should all learn ancient Greek and Latin and study Plato and Aristotle and company. That tradition was a holdover from medieval scholasticism, which had a negative impact on western culture. The fact that we don't think people should be required to know them is a healthy thing. It reflects the fact that we've reevaluated their contributions and no longer hold them in the unwarranted regard we once did. I think we teach just about exactly as much Euclid and Aristotle as we should nowadays. Euclid simply isn't very relevant anymore, since the algebraic approach to mathematical proofs has completely replaced geometric ones. Now, obviously it's still a good thing to read Euclid. And Aristotle, and Plato and so on. But the rote learning-of-them-for-the-sake-of-learning-them of previous centuries is not something I'd support going back to. --BluePlatypus 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the fact that you bring up Euclid bears witness itself to some of the exaggerated esteem he's been held in. I've read the Elementa, and don't really see what's in it that isn't already more or less covered in the high-school curriculum of a developed country. Math today is more relevant to society that it ever has been. And for that reason, more people today know more math than ever before. It's certainly true that math has lost some of its status. But that's what usually happens when something becomes more common. I think it's a small price to pay. --BluePlatypus 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I agree that it's no loss that we don't teach Euclid anymore because we can teach geometry just as well without using the Elements. I guess I was trying to use this as a metaphor for the devaluation of math itself. And even if general math education is increasing, the trend that I feel I'm seeing is that our leaders and others we hold in esteem are very well-educated in everything but the sciences. I think this view would be better-articulated by the following article from the NYT. --JianLi 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University

Why is Princeton #1? It does not seem to be so special, compared to Harvard or Yale...or even Stanford. I really don't understand how it took over the top spot in US News' rankings. It seems incorrect. 207.200.116.12 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton is traditionally one of the "Big 3" Ivy League universities, along with H and Y. It is differentiated in having a substantially stronger focus on teaching (esp. undergrads) than H&Y plus a weaker focus on research and graduate education compared with H and Y (e.g. P doesn't have a business school or a law school - see Princeton Law School - but it has the highest per-student spend of any of the large US universities). Bwithh 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know why Princeton is #1, just look at the formula for the US News rankings. Princeton is number one because after the score is calculated, it edges out the other schools at the top by one or two points. These points are so close that Princeton and Harvard often tie for #1, as they did last year. Though the methods of score calculation are pretty straightforward, a lot of the criteria, in my opinion, are unreliable or irrelevant. For example, one is percentage of alumni who donate to the school, which supposedly gauges school spirit. This means that a school can score many points if every single one of its alumni donates a trivial amount, such as $0.01, to the school. But even if you were to agree with the criteria used and how much each is weighted compared to the other, the difference between a #1 or #5 school is only a few points. --JianLi 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you were to rank universities in terms of prestige, according to a recent study, Harvard would be #1, followed by Yale. The study calculated prestige based on school-versus-school yield (though I believe this is made slightly suspect due to selection bias). That is, for people who are accepted to both School A and School B, and who end up going to one of the two, which one do they choose? A Harvard-Princeton match-up, for example, would yield something like 73% choosing Harvard and 27% choosing Princeton. Then again, prestige is not necessarily a good indicator of school quality. --JianLi 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One often-overlooked criteria I find interesting is percent of graduates who win a Nobel Prize; according to Wikipedia's article, nearly 1 in 1000 graduates of Caltech go on to win one. Though this might be lower if one were to look only within the past few years, this ratio whups that of Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. --JianLi 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Princeton's social scene?

It's in New Jersey. -THB 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

Old Movie

Does anyone know the name of the movie that appears to be a man's life story, but at the end is revealed to be the viewpoint of a baby watching his possible future life from heaven, trying to decide whether or not to experience his life? It was released sometime in the last 40 years. Steveo2 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Paid

Does anyone know which actor holds the record for getting paid the most for the portrayal of a single character? I believe that Jerry Seinfeld does, but I really don't know. Steveo2 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it will be Chris Tucker: [7]. -THB 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle ONLY village/city/town

I am curious if there are any cities which either restrict or severely limit the amount of motor traffic with a cleaner alternative like bicycles? I have been hearing of places scattered throughout Europe (Amsterdam, Nueremburg) which are heavily populated with bikers but I am more interested in a 'Bicycle ONLY village' I have heard of somewhere in Switzerland. Any information is appreciated!

I believe that parts of the formerly Disney-owned community of Celebration, Florida are like that. StuRat 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that town seems completely artificial, anyway? Any natural town (where the inhabitants are rich enough to own cars)? As a footnote, I heard about some city that was so polluted that every 2nd day only cars with the last number on their registration plate being even/odd (interchanging) were allowed to drive. Rich families often had two cars, one with an odd and one with an even number, so they could drive any day... 惑乱分からん 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Athens, Greece they used to do that, I don't know if they still do. And I believe London does something similar, but for general traffic control reasons. Anchoress 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re London: Not quite, they introduced the London congestion charge. Simon A. 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in parts of the United States some years ago they did this, except they alternated days in which you were allowed to go to the gas station. Meh, before my time though. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that comes to mind when I read this question is Iceland. That's all I know, but perhaps someone else knows more about it. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are thinking about the German islands of Heligoland and Juist, where only the emergency services are permitted to use motorcars. The latter has a city ordinance proscribing cars, the former has the ban written in the federal traffic code. Dr Zak 03:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland does indeed have several towns/villages in where they either prohibit ordinary car traffic or where there simply is no road access to the town. I know of four in popular tourist areas: Zermatt, Mürren, Gimmelwald, Wengen. I note that each of them is located where it can only be reached from one direction, so there is no pressure for road traffic on a through route to be allowed into the town.

Zermatt is near the Matterhorn and has a population of about 5,000; public access is by rail, with the nearest road open to car traffic ending at a parking lot a few kilometers away. The other three places are all in the Berner Oberland. Mürren and Gimmelwald (about 500 and 150 people respectively) are stops on the cable-car route that connects the summit of the Schilthorn to the road at the bottom of the valley. (Mürren normally has a connection to the rail system as well, but this is currently being rebuilt, according to Bergbahn Lauterbrunnen-Mürren.) Wengen, with 1,400 people, is on the other side of the same valley, and is reached by rail.

--Anonymous, 06:47 UTC, October 30.

Mackinaw Island is an example, in Michigan. StuRat 07:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that some cities are inaccessible by motor vehicle. These places may get their supplies by boat, plane, or train. I believe there are some parts of Alaska and northern Canada like this. StuRat 07:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serfaus, Austria is yet another example. TZM^{Everything is notable} 08:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Island, New York is bicycle and wagon only during the summer. Bogota, Colombia closes many major roads to cars on Sunday so bicyclists may use them freely. -THB 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article 50 of the German Road Code states: On the island of Heligoland, motor traffic and cycling is forbidden. But hardly anybody lives there, of course. Simon A. 14:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting broader shoulders

heyz... i really do not know how to go about training up my shoulders to make them broad...i generally am quite please with my biceps and triceps... however, i just feel that my shoulder is not broad enough... Can anyone advice me on how to train up on my shoulders without going to the gym... thanks alot.

Shoulder pads, a la 80s soaps. --Nelson Ricardo 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from personal experience: Standing on your shoulders (first lying down on your back, then swinging your legs up, leaning on shoulders and neck) works quite well. also using them as impact forces on punching bags for example makes them stronger and broadens them. !VERY IMPORTANT! this may or may not work for you but your shoulder is also partially constructed of bones and therefore you need calcium supplements if you want those to grow stronger. (cohensive with the impact force. same goes for fists if you want those to grow. (idea behind: each time you use them as impact force and hit something the weakest part of the marrow will die and fragment, the body then rebuilds it with stronger marrow and using fragments of the old. repeatedly doing this with enough rest inbetween will allow your fists to grow and become more concetrated in forms of marrow.)) recommended objects for impact force: punching bags at start, after some time trees (don't break them though!) and then stones (you can break this) and then reinforced concrete walls (it is possible to break these but that will rarely occur) and then multiple-inch thick steel plates (these don't break and one will last a long while if you switch sides from time to time) Graendal 05:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The muscles that will make your shoulders broader are your delts. You can work them with standing laterals and raises (the laterals can be done with free weights or a machine), incline raises and reverse curls. Pushups and pullups work the delts a bit. Built up pecs will also make your shoulders a bit bigger. Anchoress 06:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only long-term solution to improving your physique is to improve your diet first. -- Chris 16:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the differences between Job Evaluation and Work Evaluation?

See semantics. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myall Creek Massacre

What are the primary sources supporting this event?

When did the Myall Creek massacre occur?

Were there any eye-witnesses?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.1.69 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Myall Creek massacre. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. .--Shantavira 08:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHARACTER BUILDING AND MORAL VALUES

WHAT IS THE NEED OF CHARACTER BUILDING AND MORAL VALUES AND HOW THE SAME CAN ENHANCE YOUR DEVELOPMENT IN LIFE AND CAREER?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.209.92 (talk • contribs)

Please don't SHOUT. In answer to your question: it depends which moral values and what character, but virtue ethics might be a place to start. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What moral values? The western immoral values or the values imbibed in the family upbringing? What are you questioning about? Be clear ! 18:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's likely a homework question. The answer is either in the textbook or was discussed in class. -THB 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the equivalend of a corpus fund for charities in the UK?

I have come across corpus funds in India but not in the UK and I wonder if anyone could tell me what the equivalent is in England and Wales? Many thanks

From what I can figure out they're the equivalent of trust funds or endowments. Anchoress 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whipery in the Cuban parliament

I am currently conducting a research project about the functions of parliamentary Whips in various countries.I was wondering if there is anybody who has any inmformation about the role of parliamentary whips particularly in Cuba,and Jamaica

I would appreciate you help.

Thank you

S.Duma, South Africa

They may not completely answer your question, but a good place to start would be the Cuba and Jamaica articles. Anchoress 14:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Leader of the Opposition in Jamaica. In Cuba, the members of the legislature are either members of the Communist Party or are members of no party so there is no whip. -THB 14:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition leader is different from the whip; the whip is a member of the same party who is responsible for ensuring members vote along party lines when circumstances require. There is often a whip on the government side and also in the opposition. But it's usually not the leader. Anchoress 14:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on Jamaica, but as for Cuba, it's a DICTATORSHIP, meaning that any semblance of parliamentary democracy is nothing but farcical window dressing, meant for those few who actually believe that the mere existence of a "parliament", on its own, has any meaning whatsoever. It never ceases to amaze me how so many actually lend credence to these mere trappings of democracy. I suppose Cuba has a parliamentary "whip" of sorts, only it isn't quite the metaphorical "whip" as exists in actual democracies, but rather a quite real, non-metaphorical "gun". Cuba's parliamentary "guns" are held quite snugly in the holsters beside Fidel Castro's hip, along with the hips of his most loyal supporters. Loomis 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jamaican model is largely based on the British practice; so parliamentary whips are a well-established part of the whole political process. The term itself comes from fox hunting, where the 'whipper-in' made sure that the dogs were all working to the same ends. It only has value where there is an active party-political system, both government and opposition. Clearly this is not the case in Cuba, where the result of any given vote is known in advance. Also Cuba was only for the briefest of periods (1762-3) under British control, and therefore absorbed none of of its political or cultural traditions. Have a look at Parliamentary Whip for some general information on the subject. Clio the Muse 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulberry Harbours

≈Why were these floating harbours named Mulberry?

It was a code-name... AnonMoos 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See our article Mulberry harbour. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

budapest

what type of govermnet do they have in Budapest?

Well, Budapest is the capital of Hungary, did you mean the national government of that country? If so then Politics of Hungary looks pretty good. If you mean government of the city itself, the Budapest article doesn't give a great deal of info but maybe you can find something at [8] ? -- Muntfish 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the national government of Hungary, as opposed to the municipal government of Budapest, it is a parliamentary democracy, presently headed by Ferenc Gyurcsány of the Hungarian Socialist Party. Nevertheless, Mr. Gyurcsány is a former Communist, and recent events have shown that he still has some of the old instincts. Clio the Muse 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But at least Mr. Gyurcsány is more honest than most politicians, in that he's admitted that he "lied morning, noon, and night" to the electors before the last election, though of course he didn't admit this until after the election! -- Arwel (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on your definition of honesty: his remarks were clearly not for public consumption. But just imagine if Tony Blair, for example, said that he had lied 'morning, noon and night' about Iraq. Do you think he would stand up in the storm that blew from that? It's almost certain that he would be abandoned by most of the Parliamentary Labour Party. For Gyurcsány to to be able to rely on the continuing support of the Socialists would seem to indicate that Hungary has not completely emerged from its past. Clio the Muse 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the number of demonstrators calling for Mr. Gyurcsány to resign, I would have to say that the citizens are hungary for a change. StuRat 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

why is it that certian people have been allowed to ask/answer questions in such a way as to be critical of the Bush Administration? Isn't this a direct violation of WP:POV and WP:LIVING? Isn't it also disrespectful and even out right insulting to Americans?--Frowrwr 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete or ~~strikeout~~ these kinds of questions?--Frowrwr 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those policies apply to articles. Should the New York Times be censored if it's critical of George Dubya? Unless Bush has decided to trample on some more civil liberties, it's ok here. And no, it's not insulting to all Americans, just one in particular. On the other hand, you can be reasonably "disrespectful" of Nancy Pelosi and Susan Sarandon to your heart's content. Clarityfiend 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you certainly may not. The reason people have been 'allowed' to be critical of the Bush administration is that, whatever one thinks of the Bush administration, people have a right to free speech. Since the reference desk is not an article, neither policy you cite applies. As for your suggestion that criticism is 'disrespectful' and 'insulting to Americans': criticism often annoys the people criticised, but that has no relevance to whether it is correct or allowable. Yours, Sam Clark 18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get the selfish maniac out of power! The bush administration is and subject of criticism. The american policies of double standards are also subject to criticism. If the Big brother attitude keeps abusing freedom and liberty and doesnt shoulder the responsibility of the worlds impatience then it is open to criticism.18:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Disrespectful or not, as Sam said, it's free speech. Much as I may admire the Bush Administration (K, quit throwing tomatoes at me!), the day it's forbidden to criticize any politician in any country, is the day that freedom dies in that country. Of course I find it mildly insulting when the uninformed criticize GWB for being the executive in charge of enforcing the Acts of the Legislative Branch of the US Government, those Acts held to be Constitutional by the Judicial branch of the US Government such as Congress' decision to give the President power to go to war in Iraq as well as Congress' Patriot Act.

Get the selfish maniac out of power? I'm afraid there's much more to it than that. I suppose you'd could start by throwing out Bush, but then you'd have to throw out his entire Cabinet, then throw out the vast majority of Congress that enacted, say, the resolution to go to war in Iraq, (77 out of 100 Senators (including Hillary!), plus 296 out of 429 Representatives,) then you'd have to throw out at least five of the nine Supreme Court Justices that so far don't seem to agree with Clarity, that Bush, in carrying out various Acts of Congress, is at all "trampling" unreasonably on any civil liberties. Last but definitely not least of all, I suppose, you'd have to throw out that MAJORITY of American voters that re-elected Bush to a second term, even after all of those "wacky" Congressional Acts were enforced by the Executive Branch. What you're caling for isn't simply the removal of some "imbecile who can't tie his own shoes-slash-evil genius who seems to have managed to dupe the entire world into falling for his self-serving shenanegans", but rather, outright revolution! Apparently America's whole "democratic experiment" was indeed a failure. Thanks K, for the inspiration, even though I'm sure you're regretting it now! Oh boy, how I can't wait 'til January 20th 2009 when my work at at least this thankless job will finally be done! Loomis 20:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the process of swapping governments is already underway. In next week's Congressional elections, Republicans are expected to lose control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats, and possibly the Senate (although this is much tougher, since only 1/3 of the Senators run for re-election every two years). Then, in 2008, I would fully expect Democrats to take the Senate (if they don't already have it) and for a Dem to be elected President, unless Bush can somehow do something right, like kill or capture bin Laden. It isn't necessary to replace the majority of Americans, but just to get them to change their opinion of the Republicans. Unfortunately for them, they haven't been able to even deliver things they've promised to their conservative base:

Better ethics in government.

Capture or kill bin Laden.

Eliminate the Taliban permanently from Afghanistan.

Replace Saddam's Iraq with a functional democracy.

Practice fiscal responsibility.

Prevent North Korea from building nuclear weapons.

Ban abortion.

And then there is their total incompetence during Hurricane Katrina, not a selling point, either. The trampling on civil rights and ban on funding for stem cell research probably doesn't upset the Republican base, that just upsets everyone else. StuRat 21:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the US governemnt completely sell itself on other countries issues, are people so narrow minded that if they are kept occupied by periodic wars and patriotic speeches that they completely fail to notice how the government actually handles they running of their country. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have to do both. I certainly think that evicting the Taliban and al-Queda from Afghanistan was a good thing, they just needed to send enough troops to catch or kill bin Laden and leave enough troops there to keep the Taliban at bay. However, Iraq pulled too many troops away to do the job properly, hence the resurgence of the Taliban. StuRat 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment to make whatsoever on the present US administration; but as far as the above point is concerned a passage from Shakespeare's Henry IV part II leaps to mind, where the old king is giving some death-bed advice to Prince Hal (the future Henry V); Thus, my dear Harry, be it thy task to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels, that action, hence borne out, may waste the memory of former days. Clio the Muse 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott Bush had Nazi ties. -THB 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean connections or neckties?--Light current 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song with lyrics "come to papa"

I am looking for title and artist of a song with the lyrics "come to papa". I believe it is blues, and it sounds something like a Stevie Ray Vaughan song, but I'm not sure that he is the artist. All help will be greatly appreciated. This is to silence a know-it-all who seems to think it is Bob Seger. (don't believe it is, but I could be wrong.) Thanks. 18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)L. Kemp, TX

Ira and George Gershwin wrote Embraceable You and hundreds of singers have performed it. -THB 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Bob Segar performed the Earl Randle/Willie Mitchell tune Come to Poppa on Night Moves. Gershwin could not have written Embraceable You for An American in Paris (film), though, having been dead for 14 years. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of civilisations

The thought of the east meeting the west. How many successful marriages or relationships are there involving two persons of the opposite sex - one from the east and the other from the west. What exactly are the perceptions of the west about the east? What is the opinion of the west about such successful relationships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjvenus (talk • contribs)

First, perhaps you should think what you mean by "east" and "west". I assume you mean a meeting of cultures rather than a clash of civilisations. In the UK it's no big deal for most people. Perhaps the article on interracial marriage would interest you.--Shantavira 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think you could characterize the perception or opinion of "the west"! -THB 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that...wait...I just realized that "KJVenus the Troll" is asking this question. Nevermind. Loomis 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what if the opposite sex, opposite culture persons are wearing masks? -THB 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, that sounds like a funny comment!--Light current 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the same sex, opposite gender Western person is wearing a different-sex, Eastern, but same gender mask? Is it a crime? Or cannable offense? What if they like chocolate? But the mask is chocolate? -- Chris 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas be careful. THis sort of comment is currently under close scrutiny.--Light current 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there seriously a crack-down on non-serious responses at the ref desk? If so, where can I find the relevant discussion? Thanks. -- Chris 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Please join discussion if you wish.--Light current 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Eastern is Chinese and Western is Anglo-Saxon then yes there are many successful marriages. You just don't hear about them. They don't make the news because they are quite boring. 202.168.50.40 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only two cannable offences I can think of are eating other human beings, and illicit use of marijuana. JackofOz 03:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Lynch entry

You might find this entry interesting. The Willie Lynch piece posted is a myth http://www.jelanicobb.com/portfolio/willie_lynch_is_dead.html

Carmen Harris, Ph.D. charris@xxxxxxxx.edu

I think the article is fairly clear that it is not a proven fact. I would think it is something completely made up just because the speaker says "our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish". The article also points out several anachronisms and other problems with the letter. (Also, I altered your e-mail address.) -THB 20:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold and the Beautiful history question

I watched some old B&B clips on YouTube and got to wondering. The Amber article states she first came on the show to be babysitter to Rick and Bridget. However, I saw a clip in which she was helping Maggie take care of the baby Sheila wanted. I'm pretty sure that is how she was introduced, but I'm not sure enough to make an edit to the article saying such. Can anyone clear it up for me? I'm hoping someone can relay the information to me how they remember it, instead of just referring me to a page. Hopefully someone can give me an explanation, because I'm really just racking my brains about it. Thank you! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving Women

How many Pilgrim women are believed to have survived to celebrate the first Thanksgiving in 1621?

The complete list of Mayflower passengers (roughly 103 of them) is at Caleb Johnson's page, where you can also find a list of those who died the first winter, including thirteen adult women and two girls. You'd have to figure out how many women there were in the 103, and how many were Pilgrims, to know the answer to your question, but all the information should be there. The page on women and girls on the Mayflower may be of interest. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (On that page, we find that of 18 women who made the voyage, 5 survived the first winter, and one of these died the following May, leaving only four adult women by the time of the first Thanksgiving.) - Nunh-huh 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So,was there a football game? Turkey sandwichs? Who washed up?Edison 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny (http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/History/girls.php):

"Elder William Brewster brought his sons Love and Wrestling, but left behind his daughters Patience and Fear."

Anyways, I guess they were right in thinking that the weak bodies of women would not survive the hardships of building a colony. Only 4 out of the 18 women survived the first year. --Bowlhover 05:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name/author of an artwork?

What is the name and/or who is the author of this artwork? Thank you. Philip 23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the name, but I believe it's from Middle Age Europe... 惑乱分からん 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's often palmed off as medieval, it's actually by Camille Flammarion, and was first published in 1888, in his L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire. The version you've linked to has been colorized and of course the inscription has been added. - Nunh-huh 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC) - I see we actually have an article on it, at Flammarion woodcut - Nunh-huh 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. --Philip 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passport

In the United Kingdom, who holds passport number one?

Here's the history of UK passports going back to the 15th century: *. Likely modern passports are not numbered sequentially but as a coded number, similar to a US Social Security Number. -THB 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinatingly, only tangentially related fact: Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell received the first UK number plate "A1" MeltBanana 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it "number plate" is BritSpeak for a license plate. And since they contain letters, too, shouldn't they be called "alphanumeric plates" ? StuRat 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and probably yes 03:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If language was always strictly logical, yes, but that isn't the case. For example, in the U.S. people talk about "filing" divorce papers, when what they really do is lodge, supply or provide them. Filing is what some clerk would do after the papers have been handed over. JackofOz 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

file:"to initiate (as a legal action) through proper formal procedure". It's just a matter of which meanings are familiar; logic has little to do with it. That a clerk can also do another action also known as filing is as irrelevant as is the fact that one can seek lodging at a hotel. - Nunh-huh 05:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)I[reply]

October 31

hitler's eye/hair color

what color were his eyes and hair? all the pics are black and white that's why I ask.

Light blue eyes, brown hair Clio the Muse 01:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is funny considering the fact that the "superior" Aryan race he was trying to create consisted of blond haired, blue eyed people. --AstoVidatu 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a color pic of a painting of Hitler: [9]. StuRat 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His eyes look rather like mine: green!--Light current 03:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that something to boast about so proudly? Ya look just like the Gröfaz himself! is not a compliment you know. :D Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elected Assemblies and Canada

What is an elected assembly, and how would it benefit citizens of Canada?

An "elected assembly" is a legislature whose members are chosen in elections. Canada already has such an assembly, its House of Commons. Lately, there has been talk in Canada about making the Canadian Senate an elected body as well. The usual argument in favour of elected governments is that elected officials represent and promote the interests of the people who elect them. Marco polo 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also talk of proportional representation. So in that case people would really be voting for the political party and not the individuals. --The Dark Side 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sword history

What is the first recorded major battle that involved sword usage by the winning side? By major I don't mean some tribal battle with twenty people involved that established some country. I mean major as in lots of people, something more on the scale of the Roman legions. --The Dark Side 03:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back much before the Romans you will likely find that only the rich would have owned swords, with commoners using much more basic weapons, like clubs and spears. I believe this situation also resumed after the fall of Rome. StuRat 06:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been a movie entirely produced by children that was shown in theaters???

The heading speaks for itself answer plz

Perhaps, if we're talking 17 year olds. However, young children, say under 12, just don't have all the skills needed to produce a movie, unassisted. StuRat 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]