Revision as of 14:25, 24 February 2007

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• ]

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 13

Why are the Crusades Viewed so Negatively?

Before 9/11, it was acceptable to use the term "Crusade" to refer to any noble mission, such as "the Crusade to find a cure for cancer" or "the Crusade against hunger and poverty". However post-9/11, "Crusade" has become a dirty word, due to its supposed pro-Christian and anti-Islamic connotations.

But these are the historical facts: Having possession of the Holy Land, in 391, Roman Emperor Theodosius I established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Therefore, as of 391 AD, the Holy Land was Christian land. However, 245 years later, in the 636 AD Battle of Yarmouk, the Muslims invaded, and took the Holy Land from the Christians.

What followed were the Crusades, which were essentially the many attempts by Christians to retake the Holy Land they had lost to the Muslims in 636 AD. Of course all these battles, from the Battle of Yarmouk to all the Crusades, were equally bloody and cruel.

My basic question is this: Why the double standard? How was the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 636 any less offensive than the attempts of the Crusaders to take back what they had lost? Why is a Muslim conquest of Christian land so much more acceptable and reasonable than those "awful Crusades" which were essentially attempts by Christians to recover the land stolen from them in 636? Loomis 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I think your question answers itself. The word "crusade" has long been used in a positive manner, and it's only because of that that people have pointed out the original Crusades weren't all that super to everybody. An equivalent could be the word jihad, which some people say they use in the same apolitical, nonviolent way as Christians who talk about "crusades" against hunger. But use the word "jihad" to a Christian, and he'll be more likely to think of violent struggles -- like the seventh-century conquest of Palestine. -- Mwalcoff 03:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am Christian. How can any Christian condone the bloodshed? My New Testament Gospel readings don't depict Jesus of Nazareth leading such an attempted conquest. Some Christians aren't Christian. I am not Muslim so I can't comment on what they did. I doubt if they followed in the best tradition of the Koran. Both sides were despicable.72.92.17.51 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)75Janice

I disagree with the statement that the word 'crusade' has always been used positively. Personally, I've never heard the term 'crusade to find a cure for cancer' or anything like it, and I've heard the word used in many negative contexts, like Senator McCarthy's actions being called a crusade, Captain Ahab, etc. Overall, the ways I've seen the word used have generally implied a misguided, invasive, hurtful campaign based on a narrow-minded, self-righteous viewpoint. I think reducing it to a pre/post 9/11 context is flawed. Anchoress 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the connotations would depend on the particular circles you socialize in... 惑乱 分からん 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't think I can remember the last time anyone used the word in conversation; my interpretation comes from print and news media. Anchoress 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have recently seen a thread on the Reference Desk where Islamicists denied that Islam was spread with the sword (by coercion). By this notion, the crusades (wherein Christianity was re-introduced militaristically) would have been more intrusive than the earlier Islamicization of the Holy Lands. Of course the Old Testament conquest of Canaan by Joshua and company provided a model of coercive conversion or slaughter. Edison 06:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the word (as opposed to the historical events) can be either positive or negative in Western culture, with the former predominating. Just from random Googling, I get Dwight David Eisenhower's book, Crusade in Europe and Campus Crusade for Christ as positive examples. Clarityfiend 07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You state that Roman Emperor Theodosius I had possession of the Holy Land in 391, and so the Crusades were just an attempt to regain these lands. However, these lands were not simply given to Rome as a friendly gesture, they were taken by force. In fact, that region has been through the hands of many, many empires (very interesting link). Ah, the things people do for some dirt. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Twas, you should know that I'd be the absolute last person to deny the fact that Rome acquired the Holy Land in any less coercive a way than did the Muslims in 636, followed by the Christian Crusades. Of course Rome took land that wasn't rightfully their's. All I'm asking about is the seeming double standard in attitudes between the Muslim invasion in 636 and the Crusades. One of the things that really gets me is how when one attempts to list the various dark periods of mankind, I so often here the following associations being drawn, as in the following sentence: "From the Crusades, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Holocaust, mankind has repeatedly shown its capacity for cruelty and inhumanity". Now wait a sec! Those three periods of history are in no way comparable! Perhaps the Inquisition and the Holocaust are comparable on these terms, but the Crusades should certainly not be included, at least not if the 7th century Muslim invasions are excluded. Loomis 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on the opinions of the author. There are even people, as you know, who would consider all of those periods as good… But I think most historians would not agree with the comparison, since they all arose out of different situations. The Inquisition and the Holocaust are fairly similar—seeking out members of a particular group in ones own country—whereas the Crusades were a war of conquest. I suppose the Crusades and the Holocaust are similar in that sense, since the Nazis engaged in a war of conquest to kill the Jews of other nations. Anyway, depending on their background, different people have different opinions about these periods in history. Are you saying the majority of books you have read on the subjects have compared them to each other? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never read of a positive aspect to Crusade. Even a moral crusader is seen as someone who goes too far. My siblings were always going on crusades, and parents rolled their eyes. I understand the word is related to the fight for the cross (?). If so, it is a Christian, not Islamic symbol. I think the reason for the negative connotation relates to the flowering of corporate social conscience experienced in England circa 1800. England had acquired a sizable empire in 1749, the year Nelson was born, and affluence exerted itself in counter culture. Adam Smith published a treatise on moral sentiment in 1759. Hume was writing on Human understanding in 1740's. During these years, literacy rates sky rocketed in England and social reformers achieved political strength.

The crusades had been successful for Christians. Bad military policy saw the french speaking outremer kingdom collapse in Jerusalem. It was a time when Europe was overpopulated and had muscle. By the time Zionists began pushing for a homeland in the late 1800's, social opinion began to oppose European mid East involvement, as illustrated by T. E. Lawrence.

Western style politics, with the embrace of the 'great argument' dialectic has one 'side' opposing the other. The term Crusade is an easy one to color any government that shows initiative.

More recently, but predating 2001, terrorists making claim to Islamist ideals have used the term to politically color argument. They never used it in a positive sence. DDB 07:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Many excellent responses here, with brilliant and enlightening links. Ref Desk at its best. Just a few historical links - to add that the concept is believed to originate from Saint Augustine's concept of Just War and that the First Crusade was proclaimed by Pope Urban II at the Council of Piacenza in 1095. Subsequent Crusades were declared against the pagans in modern day Germany, a sect that may or may not be regarded as Christian (the Albigensian Crusade) and, (hugely) ironically, the Fourth Crusade ended up in an attack on Christians living in Zara and Constantinople. --Dweller 10:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Edison 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Crusade" used to be used more positively than it is now, and not that long ago - think of Batman, the "Caped Crusader" - but it's true that the real Crusades are not looked back on with pride by most of the Christian-heritage countries of the world. They were a series of imperialist wars driven by religious ideology and fought with often horrific cruelty and zeal, and we like to think of ourselves as better than that now. Those who see the current situation between the west and Islam as a "clash of civilisations" tend to appeal to the Enlightenment to demonstrate our values are better than theirs. Nobody really wants reminded that there was a time when Christians were promised instant paradise if they died killing Muslims. --Nicknack009 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Crusades also pitted Christian against Christian, and the battles tended to be indiscriminate. "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" appears to have been the order of the day. Many Crusaders went on crusades not "to take the cross", but to liberate as much property/steal as much loot as possible. The Crusades also functioned to siphon off the excitable/violent members of Western society (at least the male half) and often pitted these loose cannons against regular armies and civilian populations. --Charlene 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a popular perception that has generally been debunked in recent historical research. The Jade Knight 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Crusade" actually originally was synonymous for "pilgrimage". "Taking the cross" meant "to go on pilgrimage". Originally, military involvement was incidental, not an integral part of the crusade (but something that was common). One could be a "crusader" without having lifted a sword. Over time, however, the military aspects of "crusades" were emphasized, and the term came to have the different meaning it has now. The Jade Knight 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I had originally considered ignoring this thread, because I did not believe that it served any useful purpose. However, I now think it important for the record (on the assumption that this is soon to vanish into the archives) to clarify one or two issues. First and foremost, we are dealing with two quite separate and not completely related areas of discourse: one of history and one of contemporary politics. It does not seem to me to be in any sense legitimate to attempt a direct comparison between the Muslim occupation of the Holy Land after Yarmouk and the incursion of the Crusaders at the end of the eleventh century. This cross roads between Africa and Asia has been fought over for centuries; and of all the invasions that of the Muslim armies was, as far as I am aware, far less destructive of human life than the original incursion of the Jewish tribes at the time of the Exodus, or the wholesale massacre carried out when the crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099, or even the invasion of the Persians earlier in the reign of the Emperor Heraclius. Indeed, far from the land being Christian in any unified sense it had, prior to the Battle of Yarmouk, seen an intense factional dispute between the local Monophysites and the orthodox authorities in Constantinople. The Monophysites, who rejected the doctrine laid out by the Council of Chalcedon, settled down with very little resistence to Muslim rule, and the Byzantine state made no attempt to recover the lost heretical provinces.

The Crusades, therefore, most assuredly, did not follow follow from the conquest of Yarmouk, but came almost five hundred years later ( a time span which seperates contemporary England from the reign of Henry VII), and under very specific historical circumstances. Under pressure from the Turks in Anatolia, who had been steadily moving westwards ever since the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus appealed to Pope Urban II for military aid. He wanted professional mercenaries; he got something quite different. Urban conjured up a popular movement at the Council of Clermont (not Piacenza). Thus the crusades began, and with it began centuries of massacre and atrocity, from the pogrom of the Jews in the Rhineland, moving through the wholesale murder and rape of Christian communities in the Balkans, to the ultimate sack of Jerusalem. And so it continued. The attitude mentioned by Charlene actually arose from the Albigensian Crusade in the thirteenth century. In taking the town of Bézirs, the crusaders, unable to distinguish between Catholic and Albigensian heretic, asked Arnold-Aimery, their leader, what they should do, he replied, 'Kill them all. God will know his own.'

In view of all of this it would hardly be surprising if the word 'crusade' had negative conotations. But it has not; at least not until recently. It was used in positive terms for centuries, long after the atrocities and outrages had been forgotten, as something good, noble and Christian, a myth of purity washed clean of blood. To offer a personal note, my brother's first yacht was even called Pacific Crusader! The negativity now associated with the word comes as a consequence of ever closer western military engagement with the Islamic world. From memory, I believe George W Bush actually used the 'c' word in the early days of the Iraq word, until he was reminded of the implications of this for Muslim people, and the history he was bringing to mind. I think it safe to assume that many Islamic people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are threatened with a new crusade. We have now, it would seem, created Outremer once again; and it remains to be seen if it will be as long lasting, or if, in the end, Baibars will walk over the ghost of Richard the Lionheart. Clio the Muse 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

February 14

to which clan gonge & bagal sirnames belong?

to which clan gonge & bagal sirnames belong? their kuldevat is tuljabhavani.

margaret pearson pendle witch

is there any information regarding margaret pearson a pendle witch other than the mention of her on your site.

many thanks j pearson

Did you visit the sites listed in the external links section of the Pendle witches article, especially: Potts, Thomas, The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster (London, 1613) at Gutenberg.—eric

Question about the Holocaust

Could i please mention that my question refers to the Extermination rather than the concentration camps? Thank you Ahadland 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering why all of the extermination camps, i.e. Treblinka were all in Poland, when the Nazi regime could have placed them in other occupied territories, such as France, Austria or the Czech Republic. I'd have thought Poland would have been a bad choice because it wasn't in mainland Europe and would have been difficult for transport; but, more importantly, if Russia turned on Germany, the Holocaust would have become well known a lot more quickly than the Germans anticipated. So, I was wonderin, why Poland?

Two reasons: Close proximity to the major Jewish centers of Europe and a population that would object far less than the population of France or Bohemia. (Of course, there were many Polish rescuers, but the overall level of antisemitism was higher in Poland than in France or Bohemia.) -- Mwalcoff 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Poland also a rather weak nation at that time? Not a country that would be able to give the German army much resistance? 惑乱 分からん 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Poland had been dismembered by the Germans and Soviets at the time. The country was under German rule. -- Mwalcoff 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "if Russia turned on Germany" ?? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the pact that the Germans made with the Soviets regarding the invasion of Polan. If Russia decided to occupy all of Poland, and boot out the Germans, the Russians would have stumbled across German plans for the final solution. Ahadland 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Theresienstadt concentration camp? It was in the then Czechoslovakia. JackofOz 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not all concentration camps were in Poland, just a great bulk of them. After all, Dachau was/is a suburb of Munich. Loomis 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Without actual knowledge, I presume the camps were set up, and guarded, by those who were powerless to influence proceedings. I understand that the smell of Dachau ovens was known to locals, but they hadn't considered it to be what it was. I understand few actually escaped the camps, and those who were sheltered had not been sent to a camp, so the rumors of the camps was really only realised after the war.

Those who poured the poison in the chambers must have known what they were doing. Some must have talked, but probably few really believed what they said. I have heard one interview with a guard whose job it was to make sure gas chamber victims had removed their clothes and valuables. One shy teenage girl had been unwilling to strip, but the guards made her. Clearly, few knew, or believed. It would have been easier to set up on territory where the guards did not speak the local language. Also, France would not have been useful, as it had an allied government, whereas Poland's one had been crushed. DDB 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

DDB, I must respectfully disagree with one of conclusions and one of your assertions. I disagree with your conclusion that clearly, few knew, or believed. Perhaps it is so, and perhaps not. I tend to believe that quite a few more new than you do, but neither of us have facts one way or the other, so I'll just leave it at that. You also assert that France had an allied government. This was certainly not the case. Of course France was an ally before it surrendered to Germany in June 1940, but this happened well before the implementation of the Final Solution. Afterwards, the French Government, though "officially" neutral, collaborated to a great extent with Germany. Of course, as I hope you'll understand, that's a whole separate issue that I'd prefer not getting too far into for the moment! :-) Otherwise, I consider Dweller's answer below to be quite accurate. Loomis 17:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a horrible efficiency to this. The demographics of pre-war European Jewry was hugely skewed to the east, with vast numbers in Poland and Ukraine etc. Placing the majority of camps to the east meant less transportation was required for most. Remember, as an administrator, Adolf Eichman made the process of the Holocaust very industrial and efficient. If you're running any kind of large-scale industrial system, you want to minimise transportation inefficiencies as a top priority. --Dweller 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One source to consult on the importance of the populace's antisemitism in permitting genocide is Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust; the original questioner will find much to contemplate in that work, though it primarily considers German antisemitism rather than Polish. - Nunh-huh 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that quite a few historians dispute Goldhagen's conclusions. It is a book best read aside one which takes a contradictory point of view, i.e. Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men. Personally I find Browning's conclusions a bit more persuasive, both for their historical content as well as their psychological insight (Browning's is much more compatible, in my reading of it, with other studies of killing and atrocity, e.g. Grossman's On Killing). --24.147.86.187 03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I hope that message wasn't aimed at me in any way. I think I made it clear that neither DDB nor myself have any hard evidence to back up our assumptions concerning who knew what and who didn't. All I did by responding with my POV is attempted to make it clear that his assumption was just as POV as mine, rather than a factual conclusion as seemed to be implied by the language he used. His assumption may very well be a lot more factually correct than mine. I just wanted to make it clear that it was an assumption, not a fact. As for the France thing, that part was sourced directly to the wiki article on the subject. Loomis 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

With reference to the main question - I feel I should point out that poland is in mainland europe - in fact fairly central to mainland europe - so in terms of positioning placing camps in poland makes sense. From poland '..is a country in central europe..' - if you are uncertain of the geography this image shows how central poland is. 87.102.10.217 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also compatable with a need to rid the east (see:lebensraum) of undesirables (see:untermensch) prior to germany colonisation eg from General Government:

"1941 Hitler made a decision to "turn this region into a purely German area within 15-20 years". He also explained that "Where 12 million Poles now live, is to be populated by 4 to 5 million Germans. The Generalgouvernement must become as German as Rhineland"

Also poland (see:General Government) was under more effective military rule than collaborating states like Vichy France or Hungary (see:Hungary#World_War_II) - western parts of poland had been incorporated into the third reich as well.87.102.10.217 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, I take your point and thank you for the endorsement. I would like to search for the references I have, but time is a luxury DDB 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah!- a very good question on which to announce my reappearance! First of all, I would like to thank the single user who corrected the contention that Poland is somewhere firth of mainland Europe! On the central point under consideration, there are a number of things that should to be made clear. First and foremost, there was indeed a clear difference in the Nazi scheme of things between concentration camps and Extermination camps, which were built for one purpose, and one purpose only. Concentration camps were located all over Germany and elsewhere in Europe; but extermination centres were located either in areas annexed from Poland, or in the General Government. The first category included Auschwitz-Birkenau and Kulmhof. To these we should probably add the minor camp of Stutthof near Danzig. The second category includes Majdanek, as well as the main Operation Reinhard camps of Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. Why were these camps established where they were? The simple answer-one that has already been given-is that they were all close to major Jewish population centres. It would have presented much more severe logistical problems to have transported millions of eastern European Jews to, say, France or any other country in the west. Poland, moreover, had good transport links with the rest of the Continent, and people from France, Holland and elsewhere could be taken with relative ease to the east. The main camps were still fairly remote, and the marshes at Auschwitz offered the opportunity of disposing of tons of human ash. Poland had the additional advantage of being more completely subject to the Nazis than any of the other conquered territories, many of which retained some semblance of self-rule. If anyone wonders why there were so many Jewish people concentrated in Poland it was here that they were officially allowed to settle during the Tsarist days, in the area known as the Pale of Settlement.

On the subject of the Holocaust itself, there seem to be a number of misconceptions. It is important to understand that there was a considerable degree of improvisation in Nazi policy towards the Jews; and as late as 1939 mass migration was still the favoured option, with Madagascar being given serious consideration as a likely destination. Only the outbreak of World War Two put a stop to such plans, which had involved Adolf Eichmann, amongst others. From 1940 onwards the favoured strategy became one of 'ghettoization', with the Jews of western Europe being transported to join pre-existing communities in the east. But up to the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 there was no specific plan for mass murder; so, Ahadland, there would have been nothing for the Russians to discover if they had 'turned on Germany', as you put it. The mass killings in fact started in Russia, with the introduction of the Einsatzgruppen, following in the wake of the armies. The favoured methods were gas vans and mass shootings; so it's a fair assumption that the Russians had good knowledge of what was happening at Babi Yar and elsewhere. Nazi policy overall was now taking a far more radical turn; and in December 1941 the first gassings started at Kulmhof, where Jews were transported from the nearby Lodz Ghetto. However, the various strategies were still considered to be too ad hoc, and there were also concerns about the rates of mental breakdown among the SS personnel involved in the field executions in Russia. To remedy this-and to ensure maximum co-ordination amongst all government agencies-the Wannsee Conference was summoned in January 1942. It was from this point forward that the Holocaust, in the sense we understand it today, acquires a much more definte and systematic shape, with the major extermination centres coming into gradual operation. Ahadland, if you wish to pursue this whole matter in a little more depth there are many fine monographs and studies; but amongst the most accessible, in my estimation, is The Holocaust by Martin Gilbert. Clio the Muse 00:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! What an unexpectedly accurate answer! I truly commend Clio for the quality of her response. I couldn't have put it better myself. Bravo! Loomis 05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

February 15

Future of English Language. US vs UK

If spellings in the World English are based on American, rather than British English, is anything lost other than a little British heritage and links to the etymology of those words? If it's an inevitable change, I don't want to cling on like a person might to pounds and ounces. Of course I did read that World English might not completely conform to either standard. --Seans Potato Business 05:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

English is not like French as a language. There are regional additions and amendments. Sound and pronunciation are different within Australia, as they are within the US. The English spoken in Maine is similar to how Londoners may have spoken two hundred years ago. The largest nation of English speakers is China.

What influences English speaking is the regional language preceding it. People tend to a family tongue, and while they might learn English, their native tongue influences it. Hence New Zealanders have a very different sound to Australians. One interesting curio is the effect of learning English from different places. Indian English has some fascinating peculiarities, and Chinese, but compare them to Vietnamese and Phillipine English speakers who learned from US peoples ;)

My tip for the direction of English is to relate it to Indian or Chinese peoples. DDB 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as World English and there never will be. It is a bit of specious nonsense thought up by the British Council to cover up the linguistic provincialism of anglophones and obscure the way that English dominance in global affairs handicaps 95% of humanity. English has no serious standards and it is unlikely that it will have some anytime soon. There is no emerging global standard for English, nor is there any standard of English to which learners can be compared other than the way native speakers use it. "World English" will always be the English of native speakers, and non-natives will always have a disadvantage speaking it. Even Indians - people from a supposedly anglophone country - find themselves at a linguistic disadvantage in global anglophone circles.

China is not the nation with the largest number of English speakers. China is the nation with the largest number of people who've once taken an English class. You can't even begin to function in Chinese society in English, and most Chinese "English speakers" are hard pressed to form comprehensible sentences. The vast majority have never spoken English outside a classroom or ever met a native speaker. Many of them have English *teachers* who have never spoken English outside a classroom. And, the Chinese are every bit as provincial as Americans, may be more so. The wealthier they get, the less English they will study. When a billion people with western standards of living all speak Chinese, it will not be China's problem to communicate with the rest of the world, it will the be the rest of the world's problem to communicate with China.

Children of immigrants who come to anglophone countries and integrate show almost no influence of their parents' native tongues on their English. NZ and Australia speak English somewhat differently but this has nothing to do with "influences from native tongues". It's no different from how people in the UK or US have different regional accents. The English spoken in Maine is no more alike to that of early 19th century London than modern London English is. The two have evolved differently, both retaining some features the other has dropped.

There was nothing inevitable in the rise of English and there is no guarantee that it will continue. It happened for historically grounded reasons, and it may be overturned by the same forces of change. But there will never, ever, *ever* be a World English separate from the English of native speakers; nor will there ever be a World English that is genuinely accessible to more than a small fraction of humanity. World English is an excuse for anglophones to not study languages; it is a thin justification for holding the rest of the world to standards that they do not hold themselves to. It is rank hypocrisy and it does real damage. --Diderot 10:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite apart from the somewhat mad rant on English as the world's second language, the question seemed to me more about a move towards a standardised spelling of words than the language's spread across the world. If American-English becomes dominant in english text-books, novels and on the internet then over time it is plausible that a more standard spelling of words will come about. Dropping the 'u' in things like colour are probably the most likely to occur first, as to most readers the U doesn't serve a purpose (i'm sure someone who studies language can explain that part).

To tackle the 'ignorance' factor of being English-speaking and not learning another language, I fear this point is overly stated. A good 99.9% of my time is spent speaking with english (as a first language) speakers. The other .1% of the time is broken up between those with english-as-second-language, and those who speak their own native-tongue. Were I to move to somewhere where that .1% turned into, I don't know 5% or 10% then, yes, suddenly learning another language is viable, sensible and worthwhile. There is no reason why an international-standard language could not be developed using English as a basis, esperanto tried to be the world's second language and whilst not based on English (it seems to be built from a variety of european language bases) the idea was right. ny156uk 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to determine was, whether I should cling to English versions of words or just go with the flow and embrace the American versions? --Seans Potato Business 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't cling to words too strong, the english language is always changing - that's one of the reasons it's so vibrant. You should just go with the flow. ny156uk 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "go with the flow"? Most of the world outside America uses various versions of English which are closer to British English than American English. Use the dialect of English that's familiar to you and be proud of it. Don't try to change the way you speak because of some inevitably flawed perception of what is going to be the "standard" in the future - despite what some American sci-fi films and television programmes would have us believe, there isn't going to be one. -- Necrothesp 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice:

• Do whatever your publisher tells you to do.
• If you're not writing for a publisher, do whatever you want, or whatever the people around you expect.

The US just happens to have a preponderance of speakers compared to the UK (it's a much more populous country). Don't expect the Brits to adopt American English anytime soon, however. The Jade Knight 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, they learn a lot of English from movies and programs with Dutch subtitles. For example a colleague of mine new the word 'flashlight' but not 'torch'. I figure since there is more American media floating around, the world are more likely to be exposed to these forms than British ones. I mean they changed sulphur to sulfur so why not just get it over with an change the lot? No point in me being proud of something I never did. --Seans Potato Business 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, a torch would be a flame on a wooden stick, not a battery-driven device. Maybe that's due to American impact, I don't know... 惑乱 分からん 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about changes in language -- they come with an awesome unstoppability (unless you are French and you have the Accademie to protect you). How many of the English still use 'mediaeval'? And how many use 'prevaricate' instead of, e.g. temporize. Doubt that 'prevarication' means 'lying'? Look it up in what's-it-called Misplaced Pages. Sad, isn't -- best just to lie down and think of ... -- but that's where we came in, isn't it? Chris Towner 13:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking for further information about finnish volunteers in the soviet red army during the winter war/continuation war

I'm looking for more reading material about finnish people and finnish speaking karelian people who fought in the red army against the finnish army during World War II. I have seen references to "71st division" "106th Karelian National Rifle Division" and "1st Finnish People’s Rifle Corps" but do not know anything more about these units than their name. Several thousand finnish people fled to the soviet union after the finnish civil war, did they join the red army? Also, the puppet regime (Finnish_Democratic_Republic) lead by Otto_Ville_Kuusinen had an army named People's Army of Finland but they were not allowed to take part in the war?

All in all, I'm looking for sources, on this page there is an article in english written as the third post, but no source cited.

I'm not looking for information about people from ingria fighting with the red army. Vildmark 12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You may find this page of some interest, which announces the intention, amongst other things, to form a Finnish army core to fight alongside the Soviets. . It would seem, though, that this was chiefly for reasons of prestige and propaganda, and was expected to 'carry the flag', so to speak, into Helsinki. There is also this page on the 106th Karelian National Rifle Division and the Finnish People's Army Kuusinen's troops were largely involved in occupation and garrison duties, though some fighting was done. One ski detachment was allegedly massacred by Finnish troops during the Battle of Tolvajäravi. Some of the last fighting, moreover, was by Finn against Finn. I suspect that the 106th-and other formations-must have been well understrength, if for no other reason than significant numbers of Finns who fled the country during the Civil War of 1918 and the political upheavals of 1930 later vanished in Stalin's purges. Clio the Muse 02:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric Hobsbawm, English 20th Century historian

Are there any enteies eelating to his books? Gregall

Yes, the Age of Extremes, although that appears to be the only one. Carom 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The page on Eric Hobsbawm has a full list of his publications, but it is a pity that only the Age of Extremes is given any detailed analysis. It is not amongst his best work. Clio the Muse 01:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

February 16

Barack Hussein Obama

Just two very simple questions.

(1) Does Obama eat pork?

(2) Does Obama drink beer? 211.28.131.148 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You could write and ask him about any and all of his dietary habits. If this is a veiled question (like my pun) about him being a Muslim, then according to our article, Barack Obama is a "baptized" Christian. But I'll assume good faith and guess you're just curious about celebrities' culinary preferences. In which case I've not been very helpful. --Dweller 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm entitled to a correct answer because if Obama becomes the next president of USA, he could change the world. 211.28.131.148 12:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And Obama's beer-drinking/pork-eating would affect his competency as president? Did you read the response? A person's dietary preference is not common knowledge, so there is no way to know unless you contact Obama's office yourself. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, beer drinking would affect his competency, though in the negative. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood that this is intended to be tongue in cheek, but I don't see how the act of drinking beer (not getting drunk, but drinking any, at all, of any quantity) would affect competence...negatively OR positively...unless we accept current scientific evidence that alcohol in moderation on a regular basis has a positive impact on heart-health, or Obama is a SERIOUS lightweight. Jfarber 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't alcohol affect health positively in some areas, and negatively in others? 惑乱 分からん 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does George W Bush eat pork? His pork-eating is hardly relevant to his ability to "change the world". Why ask these specific "simple questions" about Obama, and not Hillary Clinton? If you want to know, Is Barack Obama a Muslim? ask that. And the answer is no. --Dweller 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Obama's Christian faith imposes no dietary restrictions on pork, but this meme about him being a Muslim is tenacious among some parts of the population, he should make sure all of the traditional New Hampshire "eating with the common people" campaign stop photo-ops he attends include pictures of him with a pork chop in his mouth. Plus bacon for breakfast. :) --TotoBaggins 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many African-Americans who don't eat pork, regardless of their religious faith. Corvus cornix 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard about that, but I haven't understood why. 惑乱 分からん 01:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Some possible reasons. ---Sluzzelin 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTCs)

I heard a theory that trichinosis might have been the reason pork became impure in Judaism to begin with. Animal welfare would be a reason for vegetarianism/veganism, not abstainment of pork, in particular. 惑乱 分からん 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory. Doesn't really explain why Jews are forbidden to eat cheesburgers. Or indeed any of the other myriad dietary laws. --Dweller 12:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My father stated that most of the forbidden animals on the list were scavengers eating human corpses. (Amazingly, Misplaced Pages lacks a good article.) Interesting theory, albeit perhaps not fool-proof. An alternate theory would be that it was some way of systematizing the fauna. 惑乱 分からん 14:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Jewish dietary laws don't really fit into any convenient bracketing like that. Even if that were correct (it's not - rabbits and pigs aren't kosher, many kinds of fish and seafood aren't kosher, even the hind quarters of kosher animals aren't kosher!) it's overlooking the prohibitions on mixing meat and dairy etc. Ultimately, the dietary laws are a Statute, without explanation. --Dweller 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is he anti-pork, he sponsored a bill in the Senate to that effect: . --Mathew5000 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone who doesn't have the time to click the link, it's about Obama sponsoring a bill trying to establish a database to track "federal grants, contracts, loans, and "earmarks"". The latter is nicknamed apparently "pork". --Dweller 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Lord Brahma , the god of creation, does not have temple?

I have seen many incarnations of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva being worshipped and also they have temples for them . But I have never observed temples or special worship or prayers for Lord Brahma , who is considered as God of Creation. I would like to know about the reason behind that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyasingaraju (talk • contribs)

Brahma#Temples. There are temples, but not very many. It is a very curious thing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also Brahma#Attributes third paragraph and Brahma#Appearance second paragraph explains why.87.102.20.186 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard once (a course in Hindu Mythology, UIUC.edu, circa 1979) that the big B is not worshipped because he created the world by raping his daughter. —Tamfang 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

recognition

hi. i think that[REDACTED] should start up an article that says opinions of the most recognizable rock singers. just to give you one, i personally think brian johnson of acdc is the most recognizable, easy. just an idea.Jk31213 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a list be blantantly pov? "Recognizable" seems like a vague and unencyclopedic criterion. 惑乱 分からん 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you meant editors' opinions on rock singers, or rock singers' opinions (on whatever). In case you did mean the latter: wikiquote offers some opinions uttered by Brian Johnson. Example: "Punk and all that was just an image that ripped people off. Johnny Rotten's a wanker, and that's all there is to it." ---Sluzzelin 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, i mean like just take other people's opinions on just who do they think is the most recognizable rock singers. it can be people from[REDACTED] itself or rolling stone magazine or guitar world or something. just not 'expert' opinions'Jk31213 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clarifying. Now, what do you mean by recognizable? Do you mean their level of fame? Do you mean what would the answers be if you asked 1000 people: Who is the most famous rock singer? Do you mean recognizable by how easily they're identified by their voice, by their appearance? Misplaced Pages does have List of best-selling music artists and Best-selling music artist for hard numbers. And I found List of songs in English labeled the best ever. A[REDACTED] poll would probably only be acceptable in a sandbox,and would have absolutely no notability. A Rolling Stone poll, or better yet a synthesis of polls conducted by notable sources might have the better chances of surviving as an article or list. I remember a worldwide poll held sometime in the early 1990's asking people around the globe to name famous people. Of the living people I believe Michael Jackson was somewhere way on top of the list at the time. ---Sluzzelin 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean like prably the most famous rock singer done by like 1000 people or wutever. u no how when one listens to the radio and they say, "oh i recognize him!" probably has to do with how many notes they sing until recognized. but probably the most famous done by 1000 people would be a good guess. but im just giving u nothing more than a personal opinion of mine of who the most recognizable rock singer is and thats brian johnson. again its up to[REDACTED] to start an article with a title saying list of most recognizable rock singers. doesnt have to be in order from 100 to 1 or anything but just a list taken from different people.Jk31213 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well,I wouldn't Recognise him if he called round to my house and bought me a pinthotclaws**== 08:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

By "recognizable" do you mean "famous" (I had to look him up) or "unlikely to be mistaken for someone else" (his face does look distinctive, at least in that shot)? For the latter I'd nominate Ray Sawyer and Cass Elliot. —Tamfang 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting last criterion, Ozzy Osbourne and Joey Ramone are good examples... 惑乱 分からん 17:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

February 17

Worst possible condemnation...?

Both Moses and Jesus condemned Jews who demonstrated their love and worship of money, wealth and possessions above God. (Moses and the Golden Calf, Jesus and the Money Changers). Is not then the worse possible condemnation of Jews demonstrated when a person or group possess, loves or worships wealth, material possessions and money above God? -- Barringa 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks somewhat like a leading question. Leaving that aside, there seems to be a logical link in the terms you've provided. Wealth and money should be considered one and the same, and material possessions can be easily considered merely an extension of money. What, then, is the particular weight of a condemnation of simply "money"? How is it weighed against a condemnation of hypocrisy? A condemnation of arrogance? What of the fairly common doctrine that sin simply "is" or "is not", without a distinction of "more sinful"? — Lomn 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In regard to forms consider then the physical body and the various organs including blood which are essential to life and one’s love of the life such organs bring above one’s love of God. -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't specify that the person or group is Jewish, so presumably it's no condemnation of Jews at all for some arbitrary person or group to love wealth. I know I sure love having a little scratch, and I'd hate to think I'm impugning "the Jews" by doing so. --TotoBaggins 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The question does not pertain to persons or groups who do not claim to be Jewish. -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation with the Golden Calf was not about money, if you read it. Neither was the situation with Jesus and the money changers, really. Jesus made it clear that the most important thing was to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, love your neighbour as yourself". If you want to know what God says to people, it's not hidden away in the Bible to be discovered by the intellectual. It's there, stated fairly explicitly. BenC7 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I differ on this point believing the Golden Calf was a symbol of money, wealth and material possessions which the Jewish people demonstrated that they held in higher esteem than God. (Exo. 20:3) The situation with the money changers was that they were using the Temple, the place reserved for worship of God and the House of God to conduct their worldly business which demonstrated they held their business in higher esteem than they held God. (Mat 21:12-14) -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just because you belive it doesn't make it a facthotclaws**== 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It most certain makes it a 'fact' for the believer. -- Barringa 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the message of this 'question.' The statements regarding Moses and Jesus are wrong. The links provided don't support the argument. The statements that follow a fallacy are fallacious. The assertion that Jewish peoples are not acceptable to god because of a faked observation is unworthy of anything less than condemnation. I appreciate the politeness of those who have pointed out the clear deficiencies. DDB 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mat. 21:15 -- Barringa 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I too think your question doesn't make much sense - the golden calf is about idolatry not money. The story about the money changers is often read as a message that temples are not places for worldly things. Note the money changers exchanged money - that was used as an offering to god - there is not any mention of 'profit'.

My reference to the Golden Calf is as a symbol for the Idolitry of money. As for profit me reference is for the selling of doves: Mat. 21:12 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. Mat 21:13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'" -- Barringa 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you meant that 'loving or worshipping money' was the worst thing a jew could do in terms of their jewish faith?87.102.7.220 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is whether the act of a greater affinity for worldly things is by its expression the worst possible form of anti-Senitism since it serves others who are looking at Judaism from the outside as an example of what Judaism is truly all about. -- Barringa 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if Jews have a greater affinity for worldly things than they have for their god it helps make people anti semitic? Note: the phrase 'by its expression' doesn't make any sense - is it supposed to mean something like "if jews love money/worldy goods more than their god it serves the to confirm the views of anti-semites" or something like that?87.102.13.148 12:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments, DDB. You seem to have a very good handle on the OP and his seemingly endless series of condemnable questions somehow trying to link up Jews with the worship of money. I also don't understand the repeated references to the Golden Calf. As I've mentioned before, the story speaks of a Golden Calf being created and worshipped, and then, upon seeing it, Moses, with the help of God of course, gave the Israelites a choice: Worship the Golden Calf (representing idolatry, materialism, money etc.) or worship God. Those who chose the calf were swallowed up by the earth (along with the calf). Those who chose God were left to survive and go on to being the ancestors of today's Jews. I can't imagine a better illustration of the fact that Judaism is about worshipping God, not money. Loomis 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately history has a tendency of repeating itself and once again today there are many persons who worship money and yet claim to be a Jew. -- Barringa 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Barringa, I agree with those who have decried you here for not actually asking questions, and wish you would get over yourself and stop. This is not a place for use of the socratic method to convince others of your own agenda or beliefs. More, there are plenty of people of all faiths who seem to pursue money in such a way as to fit your odd definition of "worship." Some are Jews. Some are Christians. Some are Muslims. In all these religions, obsessive pursuit of anything material is generally seen as anathema to spiritual pursuit. And in both Judaism and Christianity, at least, there exists "history" which suggests that such behavior is seen as UNIVERSALLY not acceptable (not religiously, just not right for the "us" that spiritual leaders talk to and about). So I fail to see why this discussion is about Jews, or why you seem so much more concerned with making us think that somehow this is a jewish issue. It's a shame, really. This forum is otherwise quite useful. Jfarber 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti Semitism does not merely refer to denunciation of Jews. It includes attempts to discredit the faith and people. Even were it the case that the Golden Calf underlay Modern Judaism, and even if it represented the totality of Jewish philosophy, as the question assumes, it goes nowhere near the actual praxis of Judaism involving Jewish peoples.

Okay then put in a more direct way: Does not the love of worldly possessions above the love of God by a person claiming to be a Jew represent the worst form of anti-Semitism there is? -- Barringa 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So your saying that somebody who is antisemitic might act as if they love money and then pretend to be a jew - to increase disrespect for jews? Yes I'd say that is bad. But please note that you're asking a rhetorical question there as far as I can tell - that's not really the sort of thing the reference desk is for.87.102.13.148 12:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OP has also referred to genetics and an 'evolutionary war.' It is not just money or Judaism that OP is targetting.

DDB are you on crack? Your comment above is so out of context as to make this question about your mental health real. -- Barringa 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an observation that many Jewish people are wealthy, although that is not the case for all, or even many, Jews. Jews do not control the world. I thought, for awhile, my father did, but I matured. DDB 00:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Again DDB and in response to your email and postings to my talk page the question I am asking is whether the Jews by their own acts such as worshiping the Golden Calf extrude a greater degree of anti-Semitism than those who on the outside do who observe such things and ask if there are two kinds of Jew - one who love worldly things and one who loves God. In my own personal opinion and in conformance with Loomis' comment above those Jews who choose to love the Golden Calf are no longer in my regard considered Jews. Therefore comments or questions regarding them can not be in any way anti-Semitic. However your repeated misinterpretation of my questions and comments most absolutely certainly is. -- Barringa 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Barringa, you said on the 3rd of February "Brothers and sisters are restricted from marrying each other in most cultures with few exceptions (Hawaians). Brits and American already pride themselves on the different starting point of their respective heritages since the Revolutionary War, not the evolutionary war. -- Barringa 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)" Have I misquoted you to earn your accusation about Crack? Or is that an uncomfortable reference for you, as you do not wish to stand by your assertions? I don't mind debating you, but I would feel more comfortable were you to not resort to anti semitic rhetoric that holds Jews are lesser people (through marrying kin) that love money and nothing else. Your questions are largely fools errands, with no real academic merit, but often such questions are asked by very young people who have been brought up poorly, but who are beginning to question why the world is as it is. The nature of your questions lead me to believe that you are not so very young, but an apologist for a discredited ideal that underpins Nazism, Islamo fascism and racism. I am not Jewish, nor were any of my mother's ancestors Jewish. I was raised an atheist. I am not giveing you my POV, I am giveing you worthy argument, which you are arguing ad hominem. DDB 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Barringa. What Barringa said on the 3rd of February has nothing to do with the question here. You sound on the other hand like you have some misplaced grudge against Barringa who is obviously only trying to come to an understanding as to why anti-Semitism exists except for the obvious contention between Moslems and Jews. In fact if you trace the ideals that underpin Nazism back far enough you may find that this is where they start although the death of Jesus Christ on the cross of which the Jews are accused is the proclaimed beginning by the Nazis. As for racism and Jews it is only those Jews who have lost their right to call themselves Jews by virtue of their own actions such as loving worldly goods more than God who want to uphold Judaism as a race instead of a religion so as to escape consequential excommunication. Had you been raised Christian or Jew you might know this. Baked Beans 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

— Baked Beans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

— Corvus cornix: Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks — many may find the accusation of being a single purpose account as insulting. Baked Beans 06:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

— Baked Beans has been blocked as a sock puppet of Barringa. Corvus cornix 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Barringa, it's overwhelmingly clear to all that you're an anti-semite. Yet, representing a significant segment of the world's population, I'm totally against having your questions and comments censored or removed. That would be to no one's benefit. To me, sweeping anti-semitism under the rug is nothing but a cop-out. Rather, despite the ugliness of the phenomenon known as anti-semitism, I believe it's in everyone's best interests for it to be explored, not dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. If only we can come to better understand the inner workings of the mind of an anti-semite, i.e. what makes you "tick", perhaps then we'd all be the better for it, and perhaps we'd all, yourself included, benefit from a discussion on the topic. Perhaps you'd even reconsider your hatred, and be cured of the ugly disease you seem to be afflicted with. You obviously bear some sort of hatred toward Jews, one that I, as well as I'm sure the great bulk of RefDesk editors and all the good people of the world simply cannot make any sense of. Your case in particular is a rather confusing one. So far you've asked about a half dozen questions linking up Jews with the worship of money. Yet your questions seem to be tangential at best, which only further confuses the rest of us. Perhaps it's time for you to stop beating around the bush and to finally get to your point, or at least the fundamental, central question that's on your mind. If only you'd do so, I'd be pleased to discuss it, not only for my benefit, or for the benefit of other readers, for yours as well. You seem to continously base your tangential questions and rather cryptic anti-semitic remarks on what appears to be a gross misunderstanding of Judaism and the mindset of modern-day Jews. Perhaps if you got to your central question or point, the rest of us would be in a far better position to help you correct your misunderstandings. However, should you decide to continue with your cryptic and tangential anti-semitic points and questions, I'm afraid that none of us, yourself included, will derive any benefit from this discussion. Loomis 13:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Barringa does not sound like an anti-Semite to me but rather like one who is trying to find consensus on what the definition of an anti-Semite should be. In fact, can't find it right now, but I believe Barringa actually stated he was not. Denouncing Jews who love worldly possessions more than God is not in my opinion anti-Semitism. Instead of succeeding in making Barringa out to be an anti-Semite what you have made abundantly clear is that you want him to be your scapegoat. Baked Beans 13:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there you go. This is precisely why I was so against censoring many of Barringa's previous comments. Now that we've completely removed each and every one of Barringa's clearly anti-semitic statements, the whole ugly issue has been nicely sanitized, with myself once again coming across as the bad guy, looking for some innocent, blameless individual to scapegoat. Perhaps I'm the only one, but to me, anyone who asks such questions as: "Is money the true God of the Jews"? And makes statements like: "he true God of the Jews is money - but delete it so as to hide this fact from everyone" and "Misplaced Pages is controlled by Jews who believe that God is money". Baked, are you telling me that to you, the author of such ugly and hateful remarks is not clearly an anti-semite, and that branding him as such is merely a matter of scapegoating? Please, Baked, get real. Loomis 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this clear. Jews don't worship money. Jews are obligated to give money away. Some people like money a lot. Some of those people are Jews. There's no link between Judaism and love of money, quite the opposite. Someone who's not a good Jew in terms of halacha is still a Jew. I've never met someone who is Jewish or non Jewish who "loves" money. Maybe I'm lucky. But if there is such a person, it seems a position incompatible with halacha, which is not the same thing as some of the weird assertions made by Barringa. Does that cover it? --Dweller 13:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason Jews are overrepresented in banking and finance is due to the fact that for centuries the Church restricted them from certain forms of labour (agrarian, etc.) while forcing them into other forms of labour which Christians were prohibited from (loan-sharking, etc.). The flipside is that, due to persecution and an emphasis on education (or at least, literacy), Jews have also been overrepresented among revolutionaries who aim at overthrowing 'worship of money' (i.e. capitalism). Nazis and their pseudoscientific, racialist kind bring up figures (large number of Jews involved in banking; large number of Jews who were members of the Bolshevik Party, etc.) through an insidiously simplistic, would-be genetic models, totally ignoring these entirely explicable historical forces. The original question was, however, posed in a provocational manner and its author (and sockpuppet) has been indefinitely blocked for disruption. El_C 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, though we may disagree on how to deal with these hate-mongers, (they tend to be their own worst enemies, the more they talk, the more ridiculous they sound, and in turn, the more they delegitimize their ugly cause,) blocking them is an understandable reaction, and was clearly done with only the best of intentions. I therefore respect this decision. Loomis 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Every individual has an agenda, or a purpose for their actions. Even a question can lead a conversation in a direction. There are personalities that can be attributed to corporations, and so groupings can be said to have an agenda, sometimes recognisably distinct from individuals. It is said people in committees agree to decisions they would never agree to as individuals. While it is true that some Jewish peoples form groups, it is not true that there is a single Jewish collective.

Groupthink is observable. Worldwide, the so called Western Dialectic expresses itself through commonality of ideas. Socialism is an expression of the Dialectic, as is Conservatism, Radicalism, Republicanism and Communism, to name but few. Judaism is a religion with multiple expressions. I think the paranoid fantasy of Jewish Agenda is an expression of anti semmitic radicalism. DDB 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And since there is no Jewish agenda we use other excuses for deleting comments and blocking users who ask questions which suggest there is, especially any comments or questions we deem non-Jewish or can claim to be anti-Semitic. (BTW if you don't see this comment again its because one of our bots decided it was a little too revealing, is not Jewish or in some other way against[REDACTED] (Jewish) policies we can enforce in our own arbitrary way. Rabbi Benton 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Barringa, once again, I presume? Loomis 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If Mary is a virgin then

Does that mean that Jesus is the bastard son of Joseph? 211.28.131.148 04:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See jesus. According to the bible I understand that Jesus is the son of god, and that god gave Mary the virgin-birth. I also understand bastard is a term for someone born outside of marriage - not sure whether or not Mary/Joseph were married so perhaps the bastard part is correct. I'm sure a theology-enthusiast/expert will be able to clarify further. ny156uk 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To keep Jesus from being labelled a "bastard", there are two ways to approach it. First, you can claim Mary was wedded to God, so Jesus was conceived and born in that wedlock. At the time, it was not considered a sin to have multiple spouses, so it was OK for Mary to marry both God and Joseph. Second, you can claim a bastard is a child conceived of man and born outside of wedlock. Jesus was not conceived of man, so could not be considered a bastard. There's always a loophole when religion is involved. --Kainaw 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything, it seems like Jesus was the bastard son of Yahweh, who cuckolded Joseph. But I don't know of any denomination that uses such terminology. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some atheists believe that Jesus was actually a bastard and raised as such by Joseph. They believe that Joseph suffered this humiliation of being Cuckold so that Jesus the man would become so against infidelity that he would follow a career of denouncing infidelity and wrongdoing in general. Some atheists believe the whole story surrounding this perspective is just embellishment to get everyone to listen. Bottom line is that what ever point of view anyone takes tends to define their relationship with God and other men rather than defining God or others. 71.100.0.252 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The question raises a terminological one: if my hypothetical wife bears a son fathered by another, is there a concise term for that child's relation to me? Does stepson stretch that far? —Tamfang 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the circumstances. Miracles aside, your wife could bear a son of:

• another couple, as a surrogate - this has no relation to you (unless you're related to the biological parents, and then it's your nephew/cousin/whatever)
• another man in adultery - you might call him a stepson but (depending on where you live) might legally be your son even if the two of you were divorcing at the time of the birth
• another man after an assault - this again would legally be your son, and if your wife kept the child you'd be a damned fool to call him anything but your son
• a sperm donor - again legally your son, and (since you likely signed off on the procedure) your son in word as well. --Charlene 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The theology of the matter is exhaustively covered here . The most significant Vatican statement on the subject is that of Leo XIII, in the encyclical Quamquam Pluries of 1889, in which it is stated that For he (Joseph) indeed, was the husband of Mary, and the father, as was supposed, of Jesus Christ. From this arises all his dignity, grace and holiness. Fatherhood is understood here in the most comprehensive sense. Clio the Muse 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Riddle:: One guy lies, the other guy tells the truth - how to determine between?

There's this riddle which I think appears in Doctor Who, where there are two guardians of something and one can only lie and the other can only tell the truth. The idea is that you ask them both each one question and are able to determine from it, which is the guy that lies and which tells the truth. What are the questions that need to be asked? --Seans Potato Business 15:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"How many fingers am I holding up?" --80.0.108.101 15:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha. These are beautiful puzzles. Raymond Smullyan wrote several books full of these riddles. ---84.75.111.138 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Try asking each of them "Is he the liar?". 68.39.174.238 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't work - they'd both say yes. Clarityfiend 05:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ask one what the other would say, and then do the opposite. GreatManTheory 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That would tell you what the answer to the question is, but not which one is the liar. --80.0.103.191 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is The Riddle of the Sphynx (Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannos), a related riddle, as well as many a koan. Great Man gave the answer. Riddles are an important teaching tool, illustrating and defining issues within the western dialectic. Of the Europeans, French philosophy schools employ logic ultimates to define surroundings (cf Descartes' 'I Think, therefore I am') in the Scientific Revolution, Germanic Philosophy (logical positivism, German Idealism) which overlapped the French, but is distinct. Note, post Kurt Gödel, there has been a revolution of research into logic and philosophy. DDB 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many variations of this puzzle. I can't believe we don't have an article on these? Anyway, this particular puzzle can be solved with just one question. Ask one of the guardians "Would your companion tell me that you are the liar?" If the answer is yes, you are talking to the truth-teller; if he says no, he's the liar. Of course, these questions always assume that the liar is being rigidly logical rather than genuinely trying to mislead you.--Shantavira

Well, we do have Knights and knaves, as my anonymous sockpuppet pointed out above. ---Sluzzelin 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What if the answer is "I refuse to respond to that question, contact my lawyer."?dr.ef.tymac 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

History

I would like to know about the history of Prudential Bank (bought by Bank of the Philippine Islands). Does anybody know about it? Thank you very much.

Question about a catchphrase I don't understand

I saw a T.V programme a few weeks back, and the theme on it was history. The episode of the show incorporated a lot of stories that all fitted together. All the characters were trying to re-write their history. At the end of the show, the narrator summarised all the storylines, and concluded with a phrase that I don't understand. The phrase was "What is history anyway, if not lies agreed upon". Isn't history based on fact rather than lies? SOmebody please explain the phrase to me, thanks guys Ahadland 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, history isn't really based on fact, it's based on peoples' interpretations of events. Unless you were actually at an event, you only know about it through other peoples' accounts. Thus, how do you know whether what you have read is what really happened. For example, imagine if the Nazis had won World War II. The way we view the war would be radically different: Hitler would be seen as a hero, and the Allies would be viewed as the twisted, evil people.

Another example would be during the reign of Stalin in the USSR. People were taught that Stalin was an important figure during the October Revolution and ensuing civil war, when in fact, he was an extremely minor figure. He also erased records of the significant contributions of his political enemy Trotsky. You can see Historiography for some more information on the subject. -- Chairman S. Talk 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It expresses a cynical view of the study of history: about how much we can know and how much is simplified to produce a good story. It is a famous quote of uncertain origin, probably by someone French, usually blamed upon Napoleon, Voltaire or Fontenelle. In fact the varying authors illustrates the quotation. To quote from one interesting work of history, 1066 and All That "History is not what you thought. It is what you can remember". meltBanana 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As Winston Churchill once noted, "History is written by the victors." Although, I recall an Egyptian pharoah who managed to turn a crushing military defeat into a "victory" by using the big lie technique. Clarityfiend 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall a much more recent Mesopotamian leader who managed (or at least attempted) to turn a crushing military defeat into "the mother of all victories". Loomis 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And I've been to Talk:Vietnam War, where there are still some willing to deny the defeat of the US. Algebraist 14:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

History is based on "facts" but what a fact is is not at all straightforward. It is not, generally speaking, based on lies, or outright deceptions, but that does not mean it is actually based on anything like a standard, easy to grasp "truth". Historical "facts" can range in their rigid relation to the truth, from "Mr. X went here on this date" (which is either true or it isn't), to grand interpretations, decisions about what should be relevant to a given question, to musings about big-picture questions. The jump from one to the other is not easy and even the little facts can be very hard to get right — even harder than the big ones (it is easier to describe the general movement in a war that it is to describe any one day of it, for example). Professional historians grapple with these basic epistemological issues every day in their work, at least if they are honest with themselves. --140.247.248.18 19:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Often simple facts are inferred; in this case, history may or may not be factual. In most of the rest of the cases, history is based on remaining evidence and the writing of others, which writing may or may not be honest. All sorts of falsehoods have been promulgated because people who experienced an event lied about it, or, more commonly exaggerated. Or, people will hear a story, and record it as fact, often adding the little white lie that they had seen it themselves… The Jade Knight 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

February 18

Christian and Jewish view of future prophets

It is my understanding that Islam considers Muhammad the final prophet. Do the various denominations of Christianity feel the same way about Jesus? Does Judaism have a similar figure whom they consider in practice to have been the "final" prophet, or is it more open-ended? Specifically, do Jews admit the possibility of a future non-messianic prophet, in other words, one who precedes the final messiah but isn't a messiah him/herself? Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand Christians wait the second coming of the Christ. Jews wait the first. DDB 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify DDB, it seems to imply that Jews deny the historicity of Jesus' life, which they absolutely do not. What is rejected by Jews is "just" (!) the claim that he was the messiah. DDB's second wikilink should probably more fairly point to Mashiach. --Dweller 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more than that, Dweller. Jews also clearly deny that Jesus was the son of God and was divine in any way. As for the historicity of Jesus' life, well on that point Jews likely go by what the secular historians have to say about the man, definitely not the precise details of his life and death as described in the New Testament. Loomis 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The role of the messiah in Judaism is generally overestimated by Christians. Classical Judaism views Malachi as the last prophet; and like most established religions, asserts that no future prophet could change the religion in any substantive way (that is, anyone holding themselves out as prophet would be judged to be a false prophet if he purported to change religious law.). Christians generally believe that no prophet will come after Jesus, though some sects calling themselves Christians hold that such prophets exist (e.g. Mormonism, The Summit Lighthouse, etc.). - Nunh-huh 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue of prophecy is open to discussion among both Jewish and Christian religions. The Christian bible is different for Catholics and Protestants owing to understanding and custom. The books that form the bible are largely agreed upon, as it isn't rocket science. The Apocrypha, which I understand to literally mean 'hidden,' used to refer to books that were restricted to non clergy. More recently, it is those books that Protestants don't believe are related to Jesus. The Apocrypha is mainly those books of the last few hundred years before Jesus. They mainly refer to the acts of Angels, cf Tobias. DDB 00:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Christains believe that Jesus Christ is God there is not much credit given to other prophets who want to compete with this. Christains are likewise warned about the Anti-Christ in terms of anyone proclaiming to be the Second Coming of Jesus Christ or the next or final prophet. -- Barringa 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Christians don't believe that Jesus is a prophet. They believe that he is the Son of God. Jesus said "The Law and the Prophets were until John ". Christians expect no other prophet or person to come and give further revelation of God. The next "thing to happen", if you like, is the return of Christ. BenC7 03:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some Christians believe in post-Christ prophets, such as the Latter Day Saints (among others). The Jade Knight 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Middle East territorial disputes

What effect would 20 or more, 100 megaton blasts have for the territorial disputes in the Middle East? Would Christians, Jews and Moslems return to this land, resurvey it and draw up new boundaries or still fight over the old boundaries that were then strewn with creators? Also what would be the consequences of the loss of all artifacts stored or not otherwise removable from there in terms of each religion? -- Barringa 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't have a crystal ball, I can't really answer this question. Nor do I think that committing an atrocity is an effective way of solving conflict in the Middle East. -- Chairman S. Talk 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The disputes would be put on hold for a few hundred thousand years in Chernobyl South, unless they were willing to start wearing lead underwear. Clarityfiend 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chernobyl showed that radiation is not as dangerous as many think. I understand that after the initial deaths of some tweny people from direct exposure to high radiation, there are statistically no substantial long term side effects. Similarly at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the initial death toll was greatest as a result of the blasts. The highly radioactive contamination still has side effects, but people can still live there. However, that is not the point of the question, is it? I gather that OP is still gathering research material for his evolutionary war. DDB 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary war? Are you talking about the new Intel 80 CPU chip and the processor frequency war with AMD that turned into the number of processor core war? Baked Beans 12:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you specified "100 megaton" -- neither Israel, Pakistan, nor Iran is likely to have 100 megaton bombs at any time in the forseeable future. I would guess that the last-ditch worst-case Samson Option scenario is more likely to involve nuking about 50 middle-east cities with A-bombs of maybe 50 to 100 kiloton strength.

In any case, Judaism adapted to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem long ago (after 70 A.D.), and the importance of the Holy Land to Christianity is as pilgrimage sites related to Jesus' life, but which don't really play a major personal role in the worship of most ordinary believers. It's Islam which would have to adapt in a more significant way if its holiest sites in the Mecca area were destroyed. AnonMoos 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds the most foolish thing the questioner has chosen as a stratedgy to resolve the middle-east crisis. The first thing Israel and the US has to learn is the value of patience. And Sheer impatience for desires leads to an orderless society lacking all moral values19:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Twenty one-hundred megaton nuclear blasts would probably just kill a lot of people. They've been going at it for thousands of years and I really don't think they'll ever stop. Their societies just hunger for war. The Gini coefficient, literacy rate, and poverty rate, as quantizations are too unfavorable, and their population pyramids are rather alike. Whether it be sects, or religions, or classes, their society is just too messed up. X (How's my driving?) ❖ 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

—Hi.

I have been unable to locate the source for a Thomas Jefferson quote. It is "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man". I found it in a book by Richard Dawkins called The God Delusion, at page 43. The author does not ( unbelieveably) provide a source reference. I tried his website but had no luck there either. Thank you for your help.

Elaine Brown

According to this, Jefferson wrote that Christianity was "the most sublime and benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man" in a letter to Adams. Lowerarchy 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this reference to sexual perverts? 71.100.0.96 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. The word got its sexual meaning only recently. "Perverted" orginally meant "corrupted" or "misguided". Chl 15:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The article on Thomas Jefferson provides this reference: The Religious Affiliation of Third U.S. President. Baked Beans 18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cato the Elder and Livy

I'm currently looking for some beginning info on Cato the Elder and the Roman writer Livy (Titus Livius). I have read the Misplaced Pages articles on both people, but I am still confused as the articles go into a lot of detail. Simple English Misplaced Pages has no article on them. I just want to understand very briefly who they were, and what makes them famous in Antiquity history. Any "lamens terms" info will do, nothing fancy. Thanks for your help in advance, I appreciate it. Bobo is soft 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cato was a successful Roman statesman from the republican period he was Consul and Censor (the highest offices at the time). Livy was a historian who wrote about the history of Rome. Gradvmedusa 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For the former, try the (definitely digestible!) Carthago delenda est. (Don't worry, the article isn't in Latin!) The expression tells us a lot about his personality. --Dweller 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cato the Elder is especially remembered for presenting himself as old fashioned: a "follower of the old Roman strictness" and a member of "that purist faction who displayed their adherence to the stricter virtues of the ancient Roman character" (to quote the article). Livy, on the other hand, is remembered as a writer who told the story of Roman history in a vivid and dramatic way—not a writer trying to come across like a cynical intellectual (that was more Sallust and Tacitus' department), but a storyteller whose style had a "milky richness" (to quote the ancient literary critic Quintilian). Wareh 23:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Raison d'Être

I almost posted this in about four different places, but decided to post here, in search of English language buffs, who I thought may or may not inhabit the Languages board (which was my #2 choice!)

The article Raison d'Être seems to be a mishmash compilation of a barely acceptable discussion of the term and a band. The capitalisation doesn't seem to suit either. Anyone? --Dweller 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can get the capitalisation. It´s like when you say "What´s the meaning of Life?" A.Z. 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the capitalizations in that article is standard in either English or French. Moreover, from what I can tell, the band doesn't use any of those capitalizations either! Wareh 23:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The capitalization is only used for Être (Being) when it is used in such phrases as "The Supreme Being" or "the essential Being of something" so it's misspelled in the article (especially as they use several different spellings). But what was the question? Keria 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The expression is used to say "reason to be," or "destiny." X (How's my driving?) ❖ 08:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of moving the linguistic parts of the article to Raison d'être and the band's to Raison D'être with a disambig link to one another, redirecting the current page to the former. What say you all? --Dweller 08:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When you have a good idea, be bold.--Shantavira 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, Dweller, but Raison d'être (band) would be better for the band, since I see no indication that they use the (idiosyncratic and ugly) capital D. Wareh 15:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether this is relevant or not is for you guys to decide. I just thought it would be worth mentioning that in French, the upper case is not required nearly as often as in English. For example, unlike in English where it's traditional to use the upper case, the first letters of months and days always use the lower case, as in "lundi" for "Monday" or "janvier" for "January". Similarly, even what we would call "the French language" (with the upper case "F") would be expressed in French as "la langue française" (lower case "f"). For the term, aside from when it's used to begin a sentence, (in which case the "R" and the "R" alone would be changed to upper case,) to me the most appropriate way of expressing it would be in all lower case ("raison d'être"). I realize I'm not being of much help here, except to say that in French, the upper case isn't nearly as important as it is in English. For the band, I'd go with whatever they choose (for example, Robert De Niro apparently prefers to have both words capitalized, whereas Charles de Gaulle apparently preferred the "d" in his name to be in the lower case). As for the title for an article...well that seems to follow an entirely different set of rules, but my best judgement would be to put it as "Raison D'Être". Perhaps it's wrong, but capitalize everything that can possibly deserve capitalization and I don't see how badly you can go wrong. Loomis 06:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As to the proposed article title Raison D'Être, I don't agree because (1) English and French usage is very well established with lowercase d and ê; (2) Misplaced Pages's naming conventions say, "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized." Wareh 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. An administrator should really move the article as is to Raison d'être, pending disambiguation (needs an admin since the confusion produced a two-line edit history there). Wareh 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your conclusion at all, Wareh. My French isn't perfect so you're probably correct anyway. I just don't understand your first point: "(1) English and French usage is very well established with lowercase d and ê". I'm curious as to what you meant by that. Thanks for correcting me, I'm always open to improving my French. Loomis 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brazil

What´s the general view people have of Brazil? I´d like to know it from Wikipedians. Everyone who travels abroad says foreingers see Brazil this way, that way and, as I don´t travel abroad, I thought I´d ask here so I can learn for myself about how people in other countries see my own. A.Z. 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-centered... (Just kidding... ;)) 惑乱 分からん 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... Does my question make me look like I´m self-centered? A.Z. 22:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as a Brazilian, that's how I see Brazil and Brazilians in general. — Kieff | Talk 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? How come? I had never heard that about Brazilians. A.Z. 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but in online games (MMORPGs), they're usually scammers. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, outside Brazil, Brazilianly brazenly mentioning one's Brazilian Brazilianhood is a sign of a Brazilian's Brazilian Brazilianness... =S (I should get serious...) 惑乱 分からん 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I see in your user page that you´re from Sweden. The Queen of Sweden is Brazilian. What do you think about her? A.Z. 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, well, yeah. Seriously, I guess she's doing her work quite well, although I consider monarchy rather old-fashioned in today's modern world. Compared to the king, she seems quite intelligent and beautiful... =S I'd probably consider her more of a German than a Brazilian, however... 惑乱 分からん 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Brazil,where the nuts come from";- Charlie's Aunt.hotclaws**== 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What about her Brazilianness? A.Z. 23:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ehhh, actually, I don't think of her as Brazilian... ;) Simple as that... I think I'll have to go to bed, soon, anyway. I'll reply to any further questions after I've slept... 惑乱 分からん 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are my personal collected clichés: Brazilans I met all had a remarkable sensitivity for enjoying and sharing the present moment. Sometimes I encountered them in groups I found to be very inclusive and welcoming. They knew their songs and how to party, but preferred discussing philosophical questions or literature to soccer and samba. Your songs give me the shivers; your language and melodies have a mysterious happy-sad quality and always will. ---84.75.111.138 23:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Your answer is really great and that was the kind of thing I was looking for! I know what you´re talking about when you say the happy-sad thing. It´s like another cliche, the word saudades, which is very happy-sad.A.Z. 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See, that's my point. Brazilians just like to shine their Brazilian-ness for all to see, and they do it too often. It's always this constant "look at us, we're from Brazil! What do you think of Brazilians and Brazil? That person\thing is from Brazil, what do you think of it?". Certainly, Brazil is Brazilian's favourite subject when talking to people from outside, and they act as if Brazil was so amazing, or as if Brazilian people were statistically prettier - which is nonsense, there are pretty people everywhere. Actually, I'm always amazed at how this "we have prettier people" is always used as an argument for Brazilian greatness. Really shows off how incredibly hedonistic Brazilians are, and this is something I despise.

By the way, Brazilians hardly discuss or get involved with things from outside the country, so it's no wonder all they can talk about is the country itself. In fact, if you get involved with things from outside, you're treated with disrespect by other Brazilians. They act as if you were arrogant, selfish and alienated by other cultures. You have to either like Brazilian culture or love it. We may look friendly and inclusive, but that's just a lie: Brazilians are culturally xenophobic and arrogant.

On the internet, Brazilians are also known for being extremely abusive within internet communities such as social networking websites, forums, chat networks and online games. Brazilian IPs have been banned from a whole lot of places, just look it up. This is not a surprise, Brazilians are abusive outside the internet as well. There's even a popular term for it: Lei de Gerson. "Always take advantage of everything". That's the Brazilian way of life, crawling up whenever you have the chance.

It's no wonder I have no pride or taste for our culture and country. — Kieff | Talk 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When I said "this was exactly what I was looking for", I wasn´t referring to the nice things he said about Brazilians. I was just saying I was looking for that kind of general commentary about the country and the people, whether it is good or bad. Yours, for instance, despite not being by someone from outside.

Your view of Brazilians is interesting, though I would say it is becoming rather cliché nowadays. There are a lot of people like you, saying all the time those same old things. See for instance VEJA magazine, which every week condemns those same bad habits and the same lack of ethical behavior you talk about. And all those shows in cable TV do the same over and over again. Which only proves that, despite "them" being the majority for now, "we" are becoming popular. Furthermore, It´s not only Brazilians who like to talk about their country all the time. Just look at Americans, for instance. A.Z. 00:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My impressions of Brazil from the 5 or 6 times I've visited (I also lived there as a young child): wonderful food; bad split between the rich and the poor; many stunningly beautiful people (in Rio, especially); excessive machismo/sexism in the men; terrifying drivers; a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. --TotoBaggins 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My impressions of Brazil derive from my understanding of History/Geography and from those I interact with online at icompositions.com. I love South American voices and music. I love the energy and the youth and the celebration. I understand that Brazil is about the same size as the US, with a similar population, but substantially poorer. I feel that this is because European leftwing politics has a stronger hold in South America than the Brit conservative politics. I understand that there was a gun control bill voted down recently, and I feel that such things happen when the left is too powerful (I know, guns are a conservative fancy, but I believe that gun control is left unchecked by liberals to allow them to justify their existance). I understand that Brazil speaks Portuguese, and has much in common with Timor. I don't know much about Brazil haircuts, but I loved the Terry Gilliam Film, Brazil, which I know has nothing to do with the nation. DDB 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Samba (Brazilian) -- Lowerarchy 07:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Egocentric to say the least and why not? They have exchanged Rain forest and the Oxygen it produces for Sugarcane and Ethanol and oxygen. They have tamed the might river and used its power to produce electricity and to grow more sugarcane to produce more Ethanol and oxygen. As a result they are far less dependent upon Fossil fuel and have thereby relieved themselves and the rest of the world of the air and water pollution it produces. In this way Brazil is a model and example for other growing countries to emulate. The down side? The poor are treated as if in the way - a less powerful entity that can be ignored and even stepped on. For this reason Brazil is a magnet, like many other South American countries, for Marxism. Solution? Active programs for the poor that will allow them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps without all that killing and poverty that Marxism promotes. The rest of the world looks at Brazil as a place it can do business whatever that business might be. Baked Beans 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought of Brazil as a normal country by normal standards - it's also suprisingly good at keeping out of the news given it's size. I've often wondered just how industrialised it is.87.102.4.2 10:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

An (as usual) interesting article from the BBC about the Brazilian Inferiority Complex. I, personally, having nothing but positive opinions about Brazil. It seems like a very passionate nation. 194.80.32.8 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And I just met an exchange employee working in the tourist entertainment and housing trade here while riding on a local bus. My assessment is very open and friendly with a zest for life no different than any other people from any other part of the world. 71.100.171.80 13:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

February 19

Ghost of an atheist grandfather

I saw a ghost today. I was sitting on sofa alone at my home when I realised that someone is at another kitchen, looking at me. I was terrified until I realised it was my grandfather. He looked very happy and I asked him how is he. He said everything is fine, and then he disappeared. Then I realised something funny. My grandfather was a die hard atheist. He would never had believed in ghosts! How could he be a ghost if he does not believe in them?

If you happen to be a Christian, Jew or a Muslim, please explain me how it is possible that an atheist can be happy after his death? According to your teachings he should be suffering great torture in hell. Was he perhaps in some kind of limbo state and did not realise that he is going to hell later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihmemies (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You should also consider the possibility that you were just seeing things that were not there. Our mind can play a lot of tricks on us, and they can be very convincing. It doesn't mean you're crazy either, just that you were particularly susceptible to this sort of thing at the time. I had some when I was younger, but nowdays I can discard them as hallucinations or dreams.

Yes, I know this wasn't the answer you were looking with your question, but it can be an answer of sorts as well. — Kieff | Talk 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If ghosts exist, they exist whether or not anyone believes in them. I've never heard of any teaching that says one goes to Hell just because they are an atheist. JackofOz 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, believers and atheists are often seen as being closer to one another than either are to agnostics. Your anecdote immediately reminded me of Yann Martel's The Life of Pi, where Pi imagines an atheist taking a leap of faith in his/her final deathbed moment, while the agnostic tries to rationalize and find another explanation for the "white light" instead of relying on his imagination and the more plausible story it supplied. ---Sluzzelin 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

John 14:6 has Jesus saying, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", which does seem to imply that non-Christians aren't going to heaven. That's bad enough for heathens like me, but seems especially unfair for people who lived and died before Jesus did. :( --TotoBaggins 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of that phrase changes when you stop it in mid conversation as you did. In the 10th verse, Jesus explains that the words he is speaking are not his own. They are the Father's/God's words. So, the phrase is not "I, Jesus, am the way..." It is "I, God, am the way..." --Kainaw 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in my corner of the world, that quotation is taken as justification by the predominant religious organizations for statements of fundamental principles, like, There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. --TotoBaggins 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your question does not make any sense. The fact that your grandfather is an atheist is irrelevant because if (the phenomena of) ghosts exist then a person can become a ghost regardless of what he/she believes when they are alive.

For example: If I truly believe that gravity does not exists, will I fall to my death if I jump off a cliff? My personal belief is irrelevant in this case.

It is wishful thinking to believe that a person's personal belief can shape reality. A person's personal belief can only shape the perception and interpretation of reality. Otherwise beggars would be riding horses,

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

202.168.50.40 03:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You scared me. I think you should have said it was a ghost story which might scare some people. In fact, you could do it before you scare someone else. A.Z. 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit to laughing at this. Being an Atheist, although there's probably a correlation, does not have to do with believing in, or seeing ghosts. Also, let's say he didn't believe in ghosts, but he turned out to be one? This doesn't make it impossible, this just makes him wrong. However I'd have to learn towards the suggestion of you reading The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, my favorite book! :) X (How's my driving?) ❖ 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

From a Jewish perspective, a non-Jew doesn't need faith to enter the world to come. And he certainly doesn't need to be Jewish. He just needed to keep the Noahide Laws. I wish him a very happy eternity. And please God by the rest of us <winks>. --Dweller 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Also, you don't neccesarily have to believe in God/Allah/etc to believe in ghosts. There's plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts. The two, though related, don't preclude each other from being true. - Mgm| 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Christian but some Christians have told me that if I don't believe that Jesus is a god and if Jesus does not somehow enter my soul I will be tortured in Hell forever. 193.65.112.51 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not a teaching of any Christian denomination I've ever heard of. Faith is meant to be a gift from God; those who haven't been given the gift of faith can hardly be punished for this. Some people have never even heard of Jesus, so how could they be blamed for not believing in him. Others have heard of him but seriously and genuinely don't believe in him, so again how can they be punished for not believing in something that would be a lie to them. It's those who do believe in Jesus, but choose to break his commandments anyway, that are said to be at risk of Hell fire. JackofOz 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:There are a multitude of interpretations within christianity of how people attain salvation. Salvation#Christianity lists many differing stances. While you have given your personal reasoning and interpretion, many others exist. If you think these are not "true" christians you should read up on the No true scotsman fallacy. Diletante 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any existence of ghosts have particularly much to do with religion. Wouldn't the existence of ghosts contradict the idea that souls will go to wither heaven or hell? 惑乱 分からん 14:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Universalist Christians believe that everyone will be saved. —Tamfang 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

History

What is Bankok full name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CroatiaFlag (talk • contribs).

See Bangkok#Full_Name. Dar-Ape 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

liberal vs. conservative muslim states of Afghanistan

I heard that province of Herat is considered as conservative muslim province. is there any province of Afghanistan that are considered Conservative? What about other states that are considered as liberal muslim states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.228 (talk)

Traditional Afghan Islam, before the Soviets invaded in 1979-1980, was largely based around traditional holy men, saints' tombs, Sufi orders etc. (and had very little in common with puritanical back-to-the-origins / Wahhabi / Salafi forms of Islamism). However, I'm not sure that there's too much remaining of the customs and institutions of that kind of Islam to be found there anymore, and even prior to 1980, many groups still had traditional repressive customs and attitudes toward women etc. I'm not sure that the word "liberal" has too much relevance in the Afghan religious context -- "non-revivalist" or "non-Salafi" would probably be a better word to use... AnonMoos 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ZFC

Assuming the axiom of choice, given a set of an infinite real number of elements, is it necessarily the case that the choice function is undefinable? Please refer me to the proof. Thank you.

Willie

Kurt Gödel had two Gödel's incompleteness theorems that refer to infinite elements and computability/labelling. DDB 10:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

However, before accepting Gödel's incompleteness theorems as either valid or complete you may wish to review Gödel's ontological proof and Gödel's cause of death . -- Barringa 11:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Before accepting Gödel's incompleteness theorems as either valid or complete, you should check that the proofs of these theorems are logically correct. End of story. Gödel's religious beliefs and mental health problems have no bearing on the validity of his mathematics. After all, Newton was an alchemist who serahced for hidden messages in the text of the Bible; Teichmüller and Bieberbach were anti-semitic Nazis; Nash was a schizophrenic; and Erdős was famously eccentric, but none of this invalidates their mathematics. Gandalf61 15:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by a 'set of an infinite real number of elements,' but certainly there are infinite sets with definable choice functions: for any ordinal the function 'take the least element' is a well-defined choice function. btw, someone who knows how it's done should move this to the maths page Algebraist 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Crucifixion Question

In Anicent Rome after people were crucified what would happen to the crosses they were crucified on.

I guess they were used again to crucifice more people. 193.65.112.51 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably right, and when the time came when the crosses were not good enough to be used to crucify more people they would probably sell them to the highest bidder. Mieciu K 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that tongue-in-cheek? I know very little about the material culture of executions, but my guess is that they'd eventually become firewood. The Jade Knight 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Without reading crucifixion, from memory: Crucifixion was often done on trees - so the tree was just left there. When performed as a spectacle, the crucifixion grounds were often reused - meaning that the vertical poles were left there. It is a good reminder of what could happen to you if you don't shape up. The "cross" was added later to the spectacle. It had nothing to do with the crucifixion. It was used to torture the person as they walked from the prison to the crucifixion grounds. With their arms bound straight out to their sides by a cross beam, they couldn't stop themselves when they fell - which happens a lot when you are marched down a cobbled street full of people pushing and kicking you. The cross beam used there could easily be used over and over. However, it was nothing special. So, any old beam would do. --Kainaw 05:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

War and Peace

Is it necessary to have war for peace? The Updater 11:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

from what perspective? Philosophically, if dark is just an absence of light, you could argue that peace is just the absence of war. So if war didn't exist, neither would the concept of peace. But it'd still be quite peaceful. So, is this a homework question? If so, what subject is it for? Philosophy? History? Sociology? --Dweller 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Human beings, because of human nature, necessarily fight wars, so that war is necessary simpliciter without bringing peace into the explanation. Ideas of peace as a positive concept in its own right have been developed, especially in a religious context. But our word "peace" comes from Latin pax, which (like the Greek equivalent) first had the negative meaning, related to a "pact"—a cessation of (what has thus been viewed as the default state) hostility. Wareh 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Romans said si vis pacem, para bellum -- so you don't need to have war, but you need to be prepared for it in order to have peace. I believe Switzerland agrees. Chl 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Costa Rica, in contrast, does not! It has not had a national army for almost sixty years. Nevertheless, it does remain true in a general sense that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Clio the Muse 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

War is rather organized activity; you can easily have animals, even humans, which never really engage in warfare (that does not mean that they are peaceful, though). As for peace, it is hard to have that even without war. So I could see you living without war, but not so much in a constant state of peace. Bummer. --24.147.86.187 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The question was given to us in an English class at school for us to ponder upon.The Updater 08:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's English, then the pedantic answer I gave at the start is possibly what the teacher was seeking. --Dweller 11:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Them and Us" culture

Recently I had no choice but to be in the company of a man who in the USA would probably been called a Redneck, having been brought up and worked on a farm and then in various low-skill insustrial jobs. All day I heard him going on about his right-wing views, particularly how he disliked Polish people who came over to work here in the UK. I have heard other views in other times and places, eg racism.

It makes me think that these views are universal to many bigots, and the common elements of "Us and Them"ism are beliefs that:

1) There is a group of people who have a distinguishing characteristic.

2) This characteristic is of great import, and makes "them" very different from "us". These differences go far beyond the distinguishing characteristic.

3) The "them" group is not very competant, but at the same time

4) "they" are deviously cheating "us" out of our resources (or lowering our prestige).

5) This is very bad for "us"

6) Those in authority are not doing enough about this, and at an extreme,

7) People should take the law into their own hands.

Has anyone every written about this Them and Us culture, as it seems so universal among the right wing?

Another feature is the development of a 'hero' who comes from the "us" group and battles with "them" to recover the resources they have taken from "us". The hero is greatly esteemed by the "us" group. This implies that if you want to be a hero, you have to make people believe in 1) to 7) above.

The popular appeal of "Them and Us" comes from raising the self-esteem of the "Us" group by comparison with the despised "Them" group.

Xenophobia (and the various close cousins listed under "See also" in that article)? Wareh 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the last point (which I think is maybe the scariest) doesn't necessarily have to apply. 惑乱 分からん 15:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective I see this as a mis-match of nationalism, cynicism and frustration. Most often the people display a weak form of racism in so much as they have no issue with the people they speak ill of 'in their own country', but they display a (to use an English example) "England is for the English" mentality. I would note that I do not believe that is anything to do with being right-wing - nationalism exists on the left and right-wings. The cynicism about whether the authorities are helping is nothing to do with political-wings and to do with a lack of trust in the desire of people to help - often excused by past-failings (hence cynicism). Normally on pressing people who state these beliefs they fear losing their current way of life. This aspect could make them conservative and on the tradition of right-wing, but there is nothing in socialism that suggest it promotes positive outlook on change. ny156uk 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is, in fact, another dimension to this issue-which you have hinted at, Ny156-which has nothing at all to do with nationalism or racism; namely that of class, which dominated so much of English politics and life over the last hundred years. In this context 'them' would usually be taken to mean the establishment-usually identified with the upper class-and 'us' would be the people, understood in general terms, but sometimes taken to mean the working class in particular. I recall reading about a wall poster produced early in the Second World War, announcing that 'YOUR sacrifice will bring US victory'. It was not well received! Clio the Muse 09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Great Discussion is another expression, description of what is sometimes called the Western Dialectic. It didn't start with Plato and his students, but it was certainly observable in their writings. In terms of Western Philosophy, it can be seen as 'two sides' on any topic that analyse the subject through opposition. This forms the basis of politics, justice and scientific thought. To get close to the heart of an argument is to be close to the 'cutting edge.' Any small change to the cutting edge can gain much kudos and affect future research. Eastern Philosophy has similar expressions for opposition, cf yin yang DDB 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As the original poster I would like to add to my initial comments. I think this may be a common feature of human society. It occurs in classroom cliques, school bullying, football team supporters, Hitler and the Holocaust, lynchings, and other things. I forgot to add that these attitudes may stem from being unable to put yourselve in the place of the "out" group: being incapable of imagining how you would feel if you had been born Polish or black or whatever (in itself perhaps connected with the fatalism of authoritarianism).

The relation of this type of thinking to people scoring above-average on the Psychoticism Scale of H J Eysenck is discussed in Creativity In Science, by D K Simonton, with several academic references. In the fifth chapter, Psychopathology section (page 114 in my edition) he says that these people cannot ignore the irrelavant, so to them the distinguishing characteristic is not trivial but highly significant.

If this sort of thinking could be cracked, then mankind would be a lot happier. Perhaps this was what the Communists were trying to do.

What the Communists were trying to do? Might I suggest, to take but one small example, that you examine the policy of the late Todor Zhivkov towards the Turkish minorities in Bulgaria? Clio the Muse 23:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First, please end your comments with four tildes (~~~~) - it makes things easier if someone wants to reply on your talk page.

As for your question: I think a lot of it is the unwillingness we all have to blame ourselves for our troubles, and the even stronger unwillingness we have to not assign blame at all. Something or somebody MUST be at fault (because things don't go wrong on their own), but it's not us. We therefore have to find someone to blame. Why not those other people who are not like us (and consequently must be responsible for whatever's wrong)? It's related to the idea that illness is always the fault of the sufferer. For instance, although smoking increases our chance of getting lung cancer, avoiding smoke doesn't eliminate the possibility by any means.

I think that in both cases the accuser isn't saying "it's your fault"; he's really saying at a very basic level, "it's not MY fault". --Charlene 08:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo

Where could I find the Latin text of Marco Polo's voyages?

Also, if he was Venetian, why was his book originally written in langue d'oïl?--Siva 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was probably written in Old French because that was the only really widely used vernacular medium for literary prose at the time. Since you know the Latin version is not original, I'll assume you really want to consult it, despite the fact that it is a defective version in many ways. I doubt it's available online. Printed edition: Milione: redazione latina del manoscritto Z (versione italiana a fronte), ed. Alvaro Barbieri (Milan: Fondazione Pietro Bembo and Parma: Guanda, 1998). You can use OCLC's WorldCat to see what library near you has it, or buy it for around €30(). Wareh 18:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Which version is the least defective?--Siva 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but, as you stated in your question, the Old French is the original version. The Catholic Encyclopedia claimed, "The Latin, Venetian, and Tuscan versions are merely translations which are often faulty, or abridgments of the first two texts." However, despite their problems, they may be valuable as the only source for some authorial revisions, and apparently the text has been the subject of much scholarly dispute. So maybe I am too hasty in suggesting you shouldn't read the Latin. Apparently the first scientific edition (of the text in any of its versions) & comprehensive discussion of the textual problems was given by Luigi Foscolo Benedetto, Marco Polo: Il milione (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1928). In the Geographical Review for 1928, we read that "As a result of Benedetto's work the need now arises for a wholly new English translation." That need may have been met by The description of the world, translated and annotated by A.C. Moule & Paul Pelliot, which was a bilingual, Latin-English edition (in 2 vols.) that I bet would interest you (London: Routledge, 1938, reprinted New York: AMS Press, 1976, ISBN 040411525X). (There is also The travels of Marco Polo, translated into English from the text of L.F. Benedetto by Professor Aldo Ricci, with an introduction and index by Sir E. Denison Ross, London: Routledge and New York: Viking, 1931.) Beware that most of the English translations in print (Everyman, Modern Library, etc. etc.) are based on versions predating the supposed 1928 watershed. Bottom line: seek out one of the editions of the Latin text, and I'm sure its introduction will apprise you of what you need to know about the textual history. Wareh 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Since I see you are fluent in French, you may wish to consult the recent and ongoing (4 vols. published so far) critical edition of the Old French text: Marco Polo, Le devisement du monde, édition critique publiée sous la direction de Philippe Ménard (Genève: Droz, 2001-). The Harvard library catalog (which has been wrong before) designates this book as "French translation of the original Latin," so it is certainly possible that this is now the prevailing view (and that the Catholic Encyclopedia, e.g., is outdated on this point as on many others). Wareh 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks like Modern French to me. Anyway, I was able to find an edition in Old French and Italian in some university libraries. Thanks all the same.--Siva 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

former army air corp base

Trying to find information about Gelders Field (sp ?) Air Corp Base in Princess Anne, Somerset County, Maryland, USA. My father was born in 1923 and remembered it the other day. I don't know what period of time it existed, but Dad said it was only there for 2 - 3 years. Any information would be appreciated. Cat322 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to try getting a copy of this book http://www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net/md-aloft.html Check out this group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AbandonedAirfields/ This website http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/ Gradvmedusa 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing I found useful when looking for old Second World War airfields is Google Maps. Search for the city, set the utility to Satellite View, and look around for an abandoned airfield. In most cases where there hasn't been redevelopment (and in Princess Anne I'm not sure if there would be), the outline of the runways can be seen. This at least tells you a) that it did exist and b) whether it's really closer to a tiny hamlet or village that's sprung up since, and which it might be referenced under. --Charlene 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually tried doing just that and didn't see anything that jumped out at me as a former airfield, also it isn't mentioned on the abandoned and little known airfields website or in any of the Air Force history books I could find. I have a feeling that if the field did indeed exist it was very small and temporary in nature. 71.247.71.125 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Or it could have been a training, communications, administrative, or other base for non-pilots. I'm guessing that during the Second World War there would have been at least ten support personnel to every pilot in the Air Force - and quite likely more. Have you tried calling the Princess Anne, MD historical society? --Charlene 11:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Growing in grace

Supposedly there is this guy named Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda who has 666 tattoed on his arm and claims to be the new christ. I wondering if any body konws anything about this.

CNN has this An annoying preacher DDB 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our article on Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda? Just one of the list of people who have claimed to be Jesus. (What would happen if you could put all those guys together in a room and lock the doors?)--Shantavira 08:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Aren't there thousands of Hispanics who not only claim to be Jesus, but could pass WP:V for their claim? Oh. That Jesus. --Dweller 14:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Much the same as if you were to turn off the lights, and leave a room empty, but for a shamrock. DDB 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Communities of waring countries

is there any information on the impact war has on the communities of the countries that are warring? I am looking to find out what sorts of things happen? Do they still fly planes in and out and is this what martial law is? How do they get food and stuff? What happens with the foreign nationals in the country? Do they get evacuated?

Thanks Mirelle86.31.103.34 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mirelle, you would have to look in detail at specific examples, because experience of warfare can vary so widely. Where possible planes will still fly in and out of the country-civilian as well as military-as they clearly do today in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Martial law refers to the system of rules in force when the miltary take control of a country. This, however, does not always happen when two countries are at war, and there are many examples of martial law being imposed when a country is under no external threat. Food will still be produced and transported in war regions where it is possible to do so, though again this depends on the intensity of the conflict. In major wars naval blockades can reduce populations to near starvation levels, as they did in the Confederacy during the Civil War and Germany towards the end of World War One. More recent wars in Africa have contributed significantly to disruption in agricultural production, causing widespread death from famine. Foreign nationals will tend to be evacuated from conflict zones, as they were from Rwanda in 1994, though some for various reasons, professional or otherwise, will choose to remain. Clio the Muse 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only echo the muse on this, and provide some references. Berlin Airlift, see the second paragraph of American Civil War, World War I, Vietnam War, Crusades. One of the bubonic plagues started after mongol warriors catapulted dead bodies into a European town (Mongol invasion of Rus). The siege of Constantinople was the first time gunpowder was used for cannon (Fall of Constantinople). I imagine those two events had pecuiarities for those being besieged. Also Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC). DDB 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the above responses. And throw in the fact that besides the price of gasoline, life in the U.S. for most of the population has hardly been affected at all by the war in Iraq. Everyday life has changed more significantly for those who have family members or friends who are/were there for the war. I would suspect that there was very little change in the everyday lives of most of the citizens of England during the Falklands War as well. Dismas| 08:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

one for the musicalologists

Glenn Gould's song "So You Want to Write a Fugue" contains this advice:

Never be clever for the sake of being clever, for the sake of showing off.

For a canon in inversion is a dangerous diversion,

And a bit of augmentation is a serious temptation,

While a stretto diminution is an obvious allusion.

Raising the obvious question: does "So You Want to Write a Fugue" embody these crimes? Do the lines illustrate themselves? —Tamfang 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not an accomplished muso. I am aware of Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach which elucidates on fugues etc. I know that when trying to make a musical piece, there is a temptation to find a rythm and break it for a lyric. It feels clever to invert the note progression .. but that might not lead anywhere. Choosing a diminishing chord is a good way to take the light from another muso in a band, but isn't going to promote a piece. All in all, I think the song sage. DDB 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it "While a stretto diminution is an obvious solution?" --Wetman 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Maybe this is one for the list of mondegreens. JackofOz 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to other parts of the lyrics, this segment's printed words aren't self-referential by themselves, but in the context of the musical structure they probably are. I couldn't tell, because Amazon's sample wont play here. By the way, I don't think Gould's usage of diminution and augmentation refers to harmony but to tempo. A diminution canon, for instance, cuts the rhythmic proportions in half, while an augmentation doubles them. ---Sluzzelin

February 20

Bahá'í Faith

how do you pronounce Bahá'í?

You could have looked in the Bahá'í article, which has: (/baˈhaːʔiː/) The Jade Knight 04:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, traditionally, the word is pronounced "Bar-har-ee", however, Americans generally pronounce it "Bar-high". -- Chairman S. Talk 04:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ba-high. We're non-rhotic. Corvus cornix 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The non-rhotics are the ones who think "bah" and "bar" sound alike. —Tamfang 01:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say "we're rhotic", and the "non" snuck in there. Corvus cornix 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vatican 2

In this question, I particularly want someone with personal experience to reply. In Vatican 2, I understand that several changes were made, such as the language to be used, direction the priest faced, location of the altar and tabernacle, and acceptance of other religions. Laity participation was also increased, I take it.

My question is: in your point of view, in what ways did the Church change? Were there some other changes that the media failed to recognize? How did you personally react to these changes? How did the public in general react to the Council's changes?

In addition, were these changes immediately put into effect? For example, would a priest have said mass in Latin and then in English the day the council ended? If not, how long did it take for the laity to accept these changes? --Ed 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Many fundamental changes were made at Vatican II, but only indirectly were these changes in the liturgy. These were made in the subsequent years leading up to the publication of the revised liturgy. The earlier custom of using Latin exclusively was custom only -- the Latin Mass is frequently referred to as the Tridentine ('of the Council of Trent') Mass, but in fact it had little to do with the Council itself, which only declared that it was wrong to to say that liturgy MUST be in the local language. Previous to Trent the liturgy in the Western Church was largely in Latin, that being 'the language of the educated', but it was far from unknown for other languages to be habitually used. Subsequent to Trent masses in languages other than Latin were used in missionary fields.

The principle drive of Vatican II was to give much greater influence to the laity in all aspects of the life of the Church, and for their opinion to be consulted and respected. Broadly speaking this has been ignored by subsequent popes. Chris Towner 13:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vakil

What's a vakil? There seem to be some people by that name, but no mention of the generic meaning. The term is used by Gandhi in The Story of My Experiments with Truth/Part I/My Helplessness. — Sebastian 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My Arabic dictionary defines وكيل as "authorized representative, proxy, commercial representative, attorney" (among some other meanings). AnonMoos 08:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I'm wondering where best to put this. It's probably not enough for an article on its own. Would List of exported Arabic terms, List of Arabic loanwords in English or wikt:Category:Arabic derivations be appropriate? — Sebastian 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First you need to find out what exactly it means in English (if it's a recognized loanword into English), which could be different or more specific than its Arabic meaning. The use of "v" suggests that it was borrowed through Persian (and almost certainly not directly from Arabic into English), so that might be relevant, too... AnonMoos 12:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The OED lists it as Anglo-Indian and marks it not naturalized, alien. Its first cite is from 1622 when it meant a representative or agent and by 1776 it meant a native attorney. It was apparently adopted through Urdu from Persian-Arabic. It has numerous variant spellings including wakil, vakeel, vaquil, fakeel and vicle. Hobson-Jobson even lists it spelt vehicle and its first cite is from a Persian glossary where it meant scribe. meltBanana 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Knighthood and the Presidency

What would the legality of an American citizen who has been honourarily knighted becoming POTUS? It seems to be a conflict of interest (at least to me. Crisco 1492 09:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ClarifyingFor anyone (like me) who's never heard of a "POTUS", there's a redirect on that to President of the United States. --Dweller 12:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Rudolph Giuliani. Well a KBE does not imply fealty to the crown has been bought or that you have to now fight for the UK, even less so an honorary K. To ban someone from political office because they have accepted an award from a foreign power—as if their loyalty is now suspect—seems rather demented. You do know that the films of Clint Eastwood are now not to be trusted, he just got a Legion d'Honneur. meltBanana 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To ban someone from political office because they have accepted an award from a foreign power—as if their loyalty is now suspect—seems rather demented. Welllll, sometimes it might be prudent. :) --TotoBaggins 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget from Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." Since Giuliani wasn't a federal official at the time he should be ok. Rmhermen 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It didn't stop Eisenhower becoming President. He was knighted in 1945 for his military achievements in WW2, and became president in 1953. (George Bush sr and Ronald Reagan received their honorary knighthoods only after they ceased being president, I believe). See List of honorary British Knights. JackofOz 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Knighthoods aren't the only honors. Universities and colleges hand out Doctorates like so much candy to those who are so famous they can't be used professionally. What about the highly lauded Dr Fidel Castro? I would not be proud of the college that gave him the honor, but am confident he feels no loyalty to them. DDB 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I dare say Fidel has many honorary degrees; but I feel sure that the title in question refers to the Doctor of Laws, awarded for his academic work by the University of Havana in 1950. Now, surely they at least must be proud of him? Clio the Muse 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Muse! I did not know that. I recall a few universities giving him honorary doctorates .. DDB 05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The US Constitution seems to be relatively strict in this regard. Keep in mind that Irish Republican Gerry Adams is a member of the UK Parliament at Westminster (though as an abstentionist, he refuses to participate). Here in Canada, the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist, republican, anti-monarchist party was once sworn in as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". Even today, opposition Liberal Stéphane Dion actually possesses dual citizenship of both Canada and France. Whether these far more serious "conflicts of interest" should be allowed is a separate issue. My only point is that the potential for any "conflict of interest" existing by allowing an honorary British Knight to hold office in the US is extremely mild in comparison. Loomis 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about the questions on the reference desk

Question moved to the Reference desk talk page --The Dark Side 01:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

February 21

Ancient Chinese Measuring Instrument

All I could find are the units of measurement, rather then proof of the existence of the instruments. Does anyone know any instruments used over 1000 years ago by the Chinese? --The Dark Side 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I found out that rulers existed during the Shang Dynasty (see here). Now what I need is a few web links to more formal sites (universities, museums, etc.). Not that Misplaced Pages isn't any good, but I need a few more sources for my research. --The Dark Side 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably in Joseph Needham somewhere... AnonMoos 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Meeting in the Middle

I've heard several times that the two political main political views, Left and Right (If I can simplify it to that for brevity) eventually get so extreme that they meet in the middle. Like a cirle that on one side is the moderate republicans and democrats meeting and on the other is like Libertarians and Communists. Ok, theres the intro, now my question is what, if any, is the name of the center point between Libertarians and Communists meet. Can it really be true? Where does the philisophies meet on the whole size of government thing? Its hard for me to picture a medium between even those parts of their respective philosophies. Any ideas? 72.74.18.181 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)moe.ron

Try Political compass. 71.100.171.80 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally I see this argument presented as being between Fascism and Communism, rather than between Libertarianism and Communism (as far as I know, Libertarianism is rarely seen as being the extreme right - it is closer to anarchism than anything else).

The main crux of the argument is that Communism and Fascism may seem to be polar opposites (ie. Communism supports the belief that classes should be eliminated, and no person in society should have a higher status than another, whilst Fascism supports the idea that it is good and natural for the strong-willed (the Übermensch?) to rule over the weak). However, in practice, both ideologies seem to result in a totalitarian, autocratic society, where the individual is seen as less-important than the needs of the society as a whole. Thus, whilst the ideological principles may be quite different, the end result is the same. -- Chairman S. Talk 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that there are some distinct similarities between the ideologies of Communism (as opposed to strict Marxist-Leninism) and Libertarianism - both envision a society devoid of government, where people rule themselves. The difference is primarily in the economic systems - Communists generally believe that the means of production should be in the hands of the workers (thus resulting in a kind of communal economy), whilst Libertarians generally believe in laissez-faire capitalism. -- Chairman S. Talk 05:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

State of the art (see DDB's comment below) in this case might be found as a corporation operating successfully under an economic system of laissez-faire capitalism with the majority of stock holders being employees of the corporation and thereby representing the ideals of both capitalism and Communism in a sort of layered fashion. 71.100.171.80 11:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea of analysis by dividing into polar opposites is typically western and described under Dialectic. However, Eastern philosophy diverges from such analyses. The 'middle area' may not actually be in a graphical middle or median, but is often referred to as the cutting edge, or as wiki calls it State of the art. DDB 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Although perhaps not in the graphical middle or median what a multiple axes Political compass can do is to show where the cutting edge or State of the art is. 71.100.171.80 07:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a hazy memory that this conceit of a political circle originates with the Girondins and Jacobins, but modern <wink> history is not my forte, I've not studied it for about 20 years and I had a really, really bad teacher that year. --Dweller 14:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're basically correct. The idea of "left" and "right" wings came from the French Legislative Assembly, where the more radical groups (the Jacobins and Girondins) would sit on the left, and the Feuillants (who were against removing the King from power) sat on the right, with Independents in the centre. -- Chairman S. Talk 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's something I've always wondered about. I understand the right vs. left distinction, I'm just wondering about the addition of the word "wing". To me, the addition of this word always seemed to imply a certain extremism, as opposed to being "right" or "left-leaning". Is this true? Is "left-wing" or "right-wing" meant to imply any sort of extremist or radical position, or would it be proper, rather than a contradiction in terms to describe someone as a "left-wing moderate", or a "right-wing moderate"? Loomis 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Archeology

1. Not so long ago, a submerged ancient Egyptian city was mentioned in the news. Underwater pictures were shown depicting the remains of this city; also, other similar submerged Mediterranean sites seem to have been mentioned.

My questions are: Was there a time within the last few thousand years when the Mediterranean was a lake? when the waters were a lot lower than now? If so, how long ago are we speaking of?

2. The following below is what several websites claim. Is there anyway of finding out what reputable scientists say about the following?

Several websites indicate that in India around Jodhpur and or Rajasthan an ancient city several thousand years old is found to be heavily contaminated by radioactivity and bodies strewn about as was the case in Hiroshima. Some of these sites also claim that such explosions seem to have occurred in Africa, siting huge layers of yellow-green glass as proof.

Signed, mnm_common

I had never heard about #2 before, but found this article. Sounds like utter, utter rubbish to me. The author of the article clearly knows little about atomic weapons in any case, and the idea that people thousands of years ago would have thought to enrich uranium in order to fashion it into a weapon is utterly ridiculous. You cannot create an atomic bomb by chance — it takes an immense amount of work and theoretical understanding (a reactor is a different story, as nature has made those a few times by itself).

Now you can of course have natural radioactivity, usually from uranium ore deposits that "breathe" radon gas, and a search on Google Scholar for "Rajasthan radioactivity" comes up with a number of articles on the subject, all referring to the radioactivity as natural and focusing on the radon decay series. I would not trust conspiracy websites to describe even the facts correctly, so I won't comment on the yellow-glass layers (there are, of course, ores of uranium which appear quite yellow and glassy, like carnotite, autunite, metatorbernite, torbernite, etc., though I have no reason as of yet to suspect that this is what they are referring to). --24.147.86.187 13:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is some evidence for a natural nuclear fission reactor at Oklo in central Africa about two billion years ago. Clarityfiend 17:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I alluded to that but I don't see any reason to think that has anything to do with this here. It would not produce effects similar to an atomic bomb in any case, and it is pretty rare in any case. --24.147.86.187 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore question #2, which others have already addressed. The answer to question #1 is that, no, the Mediterranean has not been a lake in the past few thousand years, but it was once, around 6 million years ago, a lake that dried up. See Messinian salinity crisis. Marco polo 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Mediterranean-as-lake thing, you might also be interested in Black Sea deluge theory. Warning: rant ahead: as for the (very) questionable atom bomb stuff, I'm often perplexed and frustrated at how much fascination and attention pseudoscience gets when there are so many wonderful and bizarre true things in nature. It's like if something isn't complete balderdash, it's counted as boring, even if it's a lot more intrinsically interesting. Perhaps when you're telling someone an amazing fact like "the Earth's core is a solid sphere of iron almost as big as the Moon, and some scientists even believe that it's a single iron crystal!", it's best to tack on "but the government doesn't want anyone to know about it". Grr. --TotoBaggins 13:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

the mens role in the maori culture

Hello,

I have a social studies project due on the 28th and one of my questions that I'm stuck on, I hope you can help me with.

It is "What is the mens role in the Maori culture?" I hope you can help me. If you could also include arts and crafts and the marae protocol in it that would be SOO awesome!

Thanks,

From Addie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.239.85.71 (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Have you had a look over Maori culture? Clio the Muse 06:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You can get a lot of insight into your topic by watching the movies Whale Rider and (if you are old enough to handle the disturbing content) Once Were Warriors. Wareh 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually taken a good look on the article on Maori culture. Unfortunately, it contains absolutely no information whatsoever with regard to gender roles, be they male or female. As politely and respectfully as possible, I'd humbly suggest that when directing OPs to wiki articles, one should at the very least examine the article first to make sure that it actually contains any information that would be of any help to the OP. Otherwise, by citing articles that are completely irrelevant to the OP's question, we're doing no more than leading the OP on a frustrating and fruitless wild goose chase, as well as doing great harm to the RefDesk's reputation as being a helpful source of information. All the above, of course, with the greatest of respect to all involved. Loomis 02:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Asian" vs. "Asiatic" Russia?

I posted this query – about geography rather than language per se – on the Discussion page for European Russia. I need to know the accepted English-language term for the area of Russia that lies in the east and isn't considered "European". A Google search finds extensive usage of both "Asian Russia" and "Asiatic Russia" though I fail to understand the basis for distinction. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 10:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't honestly know if there is a generally accepted term for the Asian part of Russia, Deborahjay, though I believe 'Asiatic' is probably in wider use than 'Asian', a contention which would seem to be confirmed by a google search. If we think of this question in terms of political and geographical history then Asiatic Russia would seem to be the more correct usage, if for no other reason than that Russia was essentially a European power that expanded eastwards. Asian Russia seems to imply something quite different. I can offer no better explanation than that. Clio the Muse 12:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Asian russia is wrong - unless it's a sociological term applied to the russia experienced by asians (by analogy to 'black britain'). I've never heard that term used.

Asiatic russia is one term that is used, some people use the term 'siberia' to refer to all non european russia. See siberia - picture in red - for the use of the term in it's broadest sense.83.100.252.90 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC) I don't recommend using the term siberia. In historical terms non-european russia (the empire) includes siberia and central asia.83.100.252.90 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC) I tend to agree with the original above poster - in 'technical' documents asiatic is the term used nowadays.83.100.252.90 14:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist and Disruptive Activies Act 1985

If TADA lapsed in 1995, what happened to all the cases filed under the Act? Did the Indian Government allot a time period within which all cases were to be solved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illuminati87 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Niqab

Lots of interest in this item in the press recently. Can anyone tell me - is the Niqab an item of political, cultural, religious or ornamenemtal clothing? I'm sure I have read that it is not a religious obligation.

PeterN

See the Misplaced Pages article Niqāb. Wareh 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cathedrale de Chartres

Over the statues of the Kings, Queens and Saints there are little figures. Who are these figures and what are their significance to this building that has captured the hearts of many. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.174.0.30 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe the way you put it, it could refer to any number of collections of little figures. The pages linked under "Chartres" here are fairly helpful in providing identifications. Once you learn the architectural terms, the lists here explain a lot. Brief overview here. Wareh 18:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WW II British counter-intelligence

Why were the British so successful in uncovering German spy rings? Was James Bond's father on the job? Did Sherlock Holmes come out of retirement? Clarityfiend 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you count his James Bond's writer as his "father", than yes. See Ian Fleming. Rmhermen 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The reality, Clarityfiend, is, as always, far more prosaic: less James Bond and much more Alan Turing: a victory, in essence, of brains over muscles, of mathematics over martinis! There was also a degree of luck in acquiring early possession of an Enigma machine. On the more specific issue you have raised I think it important to understand that Britain in the 1940s was still a relatively homogenous society, with a high degree of patriotism and very little in the way of treasonable opposition to the national cause: it was practically impossible, in other words, for Nazi agents to build up effective spy rings, free of detection. On this particular dimension I would suggest that you look over The Double Cross System by J. C. Masterman, published in 1972. Masterman, among other things, shows how British Intelligence sucessfully made use of every enemy agent to feed misinformation to the Germans. You may also be interested in Bodyguard of Lies, by A. C. Brown, which again highlights the importance of deception and misinformation. Clio the Muse 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cracking the Enigma codes was much much much more complicated than just getting hold of an enigma machine. In part it was due to an early computer Colossus (sp?) which was kept secret until the mid-1970s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.184.116 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

See Cryptanalysis of the Enigma and Colossus computer.

Colossus had nothing to do with Enigma; it was for breaking the next generation of German ciphers. The principal Enigma-breaking machine was called a bombe. And to the best of my recollection none of this had much to do with catching German agents in Britain, as Enigma machines were only used for military communications. Being caught with an Enigma would immediately prove a spy's identity, after all.

I think Clio has given a good answer, and I second the recommendation for Masterman's book.

--Anonymous, February 22, 2007, 05:10 (UTC).

British Intelligence has a proud history extending back to Elizabeth I thanks to Sir Francis Walsingham. European nations, like France, were slow to allow their government/crown equivalent service, mainly because it was not in the interest of the wealthy intrigue merchants to surrender their collective hands cf Cardinal Richelieu. Winston Churchill met one of his body guards after they had trained in counter intelligence resisting German influence in WW1. DDB 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

9/11: knives on board

Some of the 9/11 hijackers had knives. How did they get them through airport security? --Richardrj 22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They did, apparently, trigger the security alarms and were duly searched; but at that time it was possible to carry 'utility' knives on board of aircraft. Have a look at this . In retrospect it seems crazy, but 'the past is a foreign country:they do things differently there'. Clio the Muse 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, if you've flown both before and after 9/11, you'd notice that before, metal knives were provided for meals, whereas now, only plastic knives are provided. Loomis 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I realise that; but the hijackers didn't use the food knives to overpower people, they had their own. --Richardrj 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the answer I have given above. They were allowed to have their own knives at the time; and the seemingly innocent can easily become something deadly. Clio the Muse 06:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that - I was simply replying to Loomis' statement with a small observation. --Richardrj 07:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I also realize that the hijackers used box-cutters, not food knives. However, due to 9/11, those in charge of security must have realized that even a comparatively blunt metal food knife can be used for similar purposes. Loomis 18:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Knives of any type are messy, and it is easy to cow someone who believes they have an out. Remember, the hijackings, to that date, resulted in a protocol of 'let them have what they want' as 'someone would pay for the safe return of hostages.' I believe the expectation was that the terrorists would land the planes and make demands. When one flight found out about the suicides, that mission failed. DDB 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought there were knives hidden in the handles of their carry-on luggage? Corvus cornix 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

February 22

Holocaust denial amongst muslims

I know three muslims (exchange students) and they each deny holocaust. They say almost every "true" muslim knows that holocaust is a lie because muslim media tells the truth to them while sionist conspiracy makes western media to lie to western people. I would like to know is there any official studies made about this, how many per cent of muslims denies holocaust? Please do not try to convince me that holocaust happened, because I know it did (even though my muslim friends thinks that this makes me a victim of zionist conspiracy). Nitsimagoi 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This Channel 4 poll of 1,000 British Muslims asked if respondants believed the Holocaust happened. Here are the results:

Yes -- as history teaches: 29%
Yes, but it's been exaggerated: 17%
No: 2%
No opinion: 24%
Haven't heard of Holocaust: 23%
Don't know: 6%

Incidentally, when asked whether 9/11 was a US/Israeli conspiracy, "yes" wins over "no," 45% to 20%. -- Mwalcoff 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, Nitsimagoi, that the percentage of Muslim people overall who deny the Holocaust would be very difficult to calculate. But there is some information on recent state trends in the page on Holocaust denial. In addition, you might find these links of some value Clio the Muse 00:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Link you gave told that holocaust denial is de rigueur (like a part of protocol) in the Middle Eastern media. So at least my muslim friends were right that muslim media gives very different information than western media. If given such information surely that affects opinions. What would you say about my quess that at least half of worlds muslim population denies holocaust or do not know what holocaust is? Nitsimagoi 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these are British Muslims. How 23% of them can claim not to have heard of the Holocaust (as Britons, having free access to information like the rest of us) is beyond me. Add to that the 6% who "don't know" and the 24% who have "no opinion", and the 17% who believe the Holocaust has been "exaggerated", (a compromise claim made by most Holocaust Deniers, including such people as the President of Iran who often mentions that Israel should have been located somewhere in Europe, as it was the Europeans, not the Muslims who were responsible for what he obviously recognizes as some sort of massacre of Jews), and what you're left with is 29% who are open-minded enough to fully accept that it really happened. And these are BRITISH Muslims. Allah only knows what the number is in Muslim countries. Loomis 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the state of Israel created partially because of Jews fleeing persecution in Germany during the Third Reich? How could you deny the existence of something when the consequences are the thing you hate the most? -Wooty Woot? contribs 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The thinking is that the Holocaust was made up specifically in order to justify the theft of Arab lands and the creation of Israel. Again, not my opinion. --Charlene 09:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jews were flocking to Israel in the early 20th century because of the Zionist movement long before the Holocaust. Zionist#Before_the_Holocaust. The Jade Knight 02:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as people agree in groups to things they won't as individuals, I agree with the Muse. It is very difficult to put a number to how many muslims deny or accept the holocaust. The Mufti of Australia, Taj El-Din Hilaly has said in Arabic that the holocaust never happened, and in English, he has been quoted as saying that he did not mean that. I have taught students who have accessed racist literature from the internet and quoted it, claiming in effect that the Holocaust never happened. Australian public education is usually good at providing quality material that encourages critical thought, however, some communities work counter to such endeavours. DDB 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. meltBanana 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt blogged this on Iran's brave(r) artists DDB 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What about this piece of sublime perversity . I have always known that working towards a particular political goal in an indirect fashion has long been a Machiavellian tactic-but this takes things to a quite absurd degree! Clio the Muse 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is some comparison information: a 1992 poll (by Roper/American Jewish Congress) of the general American public. 22.1% of Americans considered it possible that the Holocaust was a total fabrication; 12.4% "didn't know." These groups should be compared to the British Muslims who said "no" and "didn't know."

What's harder to compare is the "haven't heard of it." But given the frequently reported shocking data about what the American public does not know about, I am hesitant to say that a good measure wouldn't come alarmingly close to the 23% figure. If you required two accurate sentences defining what happened, then above 23% wouldn't surprise me. Indeed, from the linked article, "About 95% of Americans report having heard of the Holocaust and about 85% say they know what the term refers to. But knowledge of the Holocaust is shallow, incomplete, and imperfect. In response to open-ended questions that asked people to actually explain what the Holocaust was, between 62 and 74% could supply a correct response, 8-13% gave vague or incorrect responses, and 18-28% reported that they did not know what the Holocaust referred to. Only 25-35% gave what were considered as fully correct answers"—for which "the Germans persecuted the Jews" would apparently count as "fully correct."

Note that when asking people whether they endorse some crackpot idea, it can be particularly hard to avoid biasing them towards "yes" just by presenting it to them. For example, Roper abandoned "Does it seem possible to you that the Holocaust never happened?" in favor of "Does it seem possible or does it seem impossible..." (The article I link to above has some information about further criticisms.) Wareh 16:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a very useful contribution, Wareh; and as far as the Channel 4 poll of British Muslims is concerned I would recommend that this be treated with extreme caution: it may do no more than reveal the deficiencies of the British educational system. I have seen polls where a high proportion of respondents think that George Washington is still the president of the United States! Clio the Muse 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

When did the Ban Dihydrogenmonoxide joke begin?

Ban dihydrogenmonoxide or water has been around as a joke since before the sixties, I know this because I have seen an old april fools news story of the fifties, but I can't remember when or where. DDB 00:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. This has been tracked for years, I just noticed at the link. DDB 12:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why vote for an abstentionist party?

Sinn Fein's election manifesto from 2005 look like a perfectly normal statement of views from a left-of-center party. There's nothing in it that indicates what you think would be the most-important aspect of the party in the Westminster election: That if elected, they would not serve.

I know almost nothing about the politics of Northern Ireland, and I'm puzzled as to why people would vote for a party that refuses to take part in the House of Commons. Even if a voter were to agree that Catholics from Northern Ireland should not pledge allegiance to the queen, wouldn't it make sense for him or her to vote for someone that is willing to do so? At least that way, the constituency would be represented in Parliament. Perhaps from a Catholic's point of view, it's better to have no MP than to have a unionist one. But wouldn't it be better to have an SDLP MP than no MP, even if you prefer the views of Sinn Fein? -- Mwalcoff 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, this is an incredibly complex issue, deeply rooted in the politics and history of Ireland as a whole and Northern Ireland in particular. Please look over the pages on Sinn Fein and the History of Northern Ireland, assuming you have not already done so. Essentially, those who support the Sinn Fein position, now the majority of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland, have denied the legitimacy of the British state and its right to maintain a presence anywhere in Ireland, effectively rejecting the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. Therefore, they do not wish to be represented at the Westminster Parliament, nor to swear loyalty to the British Head of State. Some Catholic people have indeed voted for the less intransigent SDLP over the years, but in decreasing numbers as the politics of Ulster have radicalised. One of the chief aims of Sinn Fein is that those elected to Westminster constituencies in the North-or the Six Counties, to use their preferred term-should be allowed to sit in the Dáil in Dublin. However, the ongoing peace process has led to some modifications in aspects of Sinn Fein policy, especially in the recent decision to support the Ulster police service, always considered hitherto as part of an alien system of law. Clio the Muse 01:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But, if Sinn Fein deny the legitimacy of the British state, why then do they stand for election to the Westminster Parliament? --Richardrj 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Both to declare a political presence and to make clear the true extent of Nationalist dissent. Clio the Muse 06:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on their politics, from my perspective I find much to be admired in the Sinn Fein's abstentionist position. Perhaps, though, this is due to the fact that I happen to live in a Province of Canada where the exact opposite position is taken by the anti-Canadian (in the sense that they want to separate, not that they hate Canada) Bloc Quebecois. I find it terribly hypocritical that the BQ so actively participates in a Parliament that they don't recognize should have any authority over their constituents. Of course Quebec and Irish history are quite distinct, and so the comparison shouldn't be taken too far. Loomis 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame you for wondering why! Let's check this out first: the legal basis for British rule in Northern Ireland goes back to the Act of Union 1801. Britain and Ireland were merged. Since 1921, NI has been all that's been left over. SF probably say that this initial Act is illegitimate, and therefore so is the current British sovereingty in NI.

And this is where the oath of allegiance comes in: there is no alternative to swear oath of allegiance to HM QE2 to take you seat in the House of Commons. Don't swear it, you can't vote in parliament. The US President, for example, swears to "faithfully execute the office of President".

That's what makes SF different from the SDLP: the latter are nationalist - ie. catholic - but not republican. In NI, that means that for the meantime, they still recognise that British rule exists, and is legally sound. That would explain why they have always been basically loyal to the Police. SF weren't, until last month (NB - many protestants still doubt the reliability of their declaration of Policing Support).

For a catholic, SF are far more radical, and if you're radical, they represent you - far better than SDLP do. Suppose you support the IRA. Why would you not vote for a party (SF) who refused to call for decommissioning of their weapons until 2005? There is no major party more extremist a republican than SF. I don't imply all SF voters are IRA supporters, but no doubt some are.

The SDLP only stand in the North, but SF have a few members in the Dail. How can the SDLP claim to be nationalist, and not stand for election in the South? Maybe they can claim to be, but not as well as SF (in my opinion).

Anyway, abstention hasn't really lost them any influence. SF comprise 5/646 MPs at Westminster... on the rare occassion it votes exclusively on NI issues. In short, the British Government are able to get their own way on most legislative and executive issues for NI without any care for local opinion. No local politician has much influence (since they are NEVER in government at westminster) unless it's a really close vote (Blair wouldn't have won the Iraq vote without DUP support). The real influence for locals only really comes when an assembly is sitting (to meet in March, after elections).

Hope that helps, apologies for the length!martianlostinspace 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Martian, please forgive me for being so direct, but I think you might be a little confused on some of the issues here. Anyway, for the sake of clarity, let me correct one or two factual errors in your interesting submission.

1) The 1801 Act of Union did not 'merge' Britain and Ireland, but the respective parliaments of those countries, to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The 1920 Government of Ireland Act created a separate self-governing polity in Northern Ireland, which in 1927 merged into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2) Failure to take the oath of allegiance to the sovereign would preclude sitting in Parliament at all. No seat obviously means no vote.

3) The SDLP were not 'always loyal of the police', as you will discover if you examine the history of Northern Ireland in detail, particulary the history of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserve unit, known as the B Specials. Some sections of the party have consistently viewed matters in an all-Ireland dimension, and are thus just as nationalist in their own way as Sinn Fein.

4) Sinn Fein does not vote at all in the House of Commons, on any issue, because it practices, well, abstensionism.

5) To allege, as you have, that the British government gets its own way in Northern Ireland on most legslative and executive issues 'without any care for local opinion' is, quite frankly, a massive distortion of the truth. The Northern Ireland peace process might be likened to tiptoeing through a particularly dense minefield. Politicians from Northern Ireland have had a considerable degree of influence in the corridors of power, whether they attend Parliament or not, and despite their absence from office.

6) In the House of Commons debate of March 2003 Tony Blair won two motions on the coming intervention in Iraq, the first by a margin of 179 votes and the second-the main motion-by 263 votes. So, on neither of these divisions did he depend on the support of the DUP.

I hope you will understand that on matters such as this it is crucial to be absolutely precise. Clio the Muse 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the the presence or absence of the 5 or 6 Sinn Fein MPs wouldn't make a difference in the British government's attitude toward the resolution of the Northern Ireland conflict. But wouldn't it still be nice to have an MP to question ministers about the closing of this hospital or that factory in the district? Do Sinn Fein MPs do constituent service? To me, what's so surprising is not necessarily that Sinn Fein boycotts Parliament, but that it doesn't even mention that in its election materials. The manifesto referenced above talks about education, health care, the environment, the EU -- stuff like that. So presumably, Sinn Fein voters care about those type of concerns as well. Wouldn't it make sense for Irish Catholics to find the political equivalent of shabbos goyim -- people who don't share the aversion to swearing loyalty to the queen but are willing to do anything else the Catholic constituents want? -- Mwalcoff 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there are larger passions here than the ability to question this or that minister about the status of a local hospital. In Ireland history is neither academic nor remote. All the people who vote for Sinn Fein know exactly what its position is with regard to the Westminster Parliament. Indeed, the strategy of 'political absence', if it might be so put, was an integral part of the Irish struggle for freedom after the First World War. Politics in Northern Ireland has always been about mobilization of any given community or electoral constituency, as much as, if not more than, a focus on the more prosaic bread-and-butter issues. Politics, moreover, operates on a whole number of levels in the Province, and there are ways of getting things down-and making views known-without recourse to the Parliament in London. Indeed, by tradition, these domestic issues were long devolved in Northern Ireland, and are now largely the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Clio the Muse 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I wonder why Sinn Fein bothers writing such a long election portfolio for the parliamentary elections? Why don't they just say, "Our manifesto is that this election shouldn't be happening here?" And by the way, do Sinn Fein MPs do constituent service? If someone in Omagh isn't getting his or her old-age pension checks, can he or she call MP Pat Doherty's office to look into it? Would Pat Doherty's staffer call the government agency that handles pensions? Do Sinn Fein MPs even have offices and staffers and what-not? -- Mwalcoff 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, they do still deal with the mundane on a constituency level, so I imagine individual representatives have some form of clerical back-up. Things do get done, either through approaches to a variety of official agencies, like the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, or directly to the office of the Secretary of State, the source of all power. Overall, things have improved dramatically for the Catholic minority since the good old, bad old Stormont days. Clio the Muse 02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting -- I wonder what kind of response Gerry Adams' staffers get when they call the Roads Service to ask about when a road is going to be repaved. I just looked it up and found that Adams received nearly £50,000 in allowances, including £7,500 for "Cost of staying away from main home." Isn't it controversial that people who are boycotting Parliament get parliamentary funds? I wouldn't get any money if I didn't show up for work. -- Mwalcoff 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

He works, alright; he just does not do so at Westminster. By law he has the right to these allowances as an elected Member of Parliament, whether or not he attends. It has to be said, moreover, that a lot of basic political work is carried out at a constituency level, even when people do report to Westminster. Clio the Muse 02:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interjecting, but the same hypocricy exists back over here in Canada. It's been said that "y law he has the right to these allowances as an elected Member of Parliament". Yet he doesn't recognize this particular Parliament as having any legitimate authority over his constituency. Is an extra £50,000 really that relevant to the Sinn Fein? To be consistent in principle I don't see why he accepts this relatively irrelevant stipend rather than reject it. If Westminster is excercizing illegitimate authority over Northern Ireland, shouldn't he consider his compensation as illegitimate as well? If I was in his position, sharing his particular ideology, I'd certainly reject any such "salary" as a matter of principle. Still, being neither Irish nor British, I certainly hope that my statements on this matter meet the highest of those most crucial standards of precision mentioned above. Should they not, as a foreigner to this issue, I most sincerely apologize. Loomis 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry, maybe everything wasn't precisely correct, but SDLP have, in recent years, always been more supportive than SF. And maybe Iraq was an incorrect example, but take, say, religious hatred? As for the merging in 1801, Britain and Ireland became one political entity under one parliament (Westminster). Same thing. In practise, you will see Blair ignoring local opinion all the time. Water charges, education reforms, etc all come to mind.martianlostinspace 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Martian, and I apologize if I come across a little like the school maam! But Irish politics, as I feel sure you understand, have always been on a hair trigger: facts here are like bullets, more than any other country in the world. Clio the Muse 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kalash symbols

Where can I find pictures of symbols that Kalash people use Tuohirulla puhu 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you look at the pics on that page, it's apparent Southern Cross-like designs are common in female face decoration, though I couldn't say whether this was specific to the group. "Kalash" is also the name of a symbol in South Asia that's apparently unrelated to the ethnic group.--Pharos 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Shi'a Muslims in Bangladesh

When I read the article about the Hoseini Dalon, I notice that it was a Shia shrine and they celebrate Ashurah there. Is this true that Bangladesh has its own Shi'a Muslims or they are just immigrants from another country? This question is for on Bangladeshis muslims. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.54.71 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

According to the page on the Demographics of Bangladesh some 98% of the population are Bengali, with the remainder composed mostly of Biharis-who settled there at the time of the 1947 Partition-, as well as some tribal groups. Over 88% of the population are Muslim, mostly Sunni. The Shia make up 5% of the Muslim population, including some Bengali and most of the Bihari. The relative size of the Shia community is largely in keeping with the position over most of the Muslim world, where Sunnis form the dominant group. Clio the Muse 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN MATTER OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR IS GOOD OR BAD?

Is it relavent to take help of UN security council to solve the indo-pak conflict on the matter of jammu and kashmir. 203.197.207.8 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)sandeep kaushik

The chief thing that the UN seems to have done so far on the matter is call for a referendum -- which has never yet been held in over 50 years... AnonMoos 06:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel the UN is the appropriate body to deal with such things, but I also feel that it has a lousy track record over settling such disputes because it is politically compromised.

The new UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon might be able to do something special, but while I think the UN SG can mess up (like Kofi Annan) on issues, I don't think they can be effective.

There are many positive signs that are coming to position over this issue. The remarkable growth of India's middles class (Economy of India) is only going to have a positive impact on wishing to settle the issue. The worldwide condemnation of radical Islam allows internal politics of Pakistan (Politics of Pakistan) for moderates to have more say. The White House is still Republican, so US foreign policy can be strong over the issue. DDB 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this called in English?

What is the device pictured here called in English? In French it's a passevite, in German a Passiergerät. You put soft fruits or vegetables in it to puree them (e.g. to make tomatoes into tomato sauce or apples into apple sauce). —Angr 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Food mill. From a commercial website: Food Mill --Charlene 08:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I should add, though, that they are *very* rare. Most people use a food processor or (for apples) heat and time. --Charlene 08:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! As for their rarity, they may be rare nowadays, but they didn't used to be. I was curious because the articles on food mills in German, Spanish, French, Luxembourgish, and Walloon all link to each other, but not to the English. —Angr 08:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Before the food processor became ubiquitous, a food mill was necessary for anyone who did any preserving or pureeing. And it does have its benefits (better texture, for instance). My mom had one but threw it out when we got a food processor - the slight improvement in texture wasn't worth the extra time it took to put foods through them. What took over two hours suddenly took five minutes. --Charlene 09:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Charlene's got it right; definitely a food mill. It's still our choice of weapon for apple sauce because it handily separates the cooked apples from their skin (peel) and seeds.

Atlant 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be widely available via the internet. The "Foley Food Mill" was an early and well known brand which is still available. They seem to be able to prevent the colander screen being clogged by peels as happens with a simpler ricer.Edison 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the key in the Foley is that the presser blade (I made that term up) is inclined so that it is able to ride up over certain obstructions, so it can over-ride seeds and peel bits without forcing them through the delivery screen. Then, every so often, you turn the crank backwards and the normally-trailing, now leading edge of the blade scrapes up all the debris and parks it in a position on the tope of the bladewhere it won't further processed. So the drill, basically, is 1) supply raw material; 2) Crank forwards a few turns; 3) Reverse for a turn; 4) Repeat. Every so often, dump out the cruft.

(My wife has me well-trained at this.)

Atlant 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Works under public domain

If a book was published in the nineteenth century, such as almost all Nietzsche's books, it means that it has passed into the public domain, right? Maybe the situation isn't the same in different countries, but is this the case for the US and Spain? My question is, am I able to make a copy of a book under the public domain, photocopies for example, without being out of the law? Thanks. --Taraborn 10:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright law does vary from country to country, but in most places you're safe if the author has been dead for more than 70 years. In the U.S., anything published before 1923 is also public domain. So everything Friedrich Nietzsche published is public domain (although translations of his works into English are not necessarily so!). Yes, you can photocopy a book whose copyright has expired without violating any law. —Angr 10:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything published in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain in the U.S. Anything published outside the U.S. is not unambiguously in the public domain in the U.S. unless it was published before 1909. This table is a good reference — find what category the work in question falls into on the left and you will know whether it is unambiguously in the public domain or not. --24.147.86.187 12:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything published in Nietzsche's (I'm using N after this) life is in the public domain if you're in the US and if you're copying the original German. Translations may be in the public domain, but that depends on when the translation was made. Most of N's work was translated into English at least once in his life. It would be safer to use a translation that you know was made before 1909.

However, N wrote a few works that were not published until after his death. As 24.147.86.187 says, if they were published after 1909 (and I believe some were published only after the Second World War), they may still be under copyright. Edited. --Charlene 13:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Copyright in N's work would be expired by now, but any translation potentially retains its copyright if it was published by someone who died after 1936. Any posthumous writings first published in the last fifty years or so are debatable. Shimgray | talk | 12:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

AA 12 Steps

I need the 12 Steps from AA broke down so I can understand them better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.171.105.132 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Have you read our article on twelve-step programs? — Lomn 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Comanche Indians

What are some of the Comanche indians' bileifs? 68.250.177.96 21:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)david

David, the page on the Comanche should give you a few clues. Clio the Muse 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

21 conditions of Comintern affiliation

I am trying to find a full list of the 21 conditions that parties had to agree to in order to join the Communist International after its foundation in 1919. The article here only has "highlights". Any ideas? I've tried google and the Marxists Internet Archive but without success. Mattley 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found them in a previous version of the page, but still, if anyone knows an external site that might have a version of the document it would make a useful link. Mattley 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mattley, this is quite a good page, not just on conditions of membership, but the overall history of the Third International . There seems originally only to have been 19 conditions for membership, as laid down by Lenin. These conditions, moreover, are quite verbose in the original form; so they must have been streamlined at some point. Clio the Muse 00:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

surnames like Hitler being changed

Are there still people in Germany with the surname Hitler, or would they have all changed their name by deedpoll? What about for other dictators like Stalin? (I know Stalin wasn't his real name, but it may still have been someone else's name, so I'm wondering if they changed it). The Mad Echidna 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In China, after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, many members of the imperial family changed their surnames from the (rather conspicuous) Aisin-Gioro to Jin (surname) - see e.g. Jin Youzhi, because of strong Republican and anti-Monarchist sentiments. Interestingly, in the last couple of decades, some distant members of the clan have switched to Aisin-Gioro because having a royal connection is suddenly hip. This creates an interesting situation where many people go around with the surname of Aisin-Gioro but none of them are members of the actual imperial family. --Sumple (Talk) 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalin's original last name was Dzhugashvili, and both of his male children kept the name, though one had to change it when he was sent to prison. I am pretty sure at least one of his grandchildren kept the name, probably one of the sons of Vasily Dzhugashvili, but I'm only vaguely remembering from David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb, which has a bit about one of Stalin's grandchildren. --24.147.86.187 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A more recent example: The Dutroux case is now considered so evil and infamous that more than a third of Belgians with the surname "Dutroux" applied to have their name changed --TotoBaggins

I don't think there's anybody left in Norway named Quisling. 惑乱 分からん 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The name Hitler is now seemingly illegal in Germany, at least according to this site . Although I have no direct proof on the matter, I would imagine that Dzhugashvili, a Georgian name, is still in use. I seriously doubt there was ever more than one Stalin, which, in any case is more of a nom de guerre, meaning 'Man of Steel.' However, not all people are ashamed of past associations, as we know from the career of Alessandra Mussolini. Clio the Muse 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, as a neo-fascist, it doesn't appear she'd mind past associations, anyway... 惑乱 分からん 00:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On a different other hand, I'd be surprised if there weren't always Russians named Stalin, completely unrelated to Uncle Joe. Many Russian surnames are based on nouns for everyday things (just a few examples: Putin - path; Zverev - animal; Stolov - table; Kozlov - goat; Griboyedov - mushroom-eater; Pushkin - cannon; Volkov - wolf; Medvedev - bear). "Steel(e)" is a common surname in English, so I can't see why Stalin (from "stal") would not have been found in Russia. However, it's more than likely that most of these Stalins would have changed their names, for obvious reasons. It would be hard to establish a public career nowadays with such a surname. (Note: This is all conjecture, obviously. I can't claim to have actually heard of any Stalins other than the infamous one and his children; and I have no idea how to Google this without running into billions of references to you-know-who). JackofOz 01:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you run across a name that makes you wonder if they've ever thought about changing it. The head of the Maryland ACLU is named Susan Goering, which may be the most ironic thing you read this week. The online Czech phonebook lists 35 people in Prague with the surname Gottwald or Gottwaldová -- Klement Gottwald was Stalin's crony in Czechoslovakia. There are seven Ceausescus in Sector 1 of Bucharest, Romania. There are hundreds of Castros in Miami. There are 29 Mussolinis in the Italian online phone book. -- Mwalcoff 01:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly, a quick check at the online whitepages of the US at reveals an incredible 25 Hitlers as well as 32 Stalins . Apparently these names aren't as unpopular as one would have hoped. Loomis 03:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, that's weird. Here's a story about the Ohio Hitlers: . They're an old pioneer family, some of whom live on Hitler Road and have relatives in the Hitler-Ludwig Cemetery. And how'd you like to buy real estate from Peter Hitler? Here's one guy who changed his name from Hitler to Granger. Can't say I blame him. -- Mwalcoff 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall a WW2 story about someone who kept the name Hitler: he said, "Let the other guy change his name -- he's the one causing all the trouble." --Anonymous, February 23, 2007, 06:16 (UTC).

And Jack, on the fourth hand (?), I'm surprised you forgot the biggie (no pun intended) Leo Tolstoy: "Толстый" being the Russian for "fat" or even "fat man", Leo Tolstoy can properly be translated into "Leo the Fat Man". Loomis 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting for that. I didn't forget, I left him out because I was talking about surnames based on nouns, not adjectives.  :) JackofOz 05:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Suuure Jack. I'm sure you were deliberately restricting yourself only to nouns. :--) I'm just teasing of course. But you mention "Медведев". Now "Медведь" is certainly Russian for "bear", but "Медведев"? "Bearish" perhaps? Sounds like an adjective to me! Of course I haven't been able to speak Russian competently in over a decade, so you're probably right on that one too. Loomis 05:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Svetlana Alliluyeva, Stalin's daughter, uses her mother's maiden name. Corvus cornix 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

February 23

Which cultures tell tall tales?

Hi, I am writing a play about the Silk Road, and I want to know which cultures around that (large) region would be especially fond of telling tall tales. David G Brault 01:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on your point of view. I've studied the stories of the Northwest Plains Native Americans and it was common to have a game in which men would see who could tell the tallest tale. I heard a similar sort of thing about Samoans while visiting the Polynesian Culture Center in Hawaii. But, going back to your point of view, a culture that tells stories about building a tower to heaven, two cities being destroyed by flames from heaven, a flood destroying the whole world, a baby surviving a dangerous trip down the Nile... those are some pretty tall tales. --Kainaw 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Italian (Venetian) Marco Polo told some whoppers. DDB 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Following the line above - look at Prester_John#Letter_of_Prester_John - note that all the examples you've had so far are non-native - sorry87.102.6.2 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Monacle

My question is simple, my Father left me what looks like an antique monacle. However, on the small leather pouch is written what looks like, Pocket Amoptiscope or it could be Pocket Airoptiscope.

I have no idea and am curious as to what it could be. I've tried searching both words and came up empty handed.

Thank you for any help.

N. Brown 7:08 pm 2-22-07

An optiscope is a term commonly used for a magnifier - usually a two-lense one like you often see jewlers using. The "pocket" probably just means small. Anything preceding optiscope may indicate one lens since you say it looks like a monacle (which has one lens). --Kainaw 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

btw, it's monocle, from mono (1) and ocular (relating to the eyes). (Admittedly, it's confusing that the 2-eyed version is called spectacles.)  :) JackofOz 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Make up your mind, Jack! :--) Does the "o" relate to the "o" in "mono" or the "o" in "ocular"? I've never heard of a "double etymology" as you suggest. It actually kind of reminds me of how certain rabid femminists insist on respelling the word "history" as "hystory", the ridiculous assumption being that the "history" spelling is meant as some sort of sexist contraction of the words "his" and "story", when in reality, the word is derived from the Greek historìa meaning "a learning or knowing by inquiry, history, record, narrative," from historein, from histor "wise man, judge". The whole idea that "history" is somehow a sexist representation of a specifically "male" interpretation of past events, as is implied by the purely fictitious "his-story" etymology, is pure bunk. Loomis 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is really monoocle. --Kainaw 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps the "his-story" etymology is correct, in which case we should be spelling it "hisstory". Ah...womyn...can't live with'em, can't live without'em...but what can I do, I'm but a mere humyn mayle. :) Loomis 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

TRB from Washington

The New Republic has long had a lead column called "TRB from Washington," which also appears in other papers including The Guardian of London, the Washington Times, and the Los Angeles Times. It is never revealed what "TRB" stands for. Anyone have authoritative info on what it means? Edison 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiny note. It's more usual to disambiguate The Guardian as the Manchester Guardian than the Guardian of London, although it now has printing facilities in London as well as Manchester. To be honest, you could have just said "The UK Guardian", since it is a national paper. Skittle 11:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

SBF claims that TRB was "originally created to supply a Washington, D.C., viewpoint when the magazine was based in New York" and that it stands for Brooklyn Rapid Transit backwards! --Anonymous, February 23, 2007, 06:20 (UTC).

Jewish question

Is it true that the Jews are the most intelligent of all the people on Earth?210.212.215.141 07:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Ecclesiasticalparanoid

This topic is always going to be enormously controversial, and many researchers wouldn't touch such a broad, sweeping generalisation. However, some people (see ) have suggested that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs on average than other ethnic groups. See Ashkenazi intelligence for more information. -- Chairman S. Talk 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bell Curve addressed this issue in '94. Jews may not be the brightest people on Earth, but among them. DDB 09:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that there is significant controversy over whether intelligence is a capacity that can be accurately measured. (See, for example, our article on Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man.) While it may be true that Ashkenazi Jews achieve higher average scores on intelligence tests, these tests at best measure only a particular type of intelligence. Other kinds of intelligence may not be as susceptible to measurement. If they could be measured, we don't know whether Ashkenazi Jews would score higher, lower, or about the same as other groups. In any case, we are talking about averages. While some Ashkenazi Jews are geniuses, in conventional terms, others have substandard intelligence. It would be a fallacy to conclude, based on some Jews' strong performance on intelligence tests, that all or even most Jews are more intelligent than members of other ethnic groups. Marco polo 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard people cite the disproportionate numbers of Jewish Nobel prize winners as evidence of this generalisation, but I think it's probably more down to the importance of education in Jewish culture. So, not more intelligent than average, but perhaps better educated than average. --Dweller 13:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But then you would want to consider the implication such a disproportionate number suggests in terms of ant colony cooperation or swarm (versus individual) intelligence if Nobel were known to be Jewish as well. -- Barringa 14:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller. Also, because discriminatory laws and practices historically barred Jewish people from aristocratic privilege and the insider connections that often led to lucrative positions, an argument can be made that Jews were forced to "live by their wits". This may help to explain the high value of education in Jewish culture and many Jews' search for success through intellectual pursuits. Marco polo 14:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is a witticism by the late Dave Berg, and as such is not meant to be taken as fact, but merely a clever response for whenever Jews hear this question. (I don't have the quote right in front of me, this is only going from the best of my recollection): "Many say Jews are smarter than Gentiles. That's absolute nonsense. We're not smarter, we're simply less stupid." He goes on to say: "While for the past millenium or so, much of the Christian World sent their best and their brightest to either go off and get themselves killed in battle, or otherwise join the priesthood and live a life of celibacy, the best and the brightest Jews were encouraged to become Rabbis and to sexually satisfy one woman to her heart's content, thus having as many children as possible." Hope nobody was offended, I just found the quote to be a rather clever witticism. Perhaps a better question should be: "Why are the Jews the funniest people in the world?" :--) Loomis 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

French handwriting affectation

(not sure if this is humanities or language)

My brother received his first letter from his school-appointed, female, teenage, French exchange-partner, and we noticed what we took to be a strange affectation in her handwriting. She adds an extra 'arch' to the letters n and m. Now, this is such a bizarre affectation (rendering all ns as ms and ms as weird things), that we wondered if it was some current French fad. Anyone know? (She also capitalised all Hs when addressing the letter, even in the middle of words, so she might just be odd...) Skittle 10:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean like the ns and ms in this image? That's pretty much standard in cursive writing. -- Chairman S. Talk 11:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not like that (I have seen joined-up-writing before!). She has put deliberate extra arches on the ends, over and above anything needed to link the letters. And she printed the address on the envelope, and did the same thing there. Skittle 11:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a personal thing of hers, (for whatever reasons) rather than a French thing... 惑乱 分からん 12:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is, of course, possible. It's just that it's such an odd thing (actually writing one letter as another!) that I wondered if there was some fad behind it. I mean, teenagers often develop deliberate affectations in their writing, such as loops instead of dots over their is, altering the height of letters, extra, but this seemed very strange. Was hoping some french wikieditors, or people who were good friends with such, might know. Skittle 12:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could request her permission and copyright clearance and scan an example, and post your question on the french wikipedia as well, along with the sample image. Absent the scan, you could just ask for links to sample images of handwriting and compare/contrast. Just a thought, it's kinda difficult to answer without actually seeing what you mean. dr.ef.tymac 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I should try the French Wiki, although my French isn't that good. It really isn't an ambiguous or complicated difference, she literally prints 'Lame' instead of 'Lane', 'Friemd' instead of 'Friend' and something that looks a bit like 'I'rm', but literally an m with an extra arch, instead of 'I'm'. Just thought it could be a playground thing in France :-P Skittle 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So well, how old is the mademoiselle? More exact than "teenage"? Anyway, maybe your brother could just ask her: "Pourquoi est-ce que ta maníere de êcríre est tellement bizarre?" ,unhhmm, or something... ;) 惑乱 分からん 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of such an extra arch or it being linked to different ways of rendering letters in different languages but on that subject I heard the French would write the number seven (7) with an extra horizontal line accross the middle whereas in UK english seven would be writen like in its printed form (like this: 7) which could confuse some international readers. Keria 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe both 7 and Z with horizontal lines in the middle are realtively common variants across Europe. 惑乱 分からん 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The "7-with-a-line" (there really SHOULD be a name for that) is to avoid confusion with the number "one" (1). When written, many people will make that hook-thingy on top of and to the left of the one rather large, looking for all the world to these "new world" eyes like the number 7. Bunthorne 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is common in mathematics for the 7 to have a line through it (to differentiate it from 1 as Bunthorne said), the zero has a line to differentiate it from the letter O, the Z has a line to differentiate it from the numebr 2, and often a 1 will have no hook on top and a line on bottom to diffreentiate it from a lower case L. None of those are hard-fast rules, but are steadily becoming common to avoid confusion. --Kainaw 04:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

History of community or economic development in Ohio

Is there a resource or link that lays out the history of community development or milestones in community development specific to Ohio? I'm wanting to find a timeline including legistative acts, creation of major organizations in the industry, etc. 208.40.34.3 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What was Bill Clinton's law specialization in?

I have been looking everywhere but can't seem to find what field of law Bill Clinton studied as well as what he practiced after graduation. The only info I can ever find is that he obtained a JD from Yale.

Do you mean "studied" or "practiced" ? dr.ef.tymac 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the latter, check the book First In His Class : A Biography Of Bill Clinton by David Maraniss. It covers this, as well as some aspects of his law school days. Someone else will have to help you if you want more specifics, as I don't have a copy of the book handy, nor memorized. dr.ef.tymac 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This article from the Washington Post (last paragraph) refers to him as a constitutional lawyer. Does that mean he is one? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Clarityfiend 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fashion: shirt logos and the breast pocket

• Why are shirt logos and breast pockets almost universally located on the left chest? Are they related? Paul_012 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The left side is easier to reach with the right hand. That is an easy reason for the pocket being on the left. However, this predates pockets on the left chest. I would look into why military medals are worn on the left side. My feeling is that the reason for that will be the same. --Kainaw 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because it's over the heart? Clarityfiend 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe medals are on the left as they could be obscured when saluting?hotclaws**== 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

youngest and oldest legislators

I'd like to do an article on the in each of the state legislatures Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky and West Virginia. Not sure how to research this.

thank you

Kris Spears Government Relations The Huntington National Bank 41 South High Street, (HC1244) , Columbus, OH 43287 Phone: 614/480-4465 Email: <Email removed>

Check it out online, but I can't provide a source, but you should be able to find something: the Democratic State Representative from somewhere in Mercer County, Ohio or Shelby County, Ohio (I think the placename begins with M, but all I can think of is "Mentor", and surely not that. I remember reading in my home paper (in Bellefontaine, Ohio) about him being elected at about age 19 or 20. Nyttend 06:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Text of patent and patent applications

Is the text of patents and patent applications subject to copyright? The question applies to US, UK, EP, ... patents and originates from here. Thanks for your help. --Edcolins 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--Wetman 00:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wetman, Thank you for your response. Can you provide a reference?--Nowa 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm no IP lawyer, every instinct I have would seem to be that patents (but not necessarily patent applications) would definitely NOT be subject to copyright restrictions. The whole point of the patent system is to publically publish all aspects of the patent, in return for a temporary monopoly on the use of the patented item. It would only seem to follow that a registered patent and all of its details are surrendered to the public domain, and are therefore not subject to copyright law. Loomis 02:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(In reference to U.S. law) Making something public does not void the copyright. For example, most cities in the U.S. have some sort of free newspaper. It is printed and put out for the public to freely consume however they like. However, the editors of the paper still retain a copyright on the content of the paper. Similarly, the author of a copyright application does not write the patent. They only write the application for the patent. That is original work that may be copyrighted. That does not mean that the public cannot view it. It means that some guy can't legally do a get rich quick scheme out of copying cool patent applications to a book and selling it. Getting into the DMRC age, it also means that nobody may host a copy of the application on their website without consent of the author. They do grant consent to the USPTO - which is a requirement of applying for a patent. Of course, big companies can afford to use lawyers to delay publication of their patents by the USPTO so nobody sees it coming until the patent is granted. --Kainaw 02:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not that it "may be copyrighted". Anything that is created is automatically under copyright unless it falls under the public domain - e.g. created by the US government, explicitly released into the public domain, etc. Also, I hate to break it to you, but putting together a book of neat patents is about as far from a "get rich quick" scheme as is humanly imaginable. There are books like this dealing with patents from before 1923 (which would be in the public domain, of course); the writer of such a book would spend months (if not years) looking through old patents in order to find those that really are funny, only to produce a book that might on a very, very good day break even. --Charlene 07:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions." This would agree with Loomis's explanation. Paul_012 08:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have created an article Copyright on the content of patents on this issue to gather this useful information. --Edcolins 08:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Caste feuds

Why there are bad feelings between Reddys and kammas?

Let me start by saying that I (an American) had not heard of either caste before reading your question, and I have no basis for answering your question other than the Misplaced Pages articles on Reddy and Kamma and some background knowledge of Indian history. Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable than myself will come along to correct my speculations. But what struck me after reading about the castes is that they are both landowning castes that aspire to positions of local leadership in the South and particularly in Andhra Pradesh. This is a recipe for rivalry and resentment. Also, Reddys apparently function as village head men. They may have resented political control by the mainly Kamma Nayaks in Tamil Nadu and southern Andhra Pradesh during the 17th and 18th centuries immediately preceding British rule, and this resentment may have been passed down through generations to become a traditional aversion. Marco polo 14:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

DOCUMENTARY FILM ON EDUCATION

Sir I'm a budding filmmaker and I'm presently trying to sell my film.My film, as the website has shown is about Learning.The Realm of Learning is a 17+ minute film .

I'm a teacher and I'm worried about the emphasis on Class-room teaching. I would like a fresh approach to learning which will be more proactive and involve the children and help open their minds . I would appreciate if you could email me some names of people who deal in Documentaries and ofcourse the Channels like Nat-Geo,Discovery etc. I've beeen trying to contact them through their web-site but have not had much success as of date. mY WEBSITE IS www.lesleyproductions.com203.94.238.112 10:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Thanking you Shirley

Reasons for Variations in Price Elasticity within a demand curve

I understand the general concept and the mathematics behind differences in price elasticity within a single curve, as shown below:

But what are the reasons behind the different ranges of price elasticity with regard to demand for a good? i.e. Why is the demand for some goods more elastic at places and more inelastic at others?

Thanks, Harwoof 13:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Most likely volume, but I have no siteable reference right now. -- Barringa 14:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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