Revision as of 11:42, 13 March 2007

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/headercfg

March 9

public domain art?

Is there any public domain Zen or Taoist or other beautiful and simple art about nature I can find on the internet anywhere and which I can freely publish in a book? --Sonjaaa 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you're publishing in the US, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. basically means you can freely reproduce any old two-dimensional PD art (19th century paintings etc.), even if it's from a digital image (or indeed from a book or magazine) published by someone else.--Pharos 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• how do i know if a specific painting ir 2D art is PD or not? do I go by year? or something like that? what's the system?--Sonjaaa 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the US, if it's from 1922 or earlier, it's always PD.--Pharos 06:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Theory

Who was it who posted and what is the name of the theory that states (in essence) "...you only agree with that theory because you can understand it..."165.12.252.11 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) baxter de wahl

Is that a "theory"? Just looks like a smart-ass quip. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this the argument from ignorance, incredulity, lack of imagination…? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Art Laffer - tax cuts

I remember that Art Laffer wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal in the late 90's about the Reagan tax cuts. His premise was that tax cuts don't work well UNTIL they completely take effect. He seemed to be arguing that a phased in tax cut was far worse than a single tax cut.

I have searched the WSJ.com and tried a lot of other areas on line.

Can anyone help me find that op-ed piece?

24.168.150.80 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a page on Art Laffer with a partial list of his financial journalism. Perhaps you may find what you are looking for there? Clio the Muse 10:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Word "pawn"

while doing odd jobs for a metal smith community i came to learn a great many things some of what i've not been able to find significant corroborating reference material. the particular question i have is in regard to some lore i was told regarding pawn shops. i was told that pawn shops were once known by another name before having done business with a native American Indian tribe the Pawnee. the pawnee, as i was told, would come in to town with their catch and visit the pawn broker before setting up for trade with local furriers. they would place what i understand to be silver jewelry gem'd with turquoise that also became known as pawn. today pawn is a heavily sought and prized antiquity. i've found no corroborating information on wiki. anyone know?

Incorrect, according to both dictionary.com and etymonline.com, it's likely from (Norman) French pan(t), from a Frankish word similar to *panda, akin to German "Pfand" etc. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

how to Print without images

Dear wikipedia Adminidtrator,I would to know how to Print without images —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nadeemaftab (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

• Ask in the Computing refdesk maybe... Also, what browser are you using? (I'm assuming you mean to print a web page?)--Sonjaaa 06:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you are using Firefox, and have Web Developer extension (which, I think, is included by default on new installation), you just need to click on

Tools -> Web Developer -> Images -> Disable Images -> All Images

That will reload the page without any images, so try printing then. If you using Internet Explorer, just Get Firefox. Shinhan 20:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Save the webpage (file -> save page as), delete the folder that was also saved, open up the .html file, and print. --Bowlhover 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In Firefox, just click Edit => Preferences => Content, and uncheck "Load Images Automatically". --TotoBaggins 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What is Consumer Invoice

What is Consumer Invoice? 202.54.176.11 09:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Anand

See invoice. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 09:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Registered Mark" (just M, no T; Canada)

Hi all,

While doing some research, I ran across Environment Canada's "EcoLogo" program, which mentions on a few sub-pages (and is copied elsewhere) that it is a registered mark, not trademark, and is always followed by just a superscripted M, not TM. See http://www.parl.gc.ca/Information/About/Greenhill/programs/ecologo-e.asp?Language=E for an example.

I've never heard of, or seen, a just-M "registered mark" before. Some brief searches don't shed much light; the Misplaced Pages Trademark article doesn't shed any light. Is this a Canada-only thing? Something they just made up? --MattShepherd 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is strange. A registered mark should be ®, so perhaps it was only an aesthetic choice to have the M. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to have encountered is what's known as a certification mark. Unlike a trade-mark, it's got little (but not nothing) to do with intellectual property rights and all to do with the government's, or perhaps some private organization's "stamp of approval" for a certain product. Still, I have to admit that that little "M" mystifies me. What I can say for certain, though, is that nowhere on the Canadian Trade-Marks Act or Regulations is there any mention of a single "M" symbol as having any legal meaning. The question is truly an interesting one, and one I've never encountered, I'm just sorry I can't provide any more useful information about it. Loomis 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dog sitter request

75.55.150.22 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)My name is Kelly Patterson. I have a dear friend who will be moving (driving back to Kansas very soon to look for a place to live. She has a dog. Her dog is her child. She does not want to give up her dog. She is asking if there is anyone out there that would be willing to babysit her dog till she gets on her feet and finds a place to live (approximately a month). God would be so pleased and bless you in a mighy way. Could you possibly help her out? She is headed for Hutchinson. Please get back with me as soon as possible. Thank you so much and God bless. <email removed to protect sender from spambots>

I don't think that the reference desk will be able to help out. We can help people find information but can't provide dogsitting services. In any case, it is unlikely that any of the reference desk editors lives in Hutchinson, Kansas. Your best bet would be to post an ad on Craiglist for Wichita. (This is the closest city to Hutchinson that has a Craigslist directory). Marco polo 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why I love Misplaced Pages. :D Zidel333 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just hope that since He has taken an interest that He'll stay strictly on the pet-sitting areas of Craigslist.  :) --TotoBaggins 04:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the details on the recent change of the position of rotation of the three starson the GOP logo

I am trying to address position of rotation on the five-pointed star found on the Grand Old Party (GOP) elephant logo and why it was recently changed to be in the down pointing position, much different than the significant and historic position of the five-pointed stars found on the American flag. A user on the GOP page does not want to address the issue.

Misplaced Pages needs to clarify why the three stars on the GOP logo have been inverted. We need to address this in the proper area of Misplaced Pages. Those who choose to remove facts and details due to their ignorance and or political bias are ignorant.

Here is what I found. The three stars on the GOP logo are inverted five-pointed stars pointing down, rather than the position shown on the American Flag. If the collinear edges of the inverted five-pointed stars are joined together a pentagram is produced, a symbol of mystical and magical significance. A probable reason for the change is due to the influence of The Star and Crescent of Kappa Sigma. ΚΣ (Kappa Sigma) is an international fraternity that has produced many alumni, including four senators, eight congressmen, seven governors, and a deputy prime minister. Flsaisalie 16:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What you have just stated is what we call "original research" and it is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. If you find a respectable news article that makes the claim you are trying to make, then reference it. Otherwise, there is no room on Misplaced Pages for this. --Kainaw 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Flsaisalie, please read WP:NPA. I removed the claims because they were unsourced and potentially defamatory, not because I am ignorant. Please do not refer to me as such. Thanks. --Ali'i 17:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does Misplaced Pages "need" to clarify? What makes that our job? Corvus cornix 03:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to the reference desk to find the answer on why the change was made to the stars. I do believe it is ignorant for someone to not want to know or not at least try to find out why. Flsaisalie 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume you genuinely want to know the answer. If that's the case, I recommend asking the question, WITHOUT following it with any of the followng types of thing: a) a hostility towards people that have already been asked, and b) any information that clearly suggests you think you already know the answer.

IF there is an answer out there, we might not know it, and we might; we might have suggestions about where you could go to get that information, or we might be stumped. But in my experience, people are much more likely to be helpful if they think that their answers will be recieved well, regardless of what that answer is. The information you posted, on the other hand, makes it sound like you think you already KNOW the answer -- why should we bother to help you, if that is the case?

In other words -- if you REALLY want to know, rather than just theorize, why the star changed, posting ONLY your first sentence would have been much, much more effective. The rest of it makes even the nicest researcher wary, scared, and uncomfortable. Jfarber 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism however if you would like to participate at the reference desk, actions speak louder than words, spend your energy reaching the answer, not to scold me. I followed the steps of HOW TO ASK A QUESTION and did include the results of my homework, including the following steps: Search first, Do your own homework, Include a title and a question, Be specific, Don't provide contact information, Sign your question, Be patient, Do not request medical or legal advice.

I felt the need to point out that the person who deleted my information was deliberately taking no notice of something, the stars being in the position they are!

I will be patient and I am sure to find someone more helpful at the reference desk who can accept the basic principles of How to answer a question, including the following steps: Be thorough, Be concise, not terse, Provide links, Be polite, The reference desk is not a soapbox!

By the way the elephant logo of the GOP takes on the look of the Flag of the United States and out of respect for the Flag of the United States the Union shall never be displayed upside down. US Code Title 4 Section 8(a). Flsaisalie 03:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question, I think I have some evidence here on my desk, underneath the papers on the Kennedy assassination and Truman's defence for dropping an atomic bomb on civilians, twice. Here it is! Apparently, Thomas Jefferson left a bookmark in his library in a little read book, about leftwing ethics. It says that pentagrams are used for .. Aaargh! (omg I just passed away. Avenge me!) DDB 03:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Being patient. In the mean time i may get better help at dunkin doughnuts. Flsaisalie 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have made it very clear that you consider all those who don't blindly agree with your agument ignorant fools. However, you never asked what you now imply that you did ask: "Is there a meaning to the downward pointing stars on the GOP logo?" If you had asked that question, you may have received an answer. Instead, you went on a rant that everyone who dares disagree with you is ignorant.

Answering the question you did not ask: A downward 5-pointed star is commonly called an Eastern Star. It is a common symbol for many organizations, such as the Order of the Eastern Star. It is a religious symbol, commonly used to represent the Star of Bethlehem. Instead of pointing to God in Heaven, it points to the Son of God on Earth. To distance themselves from Christianity, some claim the downard point is pointing westward - which has was the direction of destiny for Europeaners and early Americans because it was the undiscovered land (see Manifest Destiny). As such, it has been a star of royalty and military for a very long time. There are many military badges and ribbons that feature a downward 5-pointed star. Returning to religion, the downward 5-pointed star with a crescent is a common symbol in Islam.

So, with all the alternative symbolism of a downward 5-pointed star, is it really ignorant to assume that your theory of converting a star into a pentagram and then assuming the pentagram has some hidden meaning is rather far fetched? --Kainaw 04:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct answer in your case could have been simply either: A) I do not know and here is some of my own "original research" or B) I do not have a source for a correct answer,

Please re-read >> How to answer a question << above. Maybe if seasoned Misplaced Pages members followed the rules then the new guys would follow their lead. You are setting bad standards for the site.

At this point we have all visited five-pointed stars where it leaves us still wondering and I would hope we are not using an eastern star as a political party logo that symbolized the Flag of the United States.

Answering appropriately would be more respectful on an issue concerning a SACRED symbolization in this a case a logo that represents the United States Flag in an improper way, showing the Union UPSIDE DOWN and is potentially illegal under US Code Title 4 Section 8(a). Flsaisalie 06:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure an upside-down star -> upside-down flag? I do agree that perhaps WP:AGF should be observed on your part. Your tone seems to discourage others from openly contributing to your question. Splintercellguy 11:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the pentagram is given mystical occult significance by many, regardless of whether it points up or down. However, the mid-19th-century French occult author Eliphas Levi invented the rule that a pentagram pointing up supposedly symbolizes white magic, while a pentagram pointing down supposedly symbolizes black magic. But nobody has ever paid much attention to that with respect to the U.S. flag -- if you look at many 19th-century flags, the stars are pointing semi-randomly in all directions. AnonMoos 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This exchange is getting silly, but I cannot resist pointing out that, if you want to know WHY a particular organization changed its logo recently, you would probably get the best results by contacting that organization directly. Logos are updated regularly in many organizations; there is always some sort of organizational process by which such things are done; such things are part of that organization's internal history, and they might be willing to answer your question if they think your request is genuine. My advice: write the GOP, and ask ONLY the question, without offering a theory first. Jfarber 15:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful information. I will explore for more information. I sympathize for any hurt feelings.

I do not take ownership in the Grand Old Party page but feel perplexed as to why they do not provide more detailed historical information on logos used in the past.

I did not write the U.S. Code Title 4, please do not blame me. It clearly has strict regulation for the use of Flags or the like in advertising etc. and for when the Union is allowed to be upside down (all stars upside down). I will suggest the Flag of the United States page show some flags where the union or (all stars) appear upside down, as all flags on the Flag of the United States page show the Union in the typical upright position on each flag. AnonMoos or anyone with links to sites where this is available would be appreciated. Please note that I have seen the flag where there are 5 pointed stars in many different positions of rotation but have not found any that show them all pointing down.

If you are interested you can read more of why this is relevant as listed on the Timeline of the Flag of the United States page, see: (1897 Adoption of State Flag Desecration Statutes). Flsaisalie 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect in interpreting US Code Title 4 as applying here. The relevant section of the US Code states that the code only applies if "the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America." I think the operative word here is represent. Although surely we are expected to see that symbol as related to the flag, I do not see that symbol as representing the US flag, and do not think that the average person would believe so either, because the US flag is not shaped like an elephant.

Image:Republicanlogo.svgAs for your original question: look at the logo. Currently, the horizontal lines created by the stars very effectively reinforce the design element of the dividing line between the blue and red fields; if we reversed the stars, this would not be as effective visually. Similarly, note how the star points along the inner edges of the elephant follow the curve of the elephant's upper hemisphere, making for nice design all around. Putting the flags point up would make them stick out into the edge of the elephant, ruining the visual effect.

Artistically, in other words, the logo would look cramped and weird if we put the stars the other way. You are welcome to believe any theory you like for this, but Occam's razor suggests that sheer design elegance, rather than any conspiracy theory, would be the most likely reason for using stars which point downwards. Jfarber 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jfarber Nice try but your theory is full of galactic size holes. Are you relying on using outsourced workers in some other country or are you relying on illegal workers for your advice? Flsaisalie 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page trying to find out about recently inverted stars on the Republican elephant, as a way to shed light on the inverted stars on the flag Hillary used in NH. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=21760 I have to think Hillary's flag was a mistake, as it is the only flag or flag image I have been able to find anywhere with inverted stars.

I could not find inverted Star of Bethlehem images except on the Freemason spinoff Order of the Eastern Star site referenced above. The other Star of Bethlehem images were mostly not 5-point stars, and none of the 5-point stars were pointing straight down. They either pointed up, or down at an angle. The Islamic crescent moon and star images I found were the same way and did not point straight down.

I suppose it is possible the inverted stars on the elephant (since Bush took office?) are a result of a graphic artist's redesign of the logo, and Hillary used a cheap imported flag in NH, but they look bad and do not match the American flag or any other star except the Order of the Eastern Star symbol. I guess I should ask the Clinton campaign and the GOP for explanations, but I wish I had found it on Wiki.

Putting aside all the venomous and polemic rhetoric, what is the real answer to the upside down stars? Why has nobody bothered to explain this realistically? Btw, the Medal of Honor is the same also... I don't think it has anything to do with satanism or any such conspiracy, but I am very curious - what is the REAL REASON FOR THIS?? --Topk (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Venture Capital Firms

I am looking for a list of Venture Capital Firms in Canada. Would a reference desk volunteer kinldy write the list below this question? Thank you. --Parker007 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of members of Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association. Feel free to copy the list. There may be some venture capital firms that are not members of this organization, but finding them would require considerable research. If you need a more thorough list, consider hiring a market research firm. You can find one here. Marco polo 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is another way to research companies by industry. Marco polo 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird enclave along NI/IR border

If you'd care to glance at this google map showing a small section of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, you'll see there's a very small enclave of County Cavan, part of the Republic, that's almost totally encircled by County Fermanagh in the Province. I'm curious as to why the Boundary Commission (Ireland) chose to do this. Now I do realise that boundaries (particularly contested ones, such as this) are often drawn where they are for a variety of mad reasons, but I can't see (from maps) why this particular little area should be the way it is. The border doesn't seem to follow any particular physical feature, roads and watercourses travel through it (crossing the border several times) in a way that seems unrelated to the border, and there's no sign (on Google's landsat photo) of any significant population centre (or anyone at all) around whose homes such a border might have been gerrymandered. There's no mention of this salient in the article of Clones, the nearest town, nor in the respective articles of the two counties concerned. There's no joy from the OS map either. So, does anyone know what this special little area is, and why the border takes such a (seemingly mad) detour? Darryl Revok 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One possible explanation:

South Ulster also has a distinctive drumlin topography—a wide belt of hummocky hills, small lakes and boggy hollows—stretching from County Down to the Atlantic coast of Sligo and Donegal, causing particular distortion on the borders of Cavan, Monaghan and Fermanagh, where it opens into larger lakes and gives this county the appearance of a water wonderland. It makes for difficult access and has been a cultural and defensive barrier since prehistoric times. These drumlins defined such 'border' areas for many centuries before political units emerged. Elliott, Marianne (2001). The Catholics of Ulster: A History. pp. xl-xli.

—eric 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cavan was one of the counties created during the reign of Elizabeth I. The Boundary Commission, as far as I am aware, made no alterations to the historic borders, merely detached six northern counties, part of the ancient province of Ulster, from the rest of Ireland. Clio the Muse 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a portion of an OS 1:50000 topo covering the area of interest (sorry about the crappy little map viewer, is there any better place to get ordnance survey maps?). The boundary does appear to follow topo lines, and interestingly, the legend tells us the star symbols in the northern part of the enclave (near Corvaghan and Clonkeelan) are "visible earthworks".—eric 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it looks like everyone's answer above is correct. The border appears to zigzag through the boggy ground between the drumlins, on each of which is just one or two farms. I guess this enclave must have been the property of some individual toff who managed (for whatever reason) to persuade Elizabeth's surveyor-of-county-boundaries that he should be in Cavan not Fermanagh. It's a shame articles like Extreme points of Ireland don't have a "narrowest place", as I figure the neck of the salient can't be much more than 250m wide. Thanks everyone for your help. Darryl Revok 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The piece of land that you have identified is actually part of County Monaghan, not Cavan. Why it is not part of Fermanagh, though, I do not know. Marco polo 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

tape recording protocol or admissability

I am seeking written opinions or legislation on the admissability of tape recorded conversations, the specifics on when a recording would be acceptable as evidence....does this exist? Example, two parties, one is recording and voice is recorded and the other party is not aware of recording. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparky1950 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages cannot give a legal opinion on the admissibility of evidence.--Wetman 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Wetman is correct, but we can certainly help you begin to research such issues on your own -- that's the whole point of a reference desk.

If you'd like to do so, you might find our article on Wiretapping a good place to start, whether or not you're asking specifically about conversations recorded over the phone; the privacy laws which cover wiretapping are not exactly the same as privacy laws which cover in-person or "hidden camera" taping, but the assumption of privacy -- and the resulting illegality of most such taping, regardless of the medium or environment in place -- is often similar. Of course, things differ by country and regime, too. In short, though: with some notable exceptions, and in most places, if it would have been reasonable to assume that you are NOT being taped, usually, taping done without a warrant is not admissible. But note that I'm hedging -- I have no way of knowing if this applies to your case, and could not help even if I did, because IANAL... Jfarber 03:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

March 10

What is the legal status of a school?

Can it claim copyright or trademark over its logo, mission slogan and other identifying marks? Can it sue for defamation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.189.62.203 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it would very much depend on any relevant national, state or local laws. These are the things that would create the legal status of the school. Which country are you interested in? JackofOz 02:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In the US, at least, it's also going to depend very much on whether the school is public or private -- most US public schools are legally just part of a school district; its usually at the district level where the school board and superintendent exist for oversight purposes, and where they make the legal decisions. Jfarber 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the public or private status of the institution bears any relevance. In pretty much every country I'm aware of, the state possesses the same capacity to enjoy intellectual property rights as any private person. Just try to start up a private courier business called "US Postal Service" and you'll get first hand experience of the IP rights the state possesses. Loomis 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my point, Loomis. I don't know if the public or private status of a school affects the possibility that its logo can be copyrighted; I suspect, as you point out, that any logo can be copyrighted. But that was not my point -- my point was that, in the US, the private school is most often a legal entity itself, while a public school is not -- it is instead a part of the legal entity of the district. This matters, because the question is about both possibility (can a logo be copyrighted) AND about agency (can a school DO that). You seem to have confused my comment as being about one of these; it was about the other.

Remember, the heading here is what is the legal status of a school? Having taught at both over my time in education, I can assure you that the private/public distinction affects legal status significantly. For example, were a private school to want to copyright its logo, it could do so, because private schools are distinct, incorporated legal entities. But public schools are not -- the board that oversees their incorporation exists at the level of the district. Were a public school to want to try to copyright its logo, it would be the district, NOT the school, which obtained, and susequently owned rights to, that copyright.

Since the question is "can a SCHOOL do that," in most US public education, the answer is, technically, NO -- the school can only ask the district to do so on its behalf. The follow-up question is relevant here, too -- public schools can not sue; their districts may be able to, depending on what status they are given by the state and the local school board; their school boards certainly can. Jfarber 14:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My response seems to have upset you quite a bit, Jfarber. I had no intention of doing that. Of course everything you said is true. The only point I'd make is that questions are not always phrased as precisely as they could be. Nothing wrong with that, nobody's perfect. So in attempting to answer questions as effectively as possible, occasionally one is required to look beyond the literal words of the question to figure out exactly what the questioner is most likely asking. In this case, I'm almost certain that the crux of the OP's question was whether a school, be it directly or indirectly, has the capacity to possess and defend intellectual property. The answer to that question in an unqualified yes. If one were to ask you: "What is the capitol of the United States?" Would you reply in only the most literal of senses? "Why, the capitol of the United States is that dome shaped building where Congress meets!" Loomis 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Upset? Not at all. I just disagree that what you think is trivial is, after all, trivial...and perhaps reacted strongly to being told that the information I offered, which was, after all, true and accurate and actually an answer to the question asked, was trivial. Who are you to say that the querent didn't need to know this? Since we do not know why the querent needs the answer, it may indeed be relevant. For example, the individual may be a student who has been threatened by a principal, and we have no idea if the school board would back up the principal in this case. More importantly, it is not important to answer the question asked wherever possible, and ALSO add what one thinks the querent truly desires to know, rather than dismiss the literal question wholesale? This, at least, seems to be the standard I've seen here so far. And my years at realworld reference desks has suggested the same.

As for the totally unparallel comparison: I'd assume a spelling error. I am, after all, a middle school teacher. And the literal answer for the capitol/capital question would be meanspirited, while providing accurate information about the fact that some kinds of schools have the same legal existence as the HR department of a company is only, in the worst of cases, useless.  :-) Jfarber 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI the Postal Service is a special case, because it's not the same kind of agency as other state organs. While it was created and is more or less controlled by the state, it functions like a private corporation with respect to intellectual property. Compare that to a 'real' government agency like, say, the Department of Transportation, which in most cases is not allowed to own intellectual property like copyrights and trade marks. This is the reason Misplaced Pages is allowed to use most government logos and publications without permission — it's all considered public-domain. The Postal Service is different; it actually had to trade-mark its logo, just like any other business would.

Most exceptions to this rule are instituted by separate legislation (e.g., you could kind of consider the FBI logo 'trade-marked', but they didn't have to actually go and submit the paper work like a regular organisation would — they're given a mandate over its use by law.) ~ lav-chan @ 12:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What book was written without the vowel "a"?

I remember vaguely hearing that there was a book, written in French at least 100 years ago I believe, which never once used the vowel "a" anywhere inside it. Interestingly, it was also supposedly translated into English without the use of the same letter. A Google search returns nothing of any use, and I found nothing on-Wiki. Anybody in-the-know recognize this bit of trivia? thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 07:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Could this possibly be A Void by Georges Perec? There are, however, two things wrong with this suggestion: the missing vowel is 'e' not 'a', and it was published in 1969, not a hundred years ago. Clio the Muse 08:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My favorite bit is the e-less version of Poe's The Raven poem, or as the book would have it "That Black Bird". Amazing to think an e-less book in French was successfully translated into an e-less book in English. Pfly 09:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Into Swedish, as well... Thank God for translators who could endure such a task... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is almost certainly said novel, known as La disparition (the disappearance) in French. The Jade Knight 11:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean Gadsby by Ernest Vincent Wright—it is 50,000 words in length and does not contain the letter 'e'? See also lipogram. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall James Joyce wrote a child's story entirely without punctuation.DDB 10:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

...perhaps intended as a primer for eventually tackling Finnegan's Wake Finnegans Wake  ?  :-o -- Deborahjay 10:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be Finnegans Wake without the apostrophe Twas Now 10 March 2007 1955 UTC

Indeed; there I go adding punctuation where the author omitted it. My bad. -- Deborahjay 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Deborahjay, have a go at Penelope, part eighteen of Ulysses. It might enable me to read it and draw breath at the same time! Clio the Muse 21:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Holiday Sweater -- origin

What is the origin of the holiday sweater and its history? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.196.107.128 (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Is there a difference between a holiday sweater and the everyday kind? Do sweaters have a history? I suppose they must, at least the Aran sweater does. I was once told a story by an old fisherman from the Shetlands that sweater patterns, like tartan, had a distinctly local significance, enabling the identification of those drowned at sea. Not very plausible, I know, but a nice tall tale anyway! Clio the Muse 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There definitely is a difference. Holiday sweaters contain a (sometimes cheesy) Christmas or New Year's related design. Patterns for holiday sweaters can be found dating from as far back as the turn of the century, but they only became common after the Second World War - before that time women didn't wear patterned sweaters at all (before ca. 1918 women rarely wore sweaters except as jackets/coats) and men who wore sweaters generally wore either traditional patterns or plain sweaters. Before 1945 most people couldn't afford a special sweater just for one season, either - most people had two or three changes of clothing at most. Knitters spent most of their time on socks, mitts, and other necessary cold-weather accessories.

What happened after the Second World War is that the wool manufacturing industry had to find a way to sell wool. Manufacturers had built huge factories for carding and sorting wool and producing fibers in order to fill the demand for uniform cloth during the war, but the larger wardrobes being purchased by returning veterans and their families contained a lot of items made of the new synthetic fabrics. So as not to take a huge loss on the facilities built during the war, manufacturers retooled to a small extent and started producing much larger amounts of yarn than they previously had. In order to sell this, they promoted sweaters as a fashion statement and prompted the development of commercial knitting facilities. They also produced thousands of pattern books for the home knitter and crocheter. These pattern books proliferated and things like holiday sweaters, novelty socks, crocheted toilet roll covers (anybody remember those at Grandma's house?) and even 'peter heaters' (I kid you not; my mother, may she rest in peace, had a pattern. And yes, it had sizes S-M-L-XL.) Basically, if you could knit it there was a pattern for it. It was in this flurry of knitting frenzy that the holiday sweater became an entrenched part of the Anglo-American holiday period. Later on in the 70s when hand knitting became 'old-fashioned' and 'fuddy-duddy', it became more common to buy the holiday sweater. Nowadays it's all back.

Source: my mother's 363460989843 knitting books. --Charlene 09:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The holiday concerned was Christmas, btw. The first Christmas sweater I ever saw, ca. 1954, had white snowflake designs on dark red and a frieze of reindeer across the chest.--Wetman 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for that clarification! The 'holiday sweater' is not a tradition we have in England-thankfully-hence my bemusement. Clio the Muse 10:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What of Ron Weasley's annual Christmas jumper? Added for American audiences?? I had assumed that England shared the tradition of hideous sweaters at Yuletide. - Nunh-huh 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As with everything in Britain, it depends on class. My mother's working class parents used to knit 'holiday' sweaters (though we would not use this term). And Ron Weasley's family defines this sort of class (though technically his father is not, but is considered 'above his station' and is which is the subject of amusement and derision).

I think the practice has died out a bit, Knitting, and certainly knitting machines, kind of died out after the 70s/early-80s. 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, I move in the wrong social circles: I have never seen a 'holiday' or a Christmas sweater! Clio the Muse 10:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They were made by the same sort of grandmothers who used to knit children's clothes. Possibly because it was cheaper. Now, of course, the price of buying wool and a knitting machine places the cost higher than buying some import from China.

Thinking about it now, I don't think they were 'holiday sweaters', i.e. had fluffy reindeer on or something, just normal knitted jumpers given at Christmas as a present. 194.80.193.188 11:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the practice may have died out "a bit", but in the US, at least, as regular readers of BoingBoing know, knitting is coming back in style. Granted, it's coming back as a kind of activity geared towards a younger generation, the type prone to knit vibrator cozies more than sweaters...but that only brings a new, previously untapped potential to the concept of the handknitted holiday gift, eh? Oh, and just to make sure folks know the old-school holiday sweater set isn't gone yet, my mother-in-law, not even 65 yet, still makes each of our children a sweater at the holidays. Jfarber 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles X And Louis-Philippe

How does one explain the dynastic rivalries between the Bourbon and Orleans branches of French Monarchy ?

Philippe Égalité, duke of Orleans and father of Louis-Philippe, was the famous leader of all the freemasons during the Revolution. He helped bring down the the catholic King, Louis XVI.

Does this mean that monarchists can be equally liberal or conservative ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.225.122 (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, but not 'equally." --Wetman 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The political ambition of the house of Orléans is hardly surprising, given how close it was to the centre of power, merely duplicating a pattern that can be found everywhere in the history of monarchy. During the minority of Louis XV Philippe, the second duke of Bourboun-Orléans, the father of Philippe Égalité, achieved a position of unparalleled power, establishing his dynasty as a permanent rival-and alternative-to their royal cousins. Philippe Égalité was intelligent enough to recognize the trend of the times, and was quick to identify himself with the liberal opposition to Louis XVI in both the 1787 Assembly of Notables and the Parlement of Paris. Too much can be made, however, of his alleged royal ambitions. The court itself was blinded to the reality of the political crisis of 1789, seeing the popular movement as little more than a cover for Orléanist scheming. There is no evidence that Philippe in any way connived at the downfall of Louis. And despite his role in the National Assembly he gradually retreated into the political background, making no attempt to gain advantage after the king's flight to Varennes. Philippe drifted with events: he did not control them. And, yes, nineteenth century monarchs had a choice between the politics of reaction and the politics of progress. Taking one path destroyed the monarchy of Charles X; taking the other finally brought the Orléanists to the throne, in the shape of the unprepossessing, and pear-like, King Louis-Philippe, son of Égalité. Clio the Muse 20:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this question earlier and thought to myself, now this is a question for Clio. I was not wrong. Marco polo 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thank you, sir, for your confidence in me! Clio the Muse 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the Historical Success of Peace Activism and Oppositional Politics

When Hannibal was approaching Rome, the Roman population united against the enemy. The WW1 Russian front suffered from divisive home politics until the 1917 revolution. What are some historical examples of successful oppositional politics (or peace activism)? Failures are also welcome ;) DDB 11:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you mean but how about too cool words satyagraha and anschluss. meltBanana 16:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Antiwar protests and public sentiment against the Vietnam War were reputed to have hastened the end of America's military engagement there. -- Deborahjay 20:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other side of the coin, the British and American peace movements of the 1930's actually hampered the efforts of their respective governments to confront Hitler early on enough to avert the unprecedented horrors of WWII. I'd consider that one a "failure" of rather immense proportions! Loomis 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You can understand the British population of the day finding another round superfluous, having just lost a generation to the "war to end all wars". I think the greatest achievement of the "peace movement" (whatever that is (e.g., does a partisan hawk who used to spend time renaming French Fries but now caucuses with Dennis Kucinich on ending the present adventure count?)) is in making wars marginally more humane. I believe that without the dovish side of the political spectrum, and in particular now that there's no risk of an unforeseen escalation, that in a bloody and tiresome situation like Iraq nations would be open to using chemical weapons, or worse. --TotoBaggins 05:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

DDB, I'm not quite sure how to tackle your question which I find, please forgive me for saying so, far too broad and ambitious in scope. There are just too many examples of 'oppositional politics' in both peace and war for me to construct an adequate-and meaningful-answer. However, I will mention two examples in passing: the Revolution of 1905, born out of failure in war, and the Easter Rising, a failed attempt at revolution in Ireland. Clio the Muse 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Muse, it isn't a soapbox question, it asks for examples, not the justifications, but there are interesting things that get thrown up. One example might be the US Pacific WW2 effort, where the US President deprived MacArthur of supplies, capitalising politically over pacific failure. The Russian loss to a Japanese fleet in 1905 might have been related to morale. I like the responses I see. DDB 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Just to clarify, I asked it because I know you've a lot to say .. I think you should treat it as a gimme for a fave. DDB 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, DDB; I think I understand! Anyway, unsuccessful peace movements range in the modern period from the Copperheads at the time of the American Civil War to the more recent Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the United Kingdom. Related to the latter, both in spirit and practice, was the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp, which unsuccessfully challenged the introduction of cruise missiles into England. In Nazi Germany there is the sad example of the White Rose and the wonderful Sophie Scholl, for whom the sun will shine forever. And we should not forget to mention, in the context of peace movements, both successful and unsuccessful, George Fox and the Quakers. In the Middle East there is Combatants for Peace and Peace Now. In the US the War Resisters League was set up in the wake of the Great War and is still active, as is the London-based War Resisters' International. During the Second Boer War, at the high noon of British imperialism, there was a Stop the War Committee. Prominent opponents of the war included none other than David Lloyd George, who later led England to victory in an even greater conflict. In the period from 1939 to 1941 the war effort was opposed by the Communist Party of Great Britain, on the grounds that it was a struggle between two sets of imperialism in which the workers had no interest. It rapidly changed its mind when Hitler crossed the Soviet border. I could go on like this, but it might just get a shade too long and a tad too tedious! But if you would like any clarification on any of these points, DDB, just let me know. Clio the Muse 09:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the successful efforts of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to get the British to withdraw from India. 02:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another success of the peace movement has been in efforts to ban anti-personnel mines. --TotoBaggins 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, how about the peaceful end to the Cold War? That's certainly not how the Curtis Lemays of the world wanted it to go down. --TotoBaggins 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

fiction after 1950

Enlist the characteristics of fictions between 1950 and 2000, with adequate references to the major authors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.195.188 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Sounds like a homework question, which we do not and will not answer for you. This question is also far too broad to be answered well without a substantial essay, even if we could stick to one type of fiction, or one region -- the characteristics of fiction have been significantly different in, say, African and the US in those time periods! -- so I wonder if you're missing some important context, like whether this is for a class on, say, modern European literature.

Still, depending on what you need, you might find Fiction a good place to start, as it has an "elements of fictions" section. If you're looking instead to start with the characteristics of fiction writing and narrative, Postmodern literature seems to be at the beginning of your time frame, though it is certainly not the only major movement in writing during your overall time frame. Jfarber 14:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the (rather short and not well referenced) articles on literary fiction and "death of the novel" might be of interest to you. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for a list of every fictional character created between 1950 and 2000? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ehm, I think User:59.93.195.188 was asking for characteristics, not characters. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; this is impossibly ambitious. You are surely not looking for insight into all post-war fiction, which follows too many paths to mention outwith a doctoral thesis? If you try to be a little more precise I might be able to help. Clio the Muse 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that this is not a homework question, because "enlist" is the wrong word. Presumably the person who wrote the question meant "list". The question is actually too broad even for a doctoral dissertation. Marco polo 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I had originally written "doctoral thesis" instead of "substantial essay", but I decided that was too harsh. Glad to see I was wrong. Jfarber 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

scottish painter DY Cameron

Did David Young Cameron ever sign his paintings "D Cameron" (without the 'Y')?Rcbeattie 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)RCBeattie

D.Cameron could possibly be the painter Duncan Cameron (1837-1916) --HJMG 12:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

USSR Question

Greetings,

I am writing a fictional essay, and I need the name of a USSR leader during the Cold War that would have used a new nuclear device on: A. A city under the control of the USSR B. The USA

Also, who was prime minister of Great Britain at that time? This is not a homework question.

Fare thee well, Alexander the Great —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexanderTG (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Take your pick: List of leaders of the Soviet Union, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. (A fictional essay? Does that mean you're only going to pretend to write it?) Clarityfiend 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cold War lasted over 40 years, roughly from 1947-1991. Though I'm not 100% on this, I'm pretty sure Great Britain had more than one Prime Minister during that period. In fact, I believe there were quite a few, so I suppose you can choose for yourself among them which one you'd like to use for your essay. Good luck! Loomis 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The last link has been brought to you by the Redundant Department of Links That Are Duplicated Redundantly By This Department. Clarityfiend 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Was that meant for me? Ever hear of "edit conflict"? Loomis 00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(a) I was only funning. (b) an edit conflict for 14 minutes? Clarityfiend 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexander, you can have your pick of nine British prime ministers, all the way from Clement Attlee to Margaret Thatcher (the greatest of them all!). Soviet leaders resolve to three basic choices: Joseph Stalin, Nikita Krushchev and Leonid Breshnev, though you may also wish to consider Yuri Andropov. I find part of your question a little bewildering. Are you suggesting that a Russian leader would have ordered the bombing of a Russian city? Not one he happened to be living in at the time, one assumes? Not even Stalin was that mad or the Chernenko that senile! Clio the Muse 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is Major being excluded? Why are Malenkov and Gorbachev being excluded as well? Why is Chernenko first being overlooked, only to be apparently subsequently included? I admire Thatcher, but was she actually a greater leader than Churchill? Are you also saying that Stalin wasn't mad enough to be capable of murdering several million of his people?Oops. Sorry, I honestly didn't realize who I was responding to. Please feel free to continue completely ignoring any and all of my points, no matter how much sense they make, no matter how politely they're expressed, and no matter how successful they are in challenging yours. Loomis 00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalin seemed the most likely to order the deaths of millions of his own people for some political reason or the other. However, nuclear weapons are easy to detect when used, and he would have preferred to keep his genocide private. Most of the Russian leaders would have been willing to nuke the US, if they weren't afraid of retaliation. StuRat 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This nuclear weapon is a new one. They (the Soviets) would find it, test it on a peasant city and threaten to us it on the US. AlexanderTG 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalin acted or reacted?

About half a year ago I found something what I thought was wrong in the article on Stalin. I took it up for discussion on the talk question to that article, but so far no one has given any comments. How could I put some attention to that issue? I don't know whether I should paste my whole comment on this page as well. Basically I think that the article on Stalin in its current wording is wrong, since it claims that Stalin reacted on the Kirov's murder instead of being the one ordering this murder. This is a very important issue since Kirov's murder was used to justify a new wave of purges. --Smallchanges 20:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source that describes this important issue, you can then proceed and add such material to the article. You may want to become familiar with our policy of attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalin took the same kind of political advantage from Kirov's murder that Hitler did from the Reichstag fire: to achieve a complete hold on power. It seems likely that he was involved in the assassination of a man who was becoming a dangerous rival. But this contention has never been proved. If you have definite, and reliable, evidence on the matter I would love to see it. Clio the Muse 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you only want to add the statement that there were suspicions that Stalin was involved in the assassination, then you only need sources that indicate that such suspicions existed, you don't need to prove that the suspicions were correct. StuRat 02:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that Stalin was implicated in Kirov's murder already appears in the article in question, though the point is also made, quite correctly, that there is no conclusive proof in the matter. However, if you wish to amplify on the point, Smallchanges, there is some information that might be of use to you. Years after the event Krushchev, not always the most reliable source, I have to stress, made the specific claim that Stalin ordered the killing, although he produced nothing to back up his contention. However, Anastas Mikoyan, a close associate of Stalin, and with much less to prove than Krushchev, also came to believe in the truth of the story, though again he cited no evidence. It is unlikely that any paper trail will ever be found on the death of Kirov, but Stalin was known to gave verbal orders for other political killings. In the end it all comes down, I suppose, to the question posed by Cicero-Cui bono? -whose interest did the crime serve? The obvious answer, of course, is Stalin, who immediately blamed Zinoviev and his associates in the former Left Opposition. The texts you should draw on in this matter are Simon Sebag Montiefiore's superb Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, and Robert Service's Stalin, which musters all of the facts, though in a somewhat more pedestrian fashion. A word of warning, though: the Stalin page is something of a bear-pit, as you may have gathered from the talk page, subject to raids by political revisionists and ideological warriors. Best of luck! Clio the Muse 12:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Hip-Hop

Hi. can anyone recommend a good hip-hop or rap song? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.109.31.221 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

No, but I can link you to the billboard charts for hiphop. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a taste:

• "Sabotage" by Beastie Boys
• "Wamp Wamp (What It Do)" and "Hello New World" by Clipse
• "Propaganda" and "Hip-Hop" by the dead prez
• "Smithereens" by El-P
• "Diamonds from Sierra Leone" by Kanye West
• "One Mic" by Nas
• "All Caps" by Madvillain
• "Brooklyn" by Mos Def
• "Get By" by Talib Kweli

And check out the Nova Scotia musician Buck 65. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If limited to one answer, I'll recommend Critical Beatdown. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't dis my personal taste, but:

• "Rooster" by Outkast
• "Renegade" by Jay-Z/Eminem
• "Examination of what" by Digable Planets
• "Love is blind" by Eve
• "Watch out now" by Beatnuts

etc. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 00:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in the classics, I'd go for anything off De La Soul is Dead, point you towards the earlier works of A Tribe Called Quest, and second Digable Planets. Ghostface Killah is one of my favorite modern artists in the genre. Jfarber 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to second that recommendation for A Tribe Called Quest and De La Soul. Other artists and groups of possible interest include:

• Aesop Rock
• Cannibal Ox
• Jurassic 5
• Dr. Octagon
• The Roots
• Public Enemy
• Atmosphere
• Dälek
• Jungle Brothers
• Wu-Tang Clan
• Sage Francis

-- Chairman S. Talk 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sanctity of Life" in relation to Warfare

In preparation for a debate on the ethical conflict between the sanctity of life and service in military combat units, I'm seeking quotable material, pro and con, relating to the dilemmas involved in fighting (i.e., killing and being killed) to defend a democratic, humanistic way of life. Some of this is treated in the IDF Code of Ethics as cited in Purity of Arms; I'm looking for historical sources and examples outside of Israel as well. Clarification: The case is that of an individual draftee with a humanistic belief system faced with considering the option of joining a combat unit rather than seeking an explicitly noncombat position or even applying for conscientious objector status. Further clarification: This is about the army of a country in a state of war (i.e. Israel), not (as with the US army at present) sending its troops to defend the freedoms of others'. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there is the "greater good" argument. For example, isn't it better to kill a few thousand genocidal soldiers than to allow them to kill millions ? StuRat 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify a bit? In relation to warfare or to military service? The general or the personal? Pithy quotes to use in the debate or background references to support an argument?—eric 04:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Both of the latter would be helpful, on either side of the issue. Othewise, see the clarifications I've added to the initial query, above. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Since most wars are initiated not for national defense or for the amelioration of the sort of exceptional circumstance to which StuRat alluded, I think the practical ethical choice for someone who actually believes in the sanctity of life is to become a conscientious objector. You can always change your mind and join up if the Fourth Reich ever pops up. --TotoBaggins 05:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See "Further clarification" (above): the IDF, since the inception of the State, engages in national defense (though also sends troops to police its occupied territories, a matter for consideration though not for discussion here). Also, the belief systems is humanism; the "sanctity of life" as an ethical value a value in the code of ethics, applies not only to enemy soliders and civilians, but also to one's fellow citizens, soldiers, and oneself. -- Deborahjay 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that this is what you are looking for Deborahjay, it's not a contemporary example and it does not touch on the conflict between one's individual conscience and the greater need to defend a democratic way of life, but your questions immediately reminded me of the remarkable case of Franz Jäggerstätter, an ordinary little man, a farmer, who took a simple, and fatal, stand on the basis of his faith. Jäggerstätter, a committed Catholic, and a consciencious objector, single-handedly challenged the war-effort of the Nazi State, refusing to serve in the army. Although the church, in the person of the Bishop of Linz, tried to persuade him out of the position he had taken, pointing to the danger he was placing himself in, he refused to compromise, telling the bishop that the Nazis were on a train to Hell. He was beheaded for treason in August 1943. In one of his last letters he wrote: Just as the man who thinks only of this world does everything possible to make life here easier and better, so must we, who believe in the eternal Kingdom, risk everything in order to receive a great reward there. Just as those who believe in National Socialism tell themselves that their struggle is for survival, so must we, too, convince ourselves that the struggle is for the eternal Kingdom. But this is the difference: we need no rifles or pistols for our battle, but instead spiritual weapons-and the foremost among these is prayer. Gordon Zahn, an American sociologist later wrote about Jäggerstätter in his book, Solitary Witness, which influenced Daniel Ellsberg in his decision to make a stand against the war in Vietnam.

St. Augustine's arguments in defence of the just war continues, I suppose, to have universal relevance. For him the sole justification for war was, paradoxically, the defence of peace; A just war is wont to be descibed as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or a state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly...We do not seek peace in order to be at war , but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace. This position was later given some profane confirmation from Machiavelli, when he wrote: War is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no hope except in arms. There is so much additional information I could provide along these lines, but I grow more conscious that I am drawing too far away from your area of immediate concern. Clio the Muse 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, Clio, for the extensive treatment. I view the matter as one of ethical values as imparted by sociocultural channels such as the educational system and family, rather than "conscience" per se, so hadn't considered the relevance of discussion such as raised in formal "conscientious objection." I now see that page does have useful content for this debate. As for Jägerstätter

I can see the sanctity of life as related to humanism but not so well with democracy. Certainly there are worse political systems, but democracy is has its own problems, can and has resulted in violations of the sanctity of life. Not to dis democracy, but perhaps it is too often held up as a kind of platonic ideal, as if anything other than democracy is a negative thing. Sorry I don't have any quotes to provide. Pfly 10:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 11

US Prohibition and Religion

I was just curious, the text of the 18th Amendment prohibited the "...manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States..."

Were religious groups such as Catholics and Jews, who practice the drinking of wine for certain religious ceremonies, such as the Catholic Eucharist or the Jewish Passover Seder somehow provided with some sort of exemption? The words of the amendment seem black and white. I can't possibly see how a court could somehow interpret it in such a way as to provide an exception for religious ceremonies. But perhaps they did. Is anyone aware of the legal status of the drinking of wine for such ceremonies during prohibition?

In a similar vein, forgive me for my ignorance of Catholicism, but is the Eucharist meant to be practiced by the "underaged"? Do Catholics get around this somehow (either through strictly legal means, or perhaps just out of the fact that any decent cop would tend to "look the other way") or do they bow to those secular authorities restricting the drinking of the sacremental wine to adults above a certain age? Loomis 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a great question about the 18th amendement and its conflict with religious ritual. Looking forward to the answer.

As for the latter, I cannot answer for Catholics, but would mention that in all the Jewish rituals I've encountered, grape juice is offered as a stand-in for wine for the underaged in all but the most exceptional of once-in-a-lifetime ceremonies (The bar mitzvah ritual, for example, traditionally uses real wine, but juice is often served to the celebrant and his friends at the reception). Jfarber 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Although http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/inglis10.htm isn't as great a reference as I'd like to provide, its account of the Volstead Act matches well with my recollections -- that is, yes, there was an exemption for sacramental wine (though many congregations chose to go for grape juice in the spirit of prohibition...I admit, no source on this). I wish I had a resource handy that could be more authoritative. Your comment on the constitutional problem raised is a very apt one, but I suspect the First Amendment defended the exemption just as it now defends the use of peyote, for example.

As far as underage practices, I imagine it varies--in many Catholic parishes, it is rare for any parishioner to take the wine except on special feast-days (Holy Thursday, for example). In my Episcopalian parish, wine is served to any baptized communicant, including children, although many kids (and some adults) choose not to take the wine. The amount of wine consumed, especially when taking communion by intinction, is very small -- I'd guess not much more than is present in some cough medicines, but I have no statistics on that. Hope this helps, Jwrosenzweig 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been to a winery cum restaurant in downtown Los Angeles which says that it was allowed to stay open to produce wine for the Church during Prohibition. Corvus cornix 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cum restaurants?! California, you so crayyyy-zee! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, Latin cum is different than English cum... (Wait, that didn't turn out right...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez...I ask a question wherein I cite such holy sacraments as the Eucharist and somehow it degenerates into a comparative analysis of various varieties of cum. But by all means, don't stop! I'm only human, and I'm just as fascinated by the nasty side of life as anyone else! ;--) Loomis 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this sort of similar to that "Hitler" rule, whereby if carried on long enough, in just about any discussion on any topic, Hitler will invariably be mentioned at some point or another? :) Loomis 09:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to distract from these fabulous double entendres, but all of the Catholic churches I've been too water their wine down, I assume partially to save money and also because a devout Catholic is supposed to fast before Sunday service. So the "mouthful" of wine isn't even a mouthful. As far as Judaism goes, I also know that grape juice is considered acceptable for adults who can't drink wine (i.e. allergy, recovered alcoholics). Natalie 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The mixing of water & wine in the Catholic eucharist is based on its religious symbolism, rather than frugality. The wine used is generally quite inferior in the first place, so it's quite cheap to begin with, and the amount of water used generally is not enough to make a big difference in cost. - Nunh-huh 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that at least to a certain extent, even among law abiding citizens with the best of intentions, a certain, nominal amount of "underage drinking" is unavoidable, whatever the law states. For example, my drinking career began when I was merely eight days old! At a Jewish circumcision ceremony, a bris, it's traditional for the mohel to dip a small piece of cloth or a small bit of cotton in a tiny amount of liquour, and put it into infant's mouth to suck on, so as to sedate and to a certain degree anesthetize the poor little guy from the little bit of pain he's about to experience. Yes, I suppose the mohel that performed my circumcision may have been breaking the law by "serving liquour to the (very) underaged", but I'm not mentioning names! Loomis 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Typically it is not illegal in the U.S. for people under 21 to consume alcoholic beverages in the context of a religious ceremony. For example, see section 235 ILCS 5/6‑20 of the Illinois Liquor Control Act, which provides that it is legal for someone under 21 to consume an alcoholic beverage in the "performance of a religious service or ceremony." Obviously the law will be different in other places, but I would be surprised if there is any state in the union that does not have some similar provision. Crypticfirefly 03:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that parts of the Prohibition movement were motivated by anti-Catholicism. Some rather ignorant folks associated sacramental wine with drunkenness, and of course broader ethnic stereotypes, particularly about the Irish, played into this. One is reminded of the famous "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" slur, from the 1884 election.--Pharos 08:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

United states, a nation of swindlers

Who is the US historian whose thesis is that the US is a nation of swindlers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.190.86.19 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Personally, I haven't heard of the US being referred to as this. However, I know that Immanuel Kant referred to the Jews as a "nation of swindlers". -- Chairman S. Talk 08:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not one who wished to be treated seriously, that much is certain. Clio the Muse 10:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it was probably a lot more publicly accepted in 18th century Europe. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the context of Kant's statement: . -- Mwalcoff 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's Washington Irving, in A History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty, by Diedrich Knickerbocker. --Shirt58 11:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ps: I might have found an e-text of this, but it's taking ages to download, so I'll check again after I've done the dishes and tidied the kitchen.

Can't find those exact words in either volume 1 or volume 2. A Google of 'a nation or swindlers' first hit is an article in the online journal JSTOR containng that very phrase with reference to Washington Irvine, though... --Shirt58 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the JSTOR article, and it casually uses that phrase in a discussion of his work; it does not imply the phraseology is from his writings. Neither does the book use any variation of "swindle" or call Americans a "nation of" anything. I should point out that the book is not actually a history of New York, but a humorous mock-epic pseudohistory– which does though, deal with the theme of its heroes being swindlers.--Pharos 08:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in Walter A. McDougall's book Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828, which is revolves around "We remain, as we have been in most of our history, a nation of hustlers." ---Sluzzelin talk 13:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HoL Reform

As there are ongoing preparations (or consultations or whatever you want to call it) concerning the Reform of the House of Lords, I have the following question: Suppose, the House of Lords resists any legislation brought forward by the government (and supported by the Commons) which would change the composition of the HoL. What would happen then? On the one hand bills which are supported by the Commons can receive Royal Assent even with the Lords dissenting, on the other hand I (though vaguely) remember having read in Erskine May, that each house has absolute authority on matters of its composition or the election of its members. As far as I know, questions concerning the election of a MP respectively concerning the eligibility of a peer to sit in the HoL are still dealt with by committees of the respective house. To make it short: Has the HoL any power to veto a House of Lords Reform Bill based on its "right to decide on its composition itself" or am I somehow mistaken here? Thanks a lot (oh and by the way, if you find some, I'd appreciate references in your answer) --Mbimmler 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mbimmler, the Commons, in successive stages, through the course of the last century, determined both the powers and the composition of the Lords. The Lords' resistence to Lloyd George's 1909 Peoples Budget led directly to the introduction of the 1911 Parliament Act, which limited their powers in Money Bills, first and foremost, as well as other Public Bills. When the Lords attempted to resist this they were threatened with the creation of additional peers, and sensibly gave way. The Parliament Act of 1949 reduced their powers still further; and their composition was altered by the Life Peerages Act of 1958. Finally, the House of Lords Act of 1999 limited the hereditary peers in the house to 92, and they are now exceeded in number by the life peers. Erskine May forms a great cornerstone of the British Constitution; but that very Constitution, as I am sure you are aware, is one of the most fluid and malleable in the world. You will find more specific details on the decline and fall of the House of Lords here . You might also be interested in Unfinished Business: Reforming the House of Lords by Ivor Richard and Damien Welfare. Clio the Muse 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this was enlightening. --Mbimmler 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the disadvantages to consumers on impact marketing?

Everywhere i look, its always internet marketing and advantages of it. I need to know about the disadvantages on consumers on impact marketing on a broader scope, not just internet marketing. This is very frustrating...Please help me by pointing me in the right direction.

Moonshine in Canada

What is the legal status of privately distilled spirits in Canada? Is it covered in the Criminal Code of Canada? I'm fairly sure it is illegal but I'm not sure if its one for the cops or one for the revenooers. Lowerarchy 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all crimes are covered in the Criminal Code. With regard to moonshine, you'd have far better luck looking to the Food and Drugs Act, and in particular, its regulations. (BTW, what's a "revenooer"?) Loomis 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BATF -- AnonMoos 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BATF? The question was about Canada. To my knowledge we haven't become the 51st state just yet. Loomis 09:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You wanted to know what a "revenooer" was (as distinct from local law enforcement personnel). AnonMoos 15:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a revenooer is moonshiner lingo for an IRS employee. I was trying to get into the spirit of things. Lowerarchy 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it's Revenue Canada that plays the same role as the American IRS. Still, the IRS and the BATF are two completely different organizations. I'm lost. I think I'll just quit now while I'm ahead. Loomis 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

the chimes of normandy france

i would like to how to find the history on the chimes if any one can help thanks

There are many churches in Normandy with sets of bells: see also carillon. --Wetman 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Les Cloches de Corneville is an operetta Englished as The Chimes of Normandy. According to French Misplaced Pages, the plot was inspired by a legend of the bells of Corneville-sur-Risle in Haute-Normandie. A page with more information recounts: during the 100 Years War, the English pillaged the abbey of Corneville; they loaded the town's bells onto a boat on the Risle in order to expropriate them; the boat capsized, and the monks recovered all but one of their bells; but the missing bell can miraculously be heard answering the others. One more odd tidbit: the Russians gave Corneville a bell dedicated to peace among peoples, recently declared a historical monument & now part of the carillon at a country inn with a charming restaurant. Not sure where any connection to that old abbey leaves off & the tourist trap tale begins... Wareh 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions about USA

I am Ranga from India. I dont have any uncle or brother in USA and hence asking this question directly to you. 1)Are all TV channels available in all cable companies & satellite companies in USA? Or is there any exclusivity there? For example, can I watch any national channel available in Comcast or is there any channel which I cannot watch in Comcast but can watch in Time warner cable? Is there any Disney or NBC channel (company specified just for example) which I can see exclusively in DirecTV but cannot see anywhere in comcast or DishTv? 2)Is there exclusivity in content? For example, is there any song I can hear in XM and cannot hear in Sirius? Is there any song I can hear on MTV and cannot on Channel V?

Thanks, Ranga

There are a few exclusivity deals here and there, but not for major networks, who want to reach as many people as they can to attract more advertising revenue. Some providers do have exclusive services, like DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket (though I don't see too many non-Americans being interested in that), and on occasion, a provider will opt not to carry a certain channel over cost/licensing issues, but usually they get hammered out, as it can be bad for both sides. For the most part, they should not have any problem getting all or almost all of the major channels & networks through one provider or another. On the music side of things, usually there aren't any exclusive deals, as much as first-play deals, where MTV or another network will be the first to show a certain artist's video/play their single, I would imagine there have been a few exclusive tracks/titles here and there, but it's not very prevalent. Cyraan 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also "packages" with several levels of cost, so that you can buy a "basic cable" package which will probably carry ESPN and USA Network, but you would have to pay extra for, for example, The Food Network. And then HBO, Cinemax, etc. have their own packages. There are also certain networks which are only available on digital cable, so unless you have a digital converter, you can't see them at all. Corvus cornix 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. In general, television companies (whether cable or satellite) pay third parties to carry their television channels. Most (and by that i mean almost all) companies have a standard selection of maybe thirty to sixty of the most popular channels (like CNN, Discovery, and Cartoon Network, to name just a few). You will almost always have these thirty to sixty channels available with any given provider.

Some carriers do run more 'niche' channels, and due to the lower appeal some of these channels are carried by only a few providers (or even just one). For example, DISH Network carries a channel called Free Speech TV, but DirecTV does not. This is pretty much just a matter of DirecTV's preference; it's not 'exclusive' in the sense that there's some kind of contract preventing DirecTV from carrying it. Also, some of the more specialty channels (like Boomerang) may only be available with one of a carrier's more expensive packages, and this also is determined more or less by preference. As an example, Mediacom carries CourtTV as part of their basic package (at least in Iowa), but as of this year that same channel is only available in the 'premium' package on DISH Network.

Lastly there are some channels which are actually 'exclusive' by design. Satellite companies all have their own in-house channels that are only available with their service. DirecTV and DISH both have channels advertising their own services, and naturally DISH wouldn't carry a channel designed to advertise DirecTV products, so that's definitely a DirecTV 'exclusive'. DirecTV also has a channel called 'The 101' which is used to air free concerts and stuff like that. Mediacom in my area carries a channel called 'Mediacom Mainstreet', which is used to show-case local realty offerings and the like.

Also see the NFL Network. The NFL is demanding huge fees to carry the channel, and Time Warner Cable has refused to pay up. -- Mwalcoff 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

2. As for the music question, it depends. Sirius or MTV or whoever may get the rights to air a concert or something, in which case you could consider that concert exclusive. But in general it would not be especially useful for an artist to limit his songs to one carrier (since it would diminish his visibility). Sirius and XM definitely do have exclusive channels, though. ~ lav-chan @ 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't all copyrighted music in the U.S. under ASCAP or BMI? Wouldn't that allow any radio station to play any song so long as they pay the rights fees? -- Mwalcoff 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's obviously two completely separate questions, and the second sort of depends on the first. The answer to the first question is of course no; i could write a song right now and it'd be automatically copyrighted, but it would not be covered by the ASCAP or BMI. Most popular music probably is, though. That in mind, it's hard to answer the second question. Do authors (or labels) choose to register all their tracks with those organisations, or just their singles? I would assume all of them (because even songs that aren't broad-cast on the radio need royalties paid on them if they're used for something else), but maybe not. If the answer to that question is yes, then maybe the copyright holder can choose not to grant a licence to a station for certain songs. And if the answer to the question is no, then obviously the station couldn't play the song without special permission anyway. I dunno. ~ lav-chan @ 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Google

How do Americans like Google? What ever your answer may be, tell me why. -Ranga.

Hi, Ranga! Though ordinarily the reference desks are for questions of fact, the second part of your sentence makes it sound like you're asking our opinions. I'm sure there are enough Americans here that you could at least find out what a few posters to the Misplaced Pages Reference Desks think of Google, though I'd point out that this is NOT a random sample of Americans -- most average americans don't spend their time answering questions here. That said, for what it's worth, here's my opinions/experience:

1. When used effectively, thoughtfully, and wisely, I find Google to be comprehensive, relatively intuitive, and exceptionally powerful. I think the Google interface is elegant and ergonomic, and the simplicity of presentation is much more effective than, say, MSN or AOL's search tools. Their advanced functions seem to cover what I would otherwise want to use Boolean language for. Their results are presented usefully, with the information I'd actually want to know, and in ways that most often allow me to decide if a link is worth pursuing. Notably, I teach information literacy (including how to make the most of tools like Google); I have graduate work and teaching experience in searching and researching; I AM an expert in this, and I use Google. That said...

2. Like all tools, Google is only as effective if it is used well. MOST users would get a lot more out of Google (and out of knowing when NOT to use a search engine) if they had some training. In my experience and informed opinion, some Americans who think they do NOT like Google, or do not like it for certain uses, have no real beef with Google -- instead, they misunderstand the potential for tools to do our thinking for us, and have not yet taken ownership of the fact that, no matter how advanced technology gets, it takes real skill, knowledge, and the right attitude and understanding to use any tool as effectively as possible. This is true of Google, and it is true of Misplaced Pages, and it is true of the Reference Desks. Jfarber 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Americans who like Google. I do too! Clio the Muse 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but Ragna wants to know WHY, Clio :-) Jfarber 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On that point I can provide no better answer than the one you have already given! Clio the Muse 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aside from using Google as a tool (which I personally love) some people have political issues with Google, mainly due to its willingness to collude with China in censoring access to the Internet. I haven't heard of any mass boycotts of Google for this, but I imagine there are some people who don't use Google for moral/political reasons. Natalie 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Art History

My high school doesn't offer an Art History course, and since I've been interested in learning about the subject for as long as I can remember, I thought I might ask what books anybody here might suggest that are essentially surveys of Art History. I'm looking for basically what the AP course gives you, but since I have had very little experience with textbooks that don't make me fall asleep, I was hoping somebody here could suggest a well-written non-textbook Art History survey-type book. Not TOO big. I plan to take a course on Art History in college, but I'd like some general knowledge anyway beforehand. Thanks, Sashafklein 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no texts to recommend (though others surely will), but if you are an American student, you might ask your school if they partner with (or are willing to partner with) the Virtual High School -- that way, you could take the AP Art History course through your own high school, even though they don't offer it. Jfarber 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Art History class I took in college was a joke. But you should be able to get everything I got out of my class from Misplaced Pages, reading a bit on major artists such as Vincent van Gogh and Leonardo da Vinci and Pablo Picasso and Monet etc. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Janson's History of Art is a pretty standard text. You can get some idea of its contents at the online study guide. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There are so many choices, Sashafklein, that it's difficult for me to make a specific recommendation. However, one of the best general introductions is E. H. Gombrich's The Story of Art. It's almost seven hundred pages long in the paperback edition, though; but what can you expect from an account that begins with cave painting and ends with Brancussi! A World History of Art by Hugh Honour and and John Fleming is also quite good, though it's even longer than Gombrich! On modern art specifically The Shock of the New by Robert Hughes is a good introduction and a great read. Clio the Muse 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Both my old US High school AP Art History class, as well as my current college use the same text general Art History text book: Gardner's Art Through the Ages Vol. 12. I like it, and my professor thinks very highly of it as it goes from prehistory (e.g. Cavemen) to modern day, and includes Asian, African, and South American art for a more global perspective. Bear in mind that as it is Art history, be ready to learn and undertand underlying historical times and events as precursors and influences to the art itself.

My other suggestion is go to a major city and check out their art collections, such as DC's National Gallery of Art, NYC's Metropolitan Museum of Art, or Chicago's Art Institute of Chicago. Nothing beats studying a peice like seeing the original. Zidel333 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler Book I inherited

Good day to you,

I have recently inherited a book on Adolf Hitler, and I have been unable to locate it anywhere in the library or online however; it was brought back by my uncle who was in WWII with my father. ≤ – — … ° ≈ My question is, Do you have some sort of information on it in your archives? I would like to have a value placed on this book for insurance purposes, should I have the book repaired or left alone. I need history on this book so that I will know which direction I need to follow. Your help will be greatly appreciated. It is completly in german and I don't read or speak the language.

It is Tilted " Adolf Hitler" Bilder Aus Dem Leben Des Fuherers : Herausgegeben Vom Cigaretten/ Bilderdienst Hamburg/Bahrenfeld

I believe it is by: Der Reichstagspralident dor dem Deutlhen Reichstag zu Nurnberg am 15 September 1935

I think the publishing information is: 1501.-1600. Taulend Auswahl und kunletlerilhe Bearbeitung dere bilder dieles Werkes lagen in den Handen des Reihs=Bildberiherltatters der NSDAP, Heinrih Hoffmann, Munhen Das ganzleitige Titelbild ilt die Wiedergabe eines Gemaldes don B. Jacobs Entwurf fur Einband und Titel don O.H.W. Hadank, Berlin Graphilhe Geltaltung: Carl Ernlt Poelhel, Leipzig Copyright 1936 by Cigaretten=Bilderienlt Hamburg=Bahrenfeld Printed in Germany Druh und Einband don f. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig***Thank you qwkfingwrs

This is difficuly to answer with any degree of precision, without seeing the book and the quality of the photographs. Much depends, moreover, on whether it is a first edition or not, and the condition it is in. But to be perfectly honest with you this kind of thing was churned out in huge quantities, and it is unlikely to have any great value. However, to be sure you really have to seek the advice of a specialist in rare books. You should not have any repair work done prior to this. Clio the Muse 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding to Clio's wise words, anything contemporary dealing with Hitler has a market. You're unlucky in that a publication date of 1935 postdates his rise to power. If you had a book about him dated 1932 or earlier, there would be far less chance of it being a mass-circulation issue. --Dweller 12:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some info on the book can be found here. It was printed in over two million copies. You can buy a copy (first edition, condition "very good") from US$ 99.71.  --Lambiam 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Poet Laureate

In 1341 Petrarch was crowned poet laureate in Rome for his epic poem called "Africa". He was the first person since antiquity to be given this honor; some 1000 years. This would put it then in about the 4th century, since he was of the 14th century. Whom was this previous person before Petrarch? Of Rome or of Greece or...? --Doug 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely Gulielmus Peregrinus, court poet to Richard the Lionheart, preceeds Petrarch by well over a century? I cannot say, though, if he was accorded that title specifically. I do not believe that the formal designation existed in classical times. Clio the Muse 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It was it was Theodosius who killed the Roman title, see Theodosius I#Proscription of Paganism. In his attempt to christianise the empire he abolished anything vaguely pagan including the Olympics. The Olympics and other games were when laureates were usually crowned but I don't know if there was ever any consistency between life laureateship and short term holders of laurels. It did actually outlive Theodosius with Claudian having probably the best claim to the last of that title by a Roman but the job was in effect privatised, with him being employed by Stilicho rather than the state. Ah it seems Attius Tiro Delphidius may have been the last officially crowned at an olympics in the time of Theodosius, here is a latin poem about him by Ausonius meltBanana 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. Looking up these references at a quick glance it does appear that in fact it was in the 4th century when all this type history took place. This will be a lot for me to obsorb. I will be studying it, now that I have some great leads to work on. Thanks for these leads and this great information. --Doug 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetics-related free press release posting places

I'm trying to figure out who to find some press release places and news aggregators online that specialize in news about cosmetics and skin care. I have a big list of free places to post press releases, but it's a lot to go through. Does anyone have any suggestion? 66.183.217.186 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Balkans

What language did the Balkans use in the 5th century A.D.? Were they part of the Ancient Italic peoples? Did they use a language from Greece or Italy or France or some other western European languages around this time period? --Doug 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would guess, Greek in the south, some Latin (i.e. the predecessor of modern Romanian), and in addition, dispersed groups of Illyrian, Cimmerian, Thracian, Celtic, and Eastern Germanic speaking peoples. Not all that many Slavs until after the Avar debacle of 602 A.D. AnonMoos 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the people near the Danube may have spoken the Dacian language, an extinct language related to Albanian. The Huns, who spoke a Turkic language, harassed the area around today's Serbia. They did have some Slavs with them. -- Mwalcoff 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The page on the Balkan linguistic union has some sketchy information on contacts between Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian linguistic groups between the 1st and 5th centuries AD. The dominant language in Illyria to the west of the Balkan peninsula was still Vulgar Latin, in the urban settlements anyway. The map on this page shows an extensive distribution of Eastern Romance or East Latin over the whole of the northern Balkan area at the beginning of the fifth century . To the south-east the ancient Thracian language was still in use, though it had disappeared by the 6th century. Further south the dominant language was Greek. Clio the Muse 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a great answer. I have much to work on now. That was most helpful!! --Doug 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Stamps

Are all U.S. stamps in the pd? - Patricknoddy 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The USPS article says: All U.S. postage stamps and other postage items that were released before 1978 are in the public domain. After this time they are copyright by the postal service under Title 17 of the United States Code. Written permission is required for use of copyrighted postage stamp images. ~ lav-chan @ 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 12

This IS a Homework Question!

Well not exactly, but it's the closest thing to a homework question I've ever asked here as it pertains to a real-life academic project.

Tuesday evening I'll be giving a talk to MBA students on the subject of the outsourcing of labour to underdeveloped countries.

We've all heard those (very exagerated) stories of poor Vienamese workers getting paid 25 cents an hour to manufacture shoes for Nike and the like.

Naturally, our initial reaction is that this type of business practice is exploitative and inhumane.

My argument is that this reaction is unwarranted for the following reasons:

First, we're not taking into account the cost of living in these countries. Yes, 25 cents an hour sounds pitiful, until one takes into account the fact that such basics as a loaf of bread, a quart of milk, or a month's rent are equally dirt cheap. In fact, the wages these people are paid are generally significantly higher than those paid by whatever alternative employment (if any) available in these countries offer, allowing them to lead a far more comfortable life than they would had they not been offered these jobs.

More importantly, companies like Nike aren't forcing these unfortunates to work for them, rather, without these jobs, many of these workers would die because without a job, they simply wouldn't be able to afford the basic necessities of life.

Finally, it's the most basic of simple macroeconomic theory that as demand increases, and supply decreases, price goes up. In terms of the market for labour in poor countries, offering additional jobs only increases the demand for labour, when these jobs are taken, the supply of labour thereby decreases, all naturally having the effect of increasing wages in the aggregate.

The gist of my point is that this practice is not only not exploitative or inhumane, but rather very beneficial and helpful for poor countries, with the ultimate possibility of actually helping these nations' economies rise out of poverty and into prosperity.

What I'm looking for is any critique or thoughts anyone might be able to provide concerning my argument and this controversial issue in general, if anything, so that I may be better prepared for the Q&A session that I'll be conducting immediately afterwards.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide any sort of feedback for me regarding this "homework" question! :) Loomis 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The salary is not the only concern. Assuming anyone gives you questions of merit, they will certainly ask about the working conditions. A factory run in a develped country will most likely include things like a reasonable work day (8 hours), a reasonable break period, and some reasonable rules for employee treatment. In an undeveloped country, warlords can easily take over. They can create a factory and run it as a slave camp. They can beat or even kill employees. They can be forced to work 20-hour days with no breaks. Basically, there are no rules for humane treatment in an undeveloped country. Now, the counter-argument. When those conditions exist and people discover it, companies like Nike tend to pull out of those areas completely. Sometimes they will stay and send people in to improve the conditions. We have a system where people demand products made in humane conditions, so the supply tends to come from factories with humane conditions. That does not mean that all conditions are humane. They are not all humane here in the United States - which is definitely not underdeveloped. But, the end result is a good one for all involved except the warlords who lose their ability to rule by violence. --Kainaw 02:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Workers in such factories often suffer irreparable tissue damage from being exposed to carcinogens and toxins such as benzene that are used in production. With no affordable health care, and companies taking advantage of lax environmental laws, workers often die young and with shockingly high rates of liver damage, lung damage, cancer, and so forth. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to health concerns on the individual worker's level, there may also be environmental problems on a communal level (depending on the industry). Outsourcing from environmentally regulated countries to countries with no clean air and water acts and so forth, can be viewed as unfair because it externalizes the risks while keeping the profits close to home (of course in cases such as our climate, there will be a delayed global backlash, but the main environmental impact will still be felt by the ecosystems and communities in the target countries). On a national political level, there are also worries of increased dependency and loss of democratic sovereignity. I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of people, publications, and NGO's discussing these issues in depth. So .... do your own homework! :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also on the health note: the ones working at the factories often don't have transportation available, so they must live close to the plants..and this obviously causes some problems. It's not like they can live in a clean area and commute every day. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! All great critiques. Your feedback has inspired me to perhaps focus on Mexico. I've always been pro-NAFTA, though I feel it requires a "beefing-up" in the sense that it should require that Mexican factories live up to Canadian and US standards regarding health, working conditions, pollution etc., basically all the critiques you guys have offered, plus strong anti-corruption enforcement to make sure these standards aren't overlooked by bribed officials. To my knowledge, though terribly poor and corrupt by Canadian and US standards, I've never heard of any "warlords" being in control (except perhaps in that unruly Chiapas region in the south). My feeling is that if NAFTA could be improved to such an extent where the only alleged "exploitation" involved would be economic, in the form of dramatically lower wages paid to their workers vis-a-vis their northern neighbours, still, this arrangement, though appearing exploitive, could only have the effect of increasing the standard of living of the Mexican people quite dramatically, and once again, possibly pulling the Mexican economy up from its current impoverished state to who knows...possibly one day being on par with Canada and the US. Any thoughts? Loomis 09:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

At least one wikipedia article already covers this in some depth. Note you seem to be assuming that treating people extremely poorly because it's better then the alternative is okay. Many people wouldn't agree. For example, some people might argue that Africans who were enslaved in America were better offer then they would have been had they remained in Africa. Even if this is true, I don't think slavery is any less reprehensible. Slave owners definitely weren't doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and they were supposedly the more 'civilised' people. Point being, just because people working in sweatshops are better off then many of the people around them, doesn't mean they aren't necessarily reprehensible as a concept. I would argue it is possible to run a factory in the an undeveloped country with resonably humane conditions and pay (not talking about in any way comparable to first world here). It will be more expensive and the incentive to use such a factory will be less but it is IMHO possible. The problem is of course, when people say no sweatshops, they usually mean made locally (or perhaps in another developed country). Whether this is better then sweatshops is of course debatable but since many people are protectionist they often in fact prefer it that way. Also, note on your point about purchasing power. While it's true purchasing power need to be consider and the pay may be better then many other jobs in tha area, their wages even when purchasing power is of course still terrible by first world or even resonably developed third world standards. As for your comment about NAFTA, well I don't know that much about it. But you IMHO have a bit of a naive view of the way things may work. While it may help, the reality is if the US have their way there is no way in hell Mexico will come close to being on par with the US. This is undesirable for the US (any developed country has similar attitutes). One of the biggest problems in the Americas IMHO is that the US is so big compared to everyone else they can basically dominate everyone around them and especially since they are a superpower, their interests rarely coincide with the rest of the Americas (bar Canada perhaps). It is in the US's interest to make sure that the rest of the America's don't get too strong either economically or politically. However increasingly, Brazil especially is realising they have power and this is in tandem with the way the developing world is realising they need to cooperative since their interests are often vastly different from that of the developed world. They also realise that free trade can in fact benefit them, they just need to ensure they don't let the developing world force their vision of free trade on them. So in that sense free trade agreements may work, but only when developing countries don't allow themselves to be pushed around too much. Fortunately, various political and social changes also mean that in a lot of the developed world, there is now some real pressure for fairness and certain things have also forced the developed world to realise that the sorts of tricks and games used with the developing world often backfire. Even the US is starting to realise that while supporting dictators and warlords which like you may sound like a good idea in theory, in practice it usually ends up nasty. 203.109.240.93 11:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an extremely cynical view of the United States and the American people which I don't share. Why do so many people seem to think that the US is hell-bent on keeping the rest of the world in poverty and misery for its own selfish ends? For example, the article on the humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake notes that the US government contributed just under a billion dollars, with the private sector throwing close to an additional 2 billion. All together the US contributed close to 30% of the total humanitarian aid provided for victims of this immense natural disaster. Of course the anti-American cynic will always complain that being the richest country in the world, they could have given more, and that any aid they did provide was nothing more than a purely selfish PR tactic to give the false image that the US actually cares about the rest of the world. I just don't buy that. Is it at all possible that this aid was at least in part based on genuine compassion?

But I didn't come here to get into a debate about anti-Americanism, but rather to get some extra insight into the socio-economic pros and cons of outsourcing jobs to poor countries. You say that I have "a bit of a naive view as to how things work", that "t is in the US's interest to make sure that the rest of the America's don't get too strong either economically or politically" and that "the reality is if the US have their way there is no way in hell Mexico will come close to being on par with the US". With all due respect, IMHO it is your understanding of world economics that is quite naive. Take a look at the article on the economy of South Korea, for example. Fifty years ago it was a dirt-poor third world country. To quote from the article:

"Just after the Korean War, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world - yet, today's South Korea is in the league of the wealthiest nations: Per capita gross national product, only $100 in 1963, exceeded $20,000 USD in 2005."

And further on:

"Following the Japanese occupation and the Korean War, the Syngman Rhee administration of the newly formed South Korean state used foreign aid from the United States during the 1950s to build an infrastructure that included a nationwide network of primary and secondary schools, modern roads, and a modern communications network."

You see, the so widely held belief that US wealth and prosperity has been, and can only continue to be achieved through the exploitation of third-world countries, as sensible as it may seem, is absolutely, completely false, and based on a poor grasp of international economics. The US helped South Korea to transform itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest in less than half a century, because it was in the best interests of both countries for South Korea to thrive. You also seem to have casually dismissed the Canada/US economic relationship, yet offer no explanation. Why should Canada be an exception? The fact that Canada and the US carry on what is most likely the most mutually beneficial trading relationship between any two countries in the entire world can be attributed entirely to the fact that like the US, Canada is a wealthy country as well. The US would only benefit all the moreso if Mexico was as wealthy as Canada. And if South Korea can undergo such a radical transformation, why not Mexico? Loomis 13:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't get into the debate above, but you may be asked about child labour. One of the more difficult situations a manufacturer has to deal with is when local managers hire young children (under 12) to work in their factories. Many say that giving the children the chance to work means they won't go hungry; unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in most practical examples. Children are more likely to die or be injured in childhood than kids who don't work, are more likely to not be in school (which of course means they won't be able to get a better job when they grow up), and are more likely to be exploited in other ways - sexually, economically (by taking back their entire wages for "boarding costs", or by giving them only enough food to keep them alive), and otherwise. Also remember that countries such as South Korea became wealthy en masse due to outsourcing, but that millions of individual Koreans paid the price. The ones living in comfort today are less likely to be the children of sweatshop workers than the children of managers and other white-collar workers who already benefitted from significant advantages before the Americans came.

There's also the related problem of providing education in communities businesses set up around their factories. I've heard time and time again local managers call development societies or co-operatives "suckers" (or something similar) for giving aid money to set up a school, since "I would have done it anyway". Then why didn't he at any time in the 25 years since he began managing the plant? --Charlene 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis actually have fairly good points. But Loomis, if you come here to the Philippines, you'll find that multinational companies and free-market economists here have always said the same arguments. These people still believe in the invisible hand that guides the economy - the global economy. But let me tell you about the other side of the debate. Business process outsourcing is only a small part of the overall hegemony that involves economies and cultures of different peoples. Here in our country, call centers are thriving. If an employee gets regularized, he can earn more than P20,000 a month. National activists here believe that amount is not enough to raise a family on. But that's not all. Time here is literally being bent to suit the needs of the United States. Call center agents, mostly young Filipinos, work at night and sleep at daytime. Even bars and other entertainment venues are changing their time to accomodate call center agents. And then there's the issue of health risk. They drink huge amounts of coffee, and smoke cigarettes to keep their body awake all night. And take note, I'm not talking about sweatshops here. These are call center companies that serve American clients, and their working conditions are good. But despite all that, there is still an incredible damage to the Filipino people. If you're a fresh graduate here now, it's almost as if you can only either be a call center agent or a nurse. Activists protest that we no longer produce a generation of bright minds with a heart for the nation and with a taste for history, for example, and literature, culture, etc. We only produce call center agents whose only expertise is how to speak the english language with an American accent. That's all that matters. And all the while, we are losing our identity, if we still have it at all, because people here seem to make Americans the standard and their heroes for everything. Everything is interconnected. And I guess what Adam Smith failed to observe is that the invisible hand also dominates and punishes invisibly and severely. I remember reading an article where a Filipino graduate of, if I remember correctly, agricultural engineering, in the University of the Philippines (a really prestigious university here) ended up as a nurse in the US. She can't help it, she says, it pays more to be a nurse. It's disappointing. And when I was in the university myself, I really used to hate America with all my guts, what with the spirit of scholarly rebellion all over the place. You see, it's not all about how much workers here or abroad get paid. It's also about what is sacrificed to be able to live. I understand that Americans consciously do not intend to harm others, but such is the state of things. One author once said that a touch of another culture is enough to kill another. Moonwalkerwiz 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

MY SMALL FAT GREEK QUESTION.

Are greeks really very cunning and crafty as they are portrayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.215.141 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask when exactly they are portrayed like this? -- Chairman S. Talk 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, you can't make such sweeping generalisations for a whole nation of people and their culture. -- Chairman S. Talk 08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read Boys' Weeklies, a brilliant dissertation by George Orwell which, amongst other things, focuses on the comic absurdity of thinking in terms of national stereotypes. You should find this in any decent collection of his essays: my own copy is that published in 2000 by Penguin Books in England. The essay itself was written almost seventy years ago, but it continues to have a universal relevance, with all due allowance being made for the passage of time and the changes in the forms of cultural presentation. Anyway, here is how the world, at least part of it, was presented to English schoolboys in illustrated papers just before the outbreak of the Second World War:

FRENCHMEN: Excitable. Wears beard, gesticulates wildly.

SPANIARDS AND MEXICANS: Sinister, treacherous.

ARABS AND AFGHANS: The same as the above.

ITALIAN: Excitable. Grinds barrel organ and carries stilleto.

SWEDE: Kind hearted and stupid.

NEGRO: Comic, very faithful.

The French are always described as 'Frogs' and the Italians as 'Dagos' The Americans, when portrayed, speak an old-fashioned, stage Yankee, along the lines of Waal, I guess..., and the Chinese speak an atrocious pidgin, using expressions like Me thinkee. It's all quite absurd, of course, showing a world filtered through late Imperial stereotypes. Obviously the way in which people are depicted has changed dramatically, but the fashion of reducing whole communities to a single characteristic, good or bad, remains. Please avoid the temptation. The Greeks are as diverse and varied as everyone else; as diverse and varied, I dare say, as your own people and nation. Clio the Muse 09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

James A. Michener wrote in his usual style of fact and fiction about this phenomenon. I am fairly certain it was in his novel Chesapeake. He reproduces text from schoolbooks of the day and then puzzles his characters when they discover that the reality isn't as simple as they were taught. --Dweller 11:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me second that recommendation. It is a rather good novel. -- Chairman S. Talk 12:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more articles you might like to look at: outgroup homogeneity bias, trait ascription bias, and, on the other hand, stereotype inevitability, and intercultural competence. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group members

Is there any Bilderberg Group member here? Just wondering who's going to be the next US prez and whether Gordon Brown is gonna take over from Blair or not. Also, is Howard going to make another miracolous comeback? N.B. E-mailing or normal mail is fine, obviously I don't need to tell you my address... Cheers 203.109.240.93 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Bilderberg members would bother with editing the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk, or doing any other productive work for that matter. That said, I don't think that their favorites necessarily assume power every time. For example, I read reports suggesting that most Bilderbergers were unsatisfied with Bush and did not want to see him reelected in 2004. He may not have been fairly reelected (see our articles on Walden O'Dell and 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities), but nonetheless he retained power. (edited) Marco polo 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

British Spies

Who was the British spy I believe his name was Scotland who was born in Africa and joined the German army and then became a mole after World War I and rejoined the Germany army in 1939. He rose to the rank of Lt General in the German forces and kept passing information on to the brits and when the USSR caught him they couldnt believe such a high ranking officer was a spy? And alos who was the British spy for the Soviets who had been a commie in youth and joined the service witht he expressed intent of helping the Reds? --Stalin1942 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who 'General Scotland' was, or indeed if he ever existed; but on your second question you can take your pick from the Cambridge Four-Guy Burgess, Donald Duart Maclean, Anthony Blunt and Kim Philby. This circle of traitors is sometimes known as the Cambridge Five, although the additional member has not been identified with any certainty. Clio the Muse 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I'm not familiar with any individuals who meet the criteria of your first question; it's possible you are referring to someone like Juan Pujol Garcia, Jona von Ustinov or Kazimierz Leski. The second part of your question can probably be referenced by the article on the Cambridge Five, although I don't know specifically which of the four proven spies (or several alleged "fifth men") you are referring to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carom (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

It's possible you are conflating two (or more) persons, here. Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr was rumoured to be in contact with British intelligence during the war, although I'm not aware that any definitive evidence of this has emerged. You may be confusing him with another, actual British agent to produce the character "General Scotland." Can you provide any additional information? Carom 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember the details about "general Scotland", but from what I remember he lived in a German African colony and at the start of the war was interned because he was of Brit dissent. Eventualyl he was captured by the Brits and sent back to the Germans as a double agent. After WWI he went into deep cover living a normal life but returned to the service afetr the rise of hitler. He rose to lt General and was captured by the Soviets in 1945. He also testifed against his former colleagues at Nuremberg. --Stalin1942 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Could the OQ be thinking of Rudolf Hess, who flew to Scotland during the war? Corvus cornix 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a superb conjecture, Corvus cornix! Hess was born in Alexandria, and was generally known in the inner circle of the NSDAP as the 'Egyptian', both because of the place of his birth and his sphinx-like appearance. He did indeed fly to Scotland in May 1941, though he could hardly, by any measure, be described as a British spy, and few of the other details outlined at the outset in any way fit into his military and political career. Clio the Muse 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the 1958 movie "The Two Headed Spy", about the exploits of a German officer named Gen. Alex Schottland, who passed information to the Allies. Schottland was played by Jack Hawkins. The movie is said to be based on a true story, but whom it's really about, I have no idea. The IMDB summary of the plot includes this: "World War II spy thriller based on true story. British secret agent (Jack Hawkins) successfully infiltrates Nazi military, achieves rank of general during WWII. He gains full confidence of entire Nazi high command, including Fuhrer Adolf Hitler himself, save one suspecting German officer (played with evil panache by Erik Schumann). All the while Hawkins passes war-winning information to Allies assisted by two loyal Berlin contacts, first Felix Alymer and then nightclub singer Gia Scala. ... ". The only reason I knew to search for this is that I saw this movie on TV when I was about 15, and I remember that at one point in the story General Schottland's surname, which is the German for Scotland, was a point of discussion amongst his fellow officers. I remember absolutely nothing else about the movie. Strange how little details stick in the mind. JackofOz 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Does atheism make people better-off?

Is there a study anywhere of the effect of nonbelief on, for instance, personal happiness? That is, there's an argument that goes, "whether or not religion is literally true, it's good for people"--is there any empirical backing to this claim? Some sort of sociological study of atheists comparing them to the general population? grendel|khan 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to prove that religious people are necessarily any happier than atheists. Chapter 10 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins deals with this very issue. -Wooty Woot? contribs 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What about fine-grained details? I.e. rather than "religious" to "atheist", perform a pair-wise comparison between every major belief system. Also, while I'm wishing, I'd like to study more than "happiness"; are there any notable trends in wealth? Education? Etc? With suitable care taken to avoid having the statistics lie - e.g. atheism may correlate with education, but that would be education -> atheism, not atheism -> education. Also, I don't have a copy of Dawkins' book, so while I'm wishing I'd like this to be a published study in a publically accessable domain. 137.99.164.170 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A study was actually done on education vs. religious activity in the US. For most religion, activity in their religion and education had an inverse relationship. For Judaism, it seemed to be unrelated. For Mormonism, it was directly correlated (the more educated a Latter Day Saint is, the more likely they are to be active in their church). This study is buried somewhere at www.adherents.com. The Jade Knight 06:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know of any sociological studies on the relationship between belief or non-belief and personal happiness, but I am reminded here of Saint Manuel the Good, Martyr, a novella by the Spanish existentialist philosopher Miguel de Unamuno. It's about a priest who has lost his belief in God but says nothing to his parishioners because he recognises how central faith is to their lives and personal happiness. Clio the Muse 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, any such question also gets tangled in plenty of other issues, such as the whole "which comes first" bit, even if a study were to show a correlation between atheism and unhappiness. Do people choose atheism and become unhappy as a result, or do "originally" unhappy people tend to decide there is no God? Also, how much of a person's success is determined by the reputation of their group rather than its "inherent qualities" (most would say that the disproportional presence of African-Americans in U.S. prisons is a result of racism and negative self-image and nothing to do otherwise with "being black")? It may be that atheists are simply distrusted enough to become unhappy/unsuccessful. (In a recent poll in which Americans were asked who they'd be willing to vote for president and were given a list of generic "outsiders" and minorities — a woman, a black man, a Mormon, etc. — the atheist was the only one to earn under 50% of this vote, right after an open homosexual. So there's that to consider as wel.) — Lenoxus 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The poll, by Gallup, was misleadingly titled Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates. Apparently they put "atheist" on the poll as a joke. grendel|khan 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the result of a Pew Research Center poll of 3,014 American adults:

• • Percentage saying they're "very happy" by frequency of worship attendance:
• Weekly or more: 43%
• Monthly or less: 31%
• Seldom or never: 26% -- Mwalcoff 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, exactly what does that mean? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears to mean that people who attend church more frequently are more likely to consider themselves very happy. I'd like to see the actual survey. grendel|khan 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing a study where Christians who go to church live on average about 2 years longer than ones who don't. However, it occurred to me that they spend about 2 years of their lives in church. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, here's the link: . -- Mwalcoff 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A related survey showed recently that conservatives were more charitable than liberals Blog issue. DDB 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A problem with this question is the assumption that atheism and religion are mutually exclusive opposites, which is not the case in common usage. For example, Buddhism is regarded as a religion, yet it is (typically) non-theistic. The strict meaning of atheism as a disbelief in a deity or deities may not hold for Buddhism, but the common looser meaning, nontheism does. See God in Buddhism for more on the topic. Pfly 07:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is He?

Who is Who

I am trying to get info about a Haitian person lived around 1845

Named: A. Garochel

Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Albander (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

This is awfully vague but I suppose you might take a choice of Charles Riviere-Hérard or the Emperor Faustin I or Jean-Baptiste Riché or Jean Pierre Boyer or Jean-Louis Pierrot or Lysius Salomon, all among the more prominent Haitians of the time. Clio the Muse 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Architecural style?

I've been wondering for ages whether there is a proper name for the architectural style used in a lot of UK buildings in the 1950s and early 60s, it's obviously a branch of Modernism but I'm not sure if there was a proper name for it. It's characterised by concrete frames around the windows, metal framed windows, usually brick facades but sometimes white stone and thin lines. Here are some photos of the kind of thing I mean:

• http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/eee_debenhams001.JPG
• http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/ccc_highstreet005.JPG (buildings on the left)
• http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/ddd_abovebar009.JPG
• http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/ddd_abovebar010.JPG

Some of these have Art-Deco/International Style influences but these buildings are later than that. The BBC Television Centre is another very good example of the style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GaryReggae (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

While the International style article claims that this style was finished at the end of World War II, the article Modern architecture states that the international style became the dominant postwar style. If these rather uninspired buildings can be said to embody any style at all, I would say that it is a late, utilitarian, and watered-down version of the international style. In the case of the fourth building listed, as you say, there are some art-deco characteristics. Marco polo 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've known it called "shopping precinct un-chic"hotclaws**== 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dietary Laws

Kosher is the word used to describe food which Judaism allows for Jews, and Halal is the word to describe food which Islam allows for Muslims, i.e., Dhabiĥa Halal and Kashrut. Are there any dietary laws for Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. and for atheists such as those who ran the former Soviet State? Diligent 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Many Hindus are vegetarians (see Vegetarianism#Hinduism), and so are some Buddhists. However, there are no particular dietary laws for Christians, and there are definitely none for atheists (being that atheism is not a religion). -- Chairman S. Talk 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But quite a lot of people have different taboo food and drink. Cat chop anyone? meltBanana 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How about in the ancient Egyptian culture? Diligent 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lent#Customs_during_the_time_of_Lent has some material on Catholic dietary restrictions. --TotoBaggins 02:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most major religions are against cannibalism. Brownie points to whoever can cite scriptures to this point.--Pharos 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia geniuses, please name this animated short film: "__name_unknown__"

Forgive me. This is gonna be terribly vague. It was possibly featured in an "animated film festival" type montage/feature thingy (perhaps)?, sometime around the mid to late 1970s (perhaps)? It is possible that __name_unknown__ came out around the same time as Closed Mondays (film). It might have even appeared alongside it. A quick description follows:

    A man is depicted hunting butterflies. He is running around catching them in his
    handy little net. He catches them and then takes them home and sticks pins in
    them, fastening them in a little display case. 
    One day while the man is out hunting with his net, the most glorious and lovely
    butterfly ever seen appears to him. Its wings shimmer with radiant and constantly
    changing hues. Angels (or sirens?) can be heard singing in the background whenever
    it appears. The man is enraptured and chases after it, trying to catch it, until
    he finally becomes exhausted and collapses on the ground. 
    The butterfly then gently swoops down to the man's body, carefully lifts him off
    the ground and flies back to some cave somewhere, abruptly throwing the 
    man's body against a spike-covered wall, filled with the corpses of dead
    butterfly hunters.
    The end.

Can anyone name this short animated film? Thanks. NoClutter 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia geniuses, please name this comic strip "__name_unknown__"

This was a one-time comic strip that appeared in an unkown book somewhere around the mid to late 1990s. The name of the book is unknown, but the book was basically a collection of comics from different authors, each of which was in the "counter-culture" or "alternative" style that you might find in an Alternative weekly. Not much more is known about this except a description of the strip itself, which follows:

   A man is depicted walking along wearing the staid 1950s style suit and hat 
   (e.g., ) against a totally white background. The
   man's walk changes to a steady gait, gait to a jog, jog to a run, and run
   to a full blown sprint, his hat flying off in the process. Suddenly, he trips
   over something and his body flies through the air. Transforming into a blob
   in mid-air, and then finally landing on the ground as some little black
   creature with nothing except two legs, a mouth and two eyes.

   The creature opens its mouth, and another identical creature jumps out.
   This happens again and again until the frame is full of these creatures.
   The creatures then form villages in their mouths, which turn into 
   towns, which turn into cities, and the cities are connected by highways
   that go from mouth to mouth. Then, one of the cities sends a missle to 
   destroy another city, and the cities start bombing each other into rubble.

   In the final frame, a man can be seen walking out of the dust cloud, 
   looking back at the rubble. He is wearing the staid 1950s style suit with
   an expression on his face like "what was that?"

Can anyone name this comic strip or the book it appeared in? Thanks. NoClutter 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Magna Carta and Myth-Busters

I don't understand why this section in the article on Magna Carta is titled "The Myth-Busters". Any ideas? --Spundun 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Magna Carta has a significance in English constitutional history far in excess of what the document actually achieved. It might, in a very real sense, be said to have transcended real history and achieved a mythical status. By the late eighteenth century a number of people were beginning to question the assumptions about the document, particularly in relation to the development of Parliamentary sovereignty, hence the Myth-Busters heading, which I personally feel is out of place and far too glib. It has, however, nothing whatsoever to do with the television show you have linked. Clio the Muse 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) When that section was introduced the preceding text contained five mentions of a mythical aura the Magna Charta had allegedly acquired by the Stuart age, and it is this "myth" that is supposedly busted. The first of these, introducing the notion of "myth", was changed later from "mythical aura" to "almost mystical status", leaving the later mentions (in particular the next one) somewhat orphaned. I've reinstated the word "mythical" there, but I have to agree that even with this change the text remains a bit cryptical.  --Lambiam 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the belief that Jews deserve eternal damnation considered antisemitism?

I've checked the antisemitism article, but not much is said about this. Any help? Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"deserve"? Any religion's opinions about another's aren't necessarily racist, but the way in which they are framed could be. A traditional form of Christianity might say that non Christians have no place in Heaven. But saying that a group "deserves" damnation begins to sound racist to these ears. --Dweller 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement does not sound like it is referring to the Jewish religion. It appears to claim that all Jews, even Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu Jews deserve damnation. So, yes, it is an antisemetic statement. It could be less offensive as, "Those who deny Jesus due to adherence to the Jewish faith are destined for damnation." Then, it is a religious, not a racist statement. --Kainaw 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kainaw, what is a Hindu Jew? A Christian Jew? An Islamic Jew? I'm not familiar with the way you're using the term Jew, and request clarification. Jfarber 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is a Hindu Jew the inverse of a Jewish Hindu: "Hindu Jew" = "Jewish Hindu"  ? Actually, I think Kainaw is referring to the ethnic group Jews. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I've never heard of any respectable Christian denomination singling out Jews as deserving eternal damnation. Rather, from my rudimentary understanding of Christianity, anyone who does not accept Jesus as his lord and saviour is doomed to eternal damnation. Jews aren't being singled out, rather, all non-Christians are viewed to be deserving of the same fate. That said, I don't see that belief as particularly anti-semitic at all. I really don't feel any harm being done to me when I hear a Christian tell me that after I die, I'm destined for hell. I really couldn't care less what others believe will happen to me after I die, so long as they respect me while I'm alive.

It's actually rather similar to that rather peculiar, yet still, very much appreciated staunch support evangelical Christians have for Israel. I'm not at all well versed in the New Testament, but from what I understand, these Christians are strong supporters of Israel based on their interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Apparently they believe that according to Christian prophesy, the Jews are meant to re-establish their presence in Israel, up until the time of Armageddon, at which time some two thirds of the Jews will die, Jesus will return, and the remaining third will accept Christ, and go to heaven. Or something like that. I'm really not entirely clear on the details, nor do I care to be. What's important though, is that in this "pre-Armegeddon" world we live in presently, many Christians are staunch supporters of Israel. The fact that I find their motives, from my perspective at least, to be rather odd, is to me rather irrelevant. For the time being they support Israel, and for me, that's all that really matters. Loomis 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, there may be some sects that do say that anyone who does not accept Jesus as his lord and saviour is doomed to eternal damnation. After all, Christianity is a very broad church with many conflicting dogmas. But the mainstream Christian churches do not teach that. There is no single human spokesperson for "Christianity", so you have to be careful about whom you choose to believe about this. JackofOz 02:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz, would the ones that DO believe that, be considered antisemites? For instance George Bush? Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, imo. If anyone, anyone at all, who does not accept Jesus as his lord and saviour is said to doomed to eternal damnation, then that would apply equally to Jews and non-Jews. I can't see that that position would be anti-semitic as such. JackofOz 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. I don't see it as anti-semitic either. And thanks for the clarification, Jack, food for thought. I'm just curious, Kirby, why you seem to believe that George Bush, an Episcopalian (a very closely related denomination to Anglicism) would fall into the category of those Christians who do believe that all non-Christians are doomed to hell. Loomis 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming because of reports like this and this. ~ lav-chan @ 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This question came from reading Talk:Antisemitism#There_is_definite_bias_in_the_text. Some users were saying that even if the rules applied equally to Jews and non-Jews, it is still antisemitism. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a long thread and I don't have time to read it all. But I noticed one part that was talking about the Nazis' discrimination against Jews, gays and Roma people. In that case, it was definitely anti-semitism because the Nazis selected certain particular groups of people, of whom the Jews were one, and did terrible things to them. They were all identified with their groups, with a different coloured arm patch. It wasn't a case of persecuting any people at all that they considered not to satisfy their twisted concept of what a German was. But this becomes simplistic. If their thesis was expressed as broadly as I just said, would it then have ceased to be anti-semitism per se? No, because a German Jew is no less a German than a German gentile - also true for gays and Roma - so the whole basis of their notion of true Germanness was grotesquely flawed from the start. JackofOz 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any (Christian) doctrine that Jews "deserve" eternal damnation, but there is a long-standing notion that the Jews are cursed because of their alleged guilt in the death of Christ. This goes back to what Paul wrote in 1 Thess. 2:14-16; in the Wycliffe version: "For, brethren, ye be made followers of the churches of God, that be in Judaea, in Christ Jesus, and ye have suffered the same things of your even-lineages, and they of the Jews. Which slew both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and pursued us, and they please not to God, and they be adversaries to all men; forbidding us to speak to heathen men, that they be made safe, that they fill their sins evermore; forsooth the wrath of God before came upon them till into the end." The last words, in the Vulgata usque in finem, in Koine εις τελος, have been interpreted as meaning "till the end times", although the more usual later interpretation (for example in the King James) is "to the utmost degree". However, this supposed curse (the wrath of God) then was seen as pertaining to the condition of the Jews in this world, such as the diaspora (cf. the image of the Wandering Jew), and not implying eternal damnation. After all, the same Paul wrote in Romans 11:25-26: "Forsooth, brethren, I will not that ye unknow this mystery, that ye be not wise to yourselves; for blindness hath felled of part in Israel, till the plenty of heathen men entered, and so all Israel should be made safe. As it is written, He shall come of Sion, that shall deliver, and turn away the unpiety of Jacob." So Israel (the Jews) will be saved in the end.  --Lambiam 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the mechanism for salvation (saving of the soul) of all Jews is the same as it is for Peter, and Paul and Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary and you and I... That mechanism is admitting and accepting the Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is after all the only thing that distinguishes Christian from Jew and without it the Jews can not be saved or escape eternal damnation whetheer believed to be deserved or not. Diligent 08:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: I've always been curious about this. According to that line of Christian thinking, would a righteous Jewish person, who lived a good, noble life be treated after death any differently from an evil Jewish person who stole, murdered, raped, cursed God (jaywalked) and was generally not very nice? --Dweller 09:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer that by asking several questions: What happend to Adam and Eve when they chose to eat of the tree of good and evil? What happened to the Isrealites who upon the return of Moses decided they prefered idolitry to God? What is the consequence for anyone who lives a good or a bad life for themselves instead of for God? Diligent 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A naked statement to the effect that Jews 'deserve' eternal damnation is anti-semitic; but it also happens, in a far deeper sense, to be anti-Christian. The whole concept of hell is so complex, subject to considerable variations in and between faiths, that it is difficult to give a precise and succinct answer to this; but since the debate has focused so far on forms of Christianity it is from there I take my point of departure, specifically from the position of the Catholic Church. In the traditional view the souls of unbaptised children, all unbaptised children, are neither in heaven nor hell but in limbus infantum. The second limbo, the limbus patrum-the limbo of the fathers-was where the souls of those who died before the advent of Christ were confined, but who were still considered to stand high among the just: this would include, of course, all of the great Jewish patriarchs. By the Middle Ages the established Catholic position was that all who did not accept Christ as their saviour and-just as crucially-the authority and teaching of the Church, were destined for Hell, understood in a very literal sense. This would embrace heretics as well as heathens, as Innocent III, the greatest of the Medieval popes, made plain when he said 'There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved', a dogma confirmed by Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum, a bull of 1302. However, all this was changed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, and is generally known now as Vatican II. In The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, one of several documents to come out of this gathering, it is specifically written that The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible church. This was followed by Nostra Aetate, which says, amongst other things, that the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in non-Christian religions, and that God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church also says that the church has a special relationship to both Jews and Muslims because of the common reverence for the prophet, Abraham. In 1999 Pope John Paul II simply said that Hell was 'absence from God'. The 'presence of God' thus must be seen to embrace both Jew and Gentile.

I therefore repeat the observation that I made at the outset: an unqualified statement to the effect that Jews, because they are Jews, deserve Hell belongs to secular, racist and anti-semitic doctrines, in whatever guise they happen to come. Clio the Muse 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• However, if a Semite is a person who lives their life for themselves instead of for God then being anti-Semite might be a good thing instead of bad. Diligent 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

March 13

Perfume Ingredients

What are perfumes mostly made of, like WhiteDiamond(made by Elizabeth Taylor)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.36.187 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Ask again and I'm going to apply your post directly to my forehead. :) Have you read our article on perfume? It contains the common ingredients. --TotoBaggins 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do special commissions get paid?

I'm curious whether members of ad hoc committees such as the current Bob Dole / Donna Shalala one looking into the Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal get paid, and if so, how much? Google didn't help. Thanks. --TotoBaggins 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the copyright term in China?

Or in other words, from which year and on are works made in China encumbered by copyright. I've searched Misplaced Pages, Google and even asked a law professor with a blog about chinese law without getting an answer. As I understand it, China didn't formally have copyright until the late 80's, does this mean that anything made before that date is free for all? Or does the copyright apply retroactively for some number of years? – Foolip 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright in China lasts until the Communist government says otherwise.

(That's supposed to be a joke) The Jade Knight 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Copyrights in Red China are a joke. The government couldn't enforce them if it wanted to (and it doesn't want to). It makes a token effort to crack down every now and then, but that's about it. Clarityfiend 08:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Pages monitored by bots