Revision as of 22:12, 1 December 2006

Reference Desk

November 28

Film classification, specifically in reference to "The Black Cauldron"

I happened to catch a bit of Disney's biggest flop, The Black Cauldron on tv earlier and couldn't help but wonder why on earth the BBFC (I'm in England) rated it a U. It contains the reanimation of skeletons into an evil undead army, something that I found very creepy and probably would have given me nightmares as a child. I am now wondering whether there are different rating guidelines for animated films than for live action. I am most curious about UK guidelines but would also be interested in other countries' rules. I have read Misplaced Pages's articles on film censorship and haven't found any answers, especially in the confusing area of US film rating.

In case my user name doesn't show up: Hawkisgirl 00:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite a bit of information is available from CARA, the classification and rating administration. They explain the specific rating of "The Black Cauldron" as caused by "Rated PG for some scary images." dpotter 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Or even better the http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/SearchClassifiedWorks/?SearchView&Query=(%20%20contains%20%22BLACK%20CAULDRON%22)%20and%20((%20%20contains%20Film)%20OR%20(%20%20contains%20Video))&SearchMax=50 BBFC site (you will have to copy and paste the link wiki doesn't like it) and here is a guide to what U means. I expect the fact that it is animation influenced the rating. Perhaps they think five-year-olds are better able to separate fact and fiction then you :-> meltBanana 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The television rating system in the US (as an example) is explicitly more lenient toward "fantasy violence".--Pharos 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Presidential term limits

If a U.S. president is reelected to a second term but, for whatever reason, does not take office, would he be able to stand for reelection in a future election? In other words, does the Constitution prevent someone from being reelected more than twice or does it prevent someone from serving more than two terms? Bhumiya (said/done) 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution... AnonMoos 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So he could not be elected a third time. This does not explicitly say he could not run for Vice President at a later time and succeed to the Presidency if the elected President died or resigned, or that he could not run for the U.S. House of Representatives as did ex-President, be selected Speaker of the House, and then succeed to the presidency, or become President from one of the other offices in the line of succession, such as President Pro Tem of the Senate or the Cabinet. There might be objections that such a move would violate the spirit of the law and the legislative intent, so action of Congress or the Supreme Court might impeded the taking of office. Edison 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. In the admittedly unlikely event a president-elect were to, say, fall violently ill and later recover, it seems like he would be justified in running again, particularly if he hadn't been sworn in. But the 22nd Amendment seems pretty cut and dry about it. Bhumiya (said/done) 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No. "Any person constitutionally ineligable for the office of president will also be ineligable for the office of vice-Pres." But a former Pres can still go to sit in Congress. The only way to flout the 2 term limit is to be appointed vice pres (after an incumbent resigns) and then succeed the resigning president who appointed you (as Ford did on Nixon, hold office for two years). Then you can win 2 more terms. Total ten yrs. martianlostinspace 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Which Indian leader has been called 'The Twentieth Century Fox' by no less a person than Winston Churchill

a question in a trivia quiz section.. need the answer soon

Jawaharlal Nehru? -THB 04:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi? | AndonicO 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a trick question. Recury 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This really is a tricky question. I thought I knew all of the main quotations in the Churchill canon, but this is completely unfamiliar. I would say, though, of the two figures identified so far it is more likley to be Nehru than Gandhi. Churchill had no high opinion of Gandhi, unlike Nehru, a fellow old Harrovian, to whom he once apologized for opposing Indian independence. There is a third possibility, though a bit of an outsider, I admit. This is Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, infinitely more fox-like than either Gandhi or Nehru, although if he would be considered 'Indian' in the context of your question must be subject to some doubt. On balance I would say Nehru; but I have to stress this is no more than an educated guess. Clio the Muse 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for the responses.. the answer is C Rajagopalachari - the first (and only) Indian Governor General. Thanks

Wow, even with the answer, I still do not see it anywhere. There is no reference that I can find to this. I did find what I thought was the answer (Yes, I know it is wrong, but still) http://en.wikipedia.org/E._F._L._Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax was the Viceroy of India, and was dubbed the "Holy Fox" by Churchill.

Warning: Any search for FOX, Churchill, and Indian now gives you Professor Ward Churchill and his conflict with Fox News and O'Reilly. Make sure to include Winston in your search. :) CodeCarpenter 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the main food distribution company in Germany?

What is the german equivalent to the Sysco Corporation? I am researching how to open a restaurant in Berlin. So I need to know where to order my food supplies from. Can anyone help me?

Thanks!

Check Intergast or Servicebund. -THB 05:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Science Fiction Story

I am looking for the title and author of a science fiction story that I cannot relocate. For the longest time, I was convinced that the story was by Philip K. Dick, but I have been unable to locate it among his works.

The story begins with an assassin fleeing the estate of his target, an extremely powerful and influential politician/officeholder who has been made unaging or nearly so by medical treatment. He is nearly captured many times during his flight, but robots and computers seem to be helping him. Specific scenes include a drink machine that dispenses items to trip a police officer, a police ID scanner that returns false information, and a firefighting robot that kidnaps the protagonist.

Does anyone know which story this might be?

Gnfnrf 05:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it myself, but we have numerous articles on about half of Philip K. Dick's stories (scroll down to the bottom and look at the template). You might try checking each story's individual article. Battle Ape 05:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but perhaps I was unclear in my initial statement. I no longer believe that the story is by PKD, because my previous research has included checking most of his work. I mentioned him on the off chance that I missed the piece, and to establish the era and vague tone of the work I'm looking for. Even so, I did check all of the Misplaced Pages articles on PKD stories to no avail (though a few contained no plot details, so I can't rule them out.)Gnfnrf 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Could be a story by Larry Niven. He had a number of stories with autodocs/long life.

Copied DVDs for educational purposes

I recently read that a country had officially made copying DVDs etc legal IF the pirated copies were for educational purposes (I think it was perhaps the USA or the UK but I am unsure). My questions are:
1) Does anyone know which country (-ies) it was that has recently legalized pirated copies for purely educational purposes?,
2) If I were to copy a DVD (within this educational context, eg: copying my official DVD of the BBC 1995 Pride and Prejudice and sending it to a school or student studying this work on their curriculum) from another country outside of this legalization, is my activity then still illegal, or would I have to copy & dispatch within the country where it was legal?
Many thanks in advance for any information, Alex

It was the US. Ars Technica has a little more detail, though they focus more on some of the other exemptions. And there's always the root .gov site (note that these are just recommendations, they have no legal status yet - poke around on the site for the current ones). Regarding question 2, I haven't read the rules in too much detail myself, but I think they generally refer to intra-institutional use. Virog_{my fault!} 14:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That link doesn't really say that you can copy DVDs in any educational context; it has a very specific educational context in mind. Other copying would have to qualify under the fair use provision, I'd imagine, which is more lenient for educational purposes than for commercial or private ones, but still frowns upon copying the entire movie. --140.247.243.186 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

is there a relationship with madness and the historical views of normality

I am doing a course on Abnormal Psychology, and have started to do this particular assignment, and I need a clue as to what it is asking for, as Im not sure if I understand the question, and dont want to write the assignment to find its not what they wanted at all - can anyone give me a clue?? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kargus (talk • contribs)

Um, should that read 'Is there a relationship between madness and historical views of normality'? If so, I imagine that what's wanted is an investigation of the nature of madness: is it (e.g.) a form of illness, requiring treatment, or a form of tyrannical social control of the unusual or awkward, requiring resistance? See our article on Michel Foucault (especially the sections on Madness and Civilisation and The Birth of the Clinic). Roy Porter's A Social History of Madness might also be useful here. Hope this helps. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dissidents in the Soviet Union were often confined in mental hospitals for holding views which would be considered perfectly normal in most other countries. Edison 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia, and drapetomania linked to that article is a rather unusual mental illness. meltBanana 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sam Clark's right. The question is definitely pointing towards the relationship between madness and historical views of it in history. Read Michel Foucault's work that Sam mentioned. Also, for a more radical continuation of Foucault's treatment of the subject, read Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's Anti-Œdipus and A Thousand Plateaus. By the way, I admire your course on Abnormal Psychology for its honesty. I wonder if they'll admit that their label "abnormality" is a tool of social control, capitalist social control? And that schizophrenics are the people who are most free? I wonder. Moonwalkerwiz 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Or, if you don't want to read three works of very difficult philosophy of madness to write the answer to one assignment, the answer is something like "in order to define someone as 'crazy', you have to have a definition of 'sane' (normal). definitions of what being 'sane' means have changed radically over the years, and so have definitions of 'crazy'." Taking that as your starting point, you should be able to hash out a good assignment assuming they've given you something to work with (a text, a textbook, lectures, etc.). Which is all they probably want of you anyway. --24.147.86.187 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Or, you can take your assignment and your studies seriously, research on these works, read secondary materials to understand them better, and really learn rather than going for unsubstantiated rhetoric. Moonwalkerwiz 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not bite those asking questions here. Edison 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not biting those asking questions, I'm usually biting those providing answers. Moonwalkerwiz 00:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just started working on this assesment in my abnormal psychology course and dont have a clue how to start and i would welcome any help as my grade for the first assesment was really good and i dont want too mess this one up charcar

Rahab still alive, according to bible?

I was looking at the book of Joshua today, and I came across this line:

Joshua 6: 24-25

24 Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the LORD's house. 25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho — and she lives among the Israelites to this day.

Do people who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible believe that Rahab is still alive?

Thanks! --George —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.120.121 (talk • contribs)

I doubt it, since they do not believe that the book of Joshua was written today. Edison 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, a name in the Hebrew Bible is often used to designate a clan considered that person's descendants, so I would take the reference here to the survival of a clan of Rahab. Wareh 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. Rahab and Joshua were the beginning of a line of priests and prophets. --jpgordon 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are taking the sentence "and she lives among the Israelites to this day." a bit too literally. The term to this day only refers to the time the book of Joshua was written by the author. It does not mean "to this day the 28th November 2006". 202.168.50.40 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the questioner is aware that it may not be meant to be taken literally, but they are asking if people who claim that every word of the Bible must be true in a completely literal sense would interpret this bit literally. 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Institutional Investors & Patents

Say I have a good idea, and I have patented it. How do I get in touch with Institutional Investors so they will provide with start up capital for my company? --Records 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a sure-fire way to do it. There are companies which will take your money and say that they will promote your invention (google "inventor agent" for a bunch of them), but personally I'd be suspicious of them (many of those sorts of companies—like self-publishing houses—feed on the vanity of their clients). If you google "venture capital" you'll get lots of resources which give suggestions or companies for finding funding; again I'd be wary. --24.147.86.187 02:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Start with a business plan and make sure you have a good lawyer as ideas are quite often stolen. -THB 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you 24.147.86.187 & THB. --Records 05:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

death

what does the term mortal put on immortality means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.169.11 (talk • contribs)

Hi there. I'm sorry, but I can't really make sense of your question. Perhaps you might like to rephrase it? I assume you are not simply asking what the difference is between the two terms? Clio the Muse 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians: "Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?", in which the idea is that human being will have everlasting life after they are resurrected. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And in slightly more modern language: "then (when the dead rise again) this mortal body must be turned into an immortal body".  --Lambiam 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul is speaking of the Resurrection of the dead. His point seems to be that we will change from being physical and mortal beings to having a spiritual and deathless existence. (So it's a bit surprising, from the customary point of view, that he speaks of this figuratively as putting on a new garment, rather than as stripping away the transient to leave behind the truly permanent.) The passage has been the subject of considerable exegesis by the Church Fathers. Wareh 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Nationality Laws

Hey I have a question regarding the Citzenship of those In the Dutch Antilles, Are the Citizens of St. Maarten, Aruba, Curacao, and Bonaire considered Dutch Citizens? Do they pay taxes to the cental govenment of the Netherlands, or rather just to the Antillian (?) Government? And would they travel on Dutch Passports? Tahnk you! --P

Check out Kingdom of the Netherlands. It should answer most of your questions. Natgoo 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

complaint

hi. im jesse king. i have one hell of a complaint about this website. somebody, believe me, put that jimi hendrix article the way it was like a month ago. not me. then it changes a couple days ago and when i change it back the way it was, i get blamed for it. thats one thing. u may boot me whatever but im warning you wikipedia. if u block me for something i didnt do, im going to erase every article, siging on as different users. making them up. just raise hell!!! but if you do not block me, have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk31213 (talk • contribs)

Hi Jesse. You are in completely the wrong place to make your complaint - this is the humanities reference desk. But I'll make an attempt to explain what's going on. You haven't been blocked, and nobody has threatened to block you, so far as I can see. This diff shows, however, that you did mess up the Jimi Hendrix article pretty badly - whether or not you meant to do this, after your edit, it was just a couple of sections (about supporting the Monkeys and adapting a Howlin' Wolf track) repeated over and over. User:HK51 quite rightly reverted your changes, and left a quite polite note about it on your talk page. Finally: threatening to spit out your dummy and mess everything up if you don't get your way is not going to endear you to anyone. Cheers, Sam Clark 21:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, a great deal of the additions to the Hendrix article seem to be plagiarized word-for-word from elsewhere online. --205.211.141.19 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Won't endear him to anyone? Hell, I admire his fighting spirit! 64.59.144.21 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not fighting; that's just random lashing out in puerile anger. Threatening violence towards an entire community of people for the perceived sins of one person is not the way to go. Jimi Hendrix would never have approved of such behaviour. JackofOz 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's threatening to lash out if his concerns are not dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

Of course I shouldn't expect anyone on Misplaced Pages, a haven for cowards and effete intellectuals, to understand this sort of thing. 64.59.144.21 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We understand it alright, we just think it's unacceptable behaviour. Misplaced Pages works by consensus and discussion and debate and compromise, not by one person inflicting carnage if their personal ego-based desires are not accommodated. If Jesse has concerns about this or any other article, he is always welcome to discuss them and seek a solution through reasonable means that don't involve force. (If you have such a low opinion of Wikipedians, you're free to disassociate yourself from this forum at any time.) Cheers JackofOz 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hip-hop dancing

Does anybody know why crotch-grabbing is an integral move in hip-hop dancing? Not only do I find it offensive, but I just can't fathom what kind of message it is supposed to send. Since this type of dancing is permeating our mainstream culture these days, I'd like to have some understanding of it even though I don't like it. Thanks for your help -- Jazzkitty--Jazzkitty 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this crotch grabbing is specific to hip-hop dancing, I reckon it was Michael Jackson that popularised it. Maybe dancing has some clues? As far as I understand it, dancing has a long tradition of representing freedom, human nature, sensuality, provocation, rebellion and many other metaphysical concepts. Capoeira and Foot Loose may begin to give some insight into what I mean. Crotch grabbing would just be another manifestation of raw emotion or interpretation, not necessarily meant or interpreted the same by different people. Vespine 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer crotch grabbing than the Macarena. Moonwalkerwiz 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so here I am dancing all free and sensual and everything -- and I'm so excited I have to grab my crotch?? Or is it -- now that I don't wear underwear any more all my stuff is flying around? Or, all this activity makes me have to go to the men's room? Or my personal favorite, I am such a gifted athlete that I don't have to have any class, grace, taste, or manners? If there are any break dancersout there, would you please enlighten me?? Thanks --Jazzkitty 06:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a break dancer, but I've done the crotch grabbing dance step quite a few times in my life. I think the problem here is your interpretation of the dance. Certainly, I do not doubt that there is a historical background for the dance, and it carries with it symbols of power relations between categories of people (class, gender, etc.) However, it still boils down to your interpretation in the end. What may seem offensive to you, could be a symbol of grace or style to another person. What you consider scandalously cheap maybe even considered by some dancers as a form of delicate artistic self expression. I think that ballet can be more erotic and sensual than crotch grabbing, for example, even though ballerinas don't have their stuff "flying around," as you say. There is one thing that I am sure of, though, crotch grabbing itself cannot bring down an entire category of people. Even if all males learn and do crotch grabbing, women will not get lower salaries, they will not lose their right to vote, rich people will not lose their power, no one will be deprived of their human rights. Yeah, and Michael Jackson will not have his career back. Moonwalkerwiz 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer and the explanation. I guess I just like my sensuality to be a little more subtle, as in your example of ballet. In matters of style our society is getting crasser every day, e.g. baggy jeans with holes in them, 20 o'clock shadow beards, matted hairstyles, etc. What's next, nosepicking in public? True, all these things won't bring down civilization as we know it, but I definitely think they degrade the quality of our lives. But my original reason for asking about crotch-grabbing was really to find out what it's supposed to represent -- I just don't get what the message is. Oh, I just thought of another possibility -- mine is bigger than yours? Thanks!Jazzkitty 16:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the first ref I can remember to it, is when performed by the character Leroy Johnson first appeared in either Fame the movie, or the TV series. I think that predates Michael Jackson, but could be wrong. and if ever there was a redlink waiting to be written, Leroy is it! --Dweller 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, honestly, I agree with you that society is "getting crasser every day." Democracy is good, in the sense that in it, all people have the right to access education, a better quality of life, etc. But this is also at the same time Democracy's weakness. When all aspects of life are made accessible to all, everyone acquires the right to put their stamp on everything, especially culture. Whereas culture before (or at least the view of it) is restricted to high culture, aristocratic culture, today, culture is defined as "a way of life," meaning, as long as it is a mode of living, it can be defined as culture. And what result do you get? Well, the most powerful institutions in society dominate over the rest and start to put their mark on culture. In this globalized, cyber age, media rules the world. And whoever gets hold of the power of media gets to propagate himself. And from this, you can probably predict the rest of the process. MTV takes hold of people's minds, minds produce material for MTV, and the vicious cyle continues. More "subtle," trained, mastered forms of artistic expression are pushed into the background, as overly stimulating (one can even say "nervous") acts become the people's way of life. Finally, every girl becomes Britney Spears, every man a Tom Cruise, and everyone dances crotch grabbing. It is our way of life. Moonwalkerwiz 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that about sums it up. Thanks for the great insights, Moonwalkerwiz. Jazzkitty Jazzkitty 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Online tools for currency conversion in different times of history

Are there online tools for currency conversion in different times of history? For example: if I wanted to know how much $12,000 CAD from 1970 are worth in 2006. I would prefer an online calculator, but other tools like charts would be also welcome, of course. Thank you. --Liberlogos 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Try Measuring Worth ($) or (£). You'll have to convert your CAD to $ or £ first, at a 1970 exchange rate. 12,000 USD would be between 60,000 and 143,000 USD in 2005. - Nunh-huh 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You can do direct conversions on this site, although it doesn't go as far back as 1970. --Richardrj 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How Americans treated differant people before 1850

Hello. i am debating my point on as if I were in 1850 right now. I am defending that America should free all slaves making the US abolish slavery completely. my question is how did Americans treat people such as spaniards, indians, and Chinese prior to 1850. The ymay have had complications but where they considered humans by the American definition. African American were not so I am trying to see if they treated others the same way. Where only "whites" superior and powerful? Did the other races not count as peopleto them at the time?

thank you so much for just taking the time to read this

This is a tough question. I scoured google with a bunch of different terms and didn't come up with anything definitive. But finally, I found a site that might be of use to you (you might want to contact them via email): The History Cooperative. Good luck! Maybe someone else will do better with searches. Anchoress 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The general answer is not good, either before or after 1850. The main pages you need to look at are Racism in the United States, and Native Americans in the United States. You might also glance over the Anti-Coolie Act of 1862 and, though much later, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. There are other useful links on these pages. Clio the Muse 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the general answer is that any place that whites were involved with non-whites they generally treated them as at least second-class citizens, if not slaves or savages. IMO you would do best to argue that American democracy is predicated (in theory) on the idea of individual liberty for all people, and that there was no reason to consider Africans to not be people. Of course in 1850 someone would say, "but science says they aren't the same species as us," which some scientists would agree to and some wouldn't (a nice little "global warming"-like debate of the late 19th century). But I doubt anyone in your class will know that. --24.147.86.187 02:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the question brings up slavery and apparently assumes slave=black, I feel it is important to note that there were many slaves who were not from Africa. Where I live (South Carolina coast), rice plantations were popular. Chinese slaves were used in the fields to plant and sow the rice. Blacks were used to process it and maintain the household. Endentured servants (commonly Irish) were reserved for personal servants and, all in all, were basically slaves, trading a trip to America for a lifetime of service. --Kainaw 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heck, the Irish and all Catholics were hated, feared and mistrusted, it wasn't just people of different skin hue. Read Know-Nothing. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

_____the thing i really want to see is if they were considered people or not. if i can get the opposing team to admit they are people then i have many arguments. I have no evidence that i have found as to whether they were "people" to the American whites. The opposing team says that people and in general humans are "white". They have no evidence to say that this is how people felt in 1850. They said anyone not white is inferior and were not people to them. It this what was really thought back then? is there proof?

Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates - specifically Lincoln's statements about blacks in the first one: "A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals." and later in the same speech "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment." Lincoln is often regarded as "the man who freed the slaves" (which is not very accurate). So, if he made those statements, you can imagine what the average person thought. --Kainaw 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the groups mentioned were considered to be "people," but as in any case of xenophobia, they were - in many quarters - considered to be inferior and thus not to be accorded full rights. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants considered all other groups, Africans, Asians, Hispanics, Eastern and Southern Europeans, Catholics, Jews, Native Americans, inferior, and were liable to discriminate against them.

The original questioner might do well to read the writings of William Lloyd Garrison for help in formulating debating points. B00P 19:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am equally interested in this topic. Before the whites subjected the world to slavery and now the whites want freedom to rule. They impose freedom in Iraq. What exactly do the whites want? 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)~~

• ha. Thats a good question. i think the whites (although this generization includes me) just didnt realize that what they were doing was wrong. They might just have thought that their reasons for doing what they did COULD be justified ..not that they were morally correct but possibly justifiable with their logic. i'm sorry if this offends but i think now with Iraq we want to be the superhero. We want to be able to tell someone else what to do now that all people in the united states are free and equal. oh by the way....i am the original questioner... and thank you all so much. you were so much help. i ended up winning that debate with your help.

Whites subjected the world to slavery? I guess we need to complete rewrite slavery, especially sentences like "Slavery predates writing and evidence for it can be found in almost all cultures and continents." --Kainaw 14:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

I am doing a research project on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. In order to do this correctly, I have been asked to state the aftermath of the fire, meaning the laws that were changed because of it. After searching New York Times files, Misplaced Pages, and various internet souces, I have been unable to come up with any of this information (besides that there were, in fact, laws changed)This is actually very frustrating! If anyone has any information on the laws changed or places to find out what laws were changed, I would REALLY appreciate if you could tell me!

Thank you! 23:28, 28 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.244.24 (talk • contribs)

I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic, but have you tried going to the bricks-and-mortar library anddft g reading some books on the fire? I'm sure they will go into more detail than what you can find on the Internet. -- Mwalcoff 23:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire which includes links to online cites with more info. Your local library might have or be able to obtain through interlibrary loan the books listed at the end of the article. The article mentions that there were revisions to safety laws. Edison 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The New York Times, if you can access it online, will provide on the one hand a view of the lack of laws around the time of the fire, as in "FACTORY FIRETRAPS FOUND BY HUNDREDS; Chief Kenlon Has a List of "Several Hundred" Where Thousands of Lives Are in Peril."New York Times New York, N.Y.: Oct 14, 1911. pg. 22, where the chief said he had fire safety violations dating back 7 years but no way to force building owners to fix them. Starting from the present and going back, I expect you can find retrospective articles stating what improvements were made.Edison 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)" AS A GUARD AGAINST FIRES.; Full Power Given to the Commissioner by Passing of Hoey Bill." New York Times New York, N.Y.: May 31, 1911. pg. 8. Says that the bill gave the fire commissioner enforcement powers: he could order a building vacated and condemned if fire safety violations were not corrected. Note; the building was then referred to seomtimes as the "Triangle Waist Company." Edison 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you are coming at the problem from the wrong direction. That is, you are expecting articles on the fire to lead you to specific changes in the fire code. Instead, I would look at changes to the fire code which happened in the years following the fire. Don't expect any change to say "this change was made as a result of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire", as that would require an admission that old laws caused all those deaths; an admission no politicians would be willing to make. Also note that it won't be obvious as to which changes took place as a result of the fire. It's not really a clear-cut case, either. Some people who voted for a change likely would have done so in any event, while others required a sufficiently high death toll to get them to act (tombstone mentality). Unless each voter left comments as to the motivation for their vote, we will never know if each law would have passed without the fire. However, you can say "X changes to the fire code took place in the decade before the fire, and Y changes took place in the following decade", and thus allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. StuRat 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The article I cited from the NY Times and others said the laws were specifically a reaction to the Traingle Waist Company fire. Other article said that the political powers such as Tammany Hall had favored the business and real estate interests before the fire, but changeed the laws and provided enforcement after the fire, because the immigrant workers were so outraged at the fire and the suspicious acquittal of the building owners in the manslaughter trial that they feared losing political power to reformers. Labor laws were changed to favor unions for the same reason. There is no need to make inferences based merely on the time course of changes if the contemporary news articles and speeches by politicians attribute causality to the Triangle fire. Edison 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

November 29

ZARZUELA PLOT

I am trying to find the plot of El Poeta by Torroba in English. Can you help? bc12

Good books about firearms?

I want a nice large book about firearms, any suggestions?

What do you mean, "about firearms"? About the history of firearms? About firearm specifications? Or just "firearms in general"? --24.147.86.187 02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A catalogue perhaps? If you just want some general information then try Misplaced Pages. I hear they have over 1.5 million articles in english. --The Dark Side 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Boston's Gun Bible  ? As you might expect, it has a rather anti-establishment, pro-anarchist POV. StuRat 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

which ADDISON ?

hello,

i tried finding the information i'm looking for to no avail. the following was penned by "Addison": "without constancy there is neither love, friendship, nor virtue in the world." my question is which mr. addison wrote this quote. there are several and i request your assistance if you can. thank you.

I do believe that's Joseph Addison. Marvelous writer; wrote for The Spectator in the early 18th century. Antandrus (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed Joseph Addison, and I completely agree with your assessment, Antandrus. Clio the Muse 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But this was written on Friday, June 30, 1710 in the Tatler, can it really still be true? meltBanana 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's Addison, alright; and he wrote for the Tatler before the Spectator came into existence. Clio the Muse 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.  :) I have a complete three-volume edition of the Spectator; Addison's contributions are delicious. It's interesting to me how you can open it at random, and always tell which of the two (Addison or Steele) wrote the piece to which you have turned. The writings by Steele are never quite up to Addison's standard. If I remember correctly, there's even one by Swift. Antandrus (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. Alas, the work will have to do; but it will do very well. Clio the Muse 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

free psychological help

I have a friend who's in a bit of a bind. She has some serious family, personal, and monetary issues, and the stress is really having a negative effect on her life. She wants to see a shrink, but she obviously can't afford one (she's in college, self supported). I suggested a free campus psychologist, but she says it makes her uncomfortable because it might be another student (grad student).

Are there any free personal psyches out there?

What country are you in? Does she have health insurance? I'm sure it varies widely from place to place, but such services are often covered, at least in part, by one's insurance. Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

USA, RI to be exact. I don't think she has health insurance... I think she is no longer covered by her mother's plan.

How about friends - like you? A psychotherapist would just mess her mind even more. Anyway, psychology is not the answer to her problem. Her physical situation is the one that should be changed in order for her to feel better. Lend her some money, be there when she needs you, take her to a funny movie, go with her on a vacation some place where there are birds and trees and flowers and the sun is shining brightly. A caring friend is always better than a professional psychotherapist. Moonwalkerwiz 05:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Has the mental stability of the population improved substantially since the advent of psychology ? I think not. Talking problems over with friends and family is as good, if not better. StuRat 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not always possible to talk to friends and family. When I went for counselling, my family and close friends had just experienced an unexpected and particularly acute loss, and to compound it, a close friend (of I and my friends), who my family had taken in because she had noplace else to go, was causing problems with my family and we were having a hard time getting her to leave. There was no-one I could talk to about it, and the trained counsellor, who helped me get some perspective, and recognise what I needed to do for my own wellbeing and how to do it, was invaluable. By not discouraging the OP from helping her/his friend get counselling, we aren't consigning the person at risk to a lifetime of medical addiction, victimisation and financial burden; lots of people only need to see a counsellor once, twice, or a few times, just to help gain perspective and talk to someone who doesn't have anything at stake in their lives; someone who doesn't have preconceived notions or a personal agenda v/v the patient. We shouldn't be discouraging that; lots of people whose lives spiral downward into despair or worse, do so because they don't have anyone to have effective interactions with v/v their problems. Anchoress 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In this age of the internet, you should be able to find an online support group where you can discuss your problems. Do you know of any stats for what percentage of those who get "professional help" are "fixed" after a few sessions, versus those who suffer "a lifetime of medical addiction, victimisation and financial burden", as you so accurately put it ? StuRat 08:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just speaking from personal experience (myself and my circle). And about the internet, I really don't think any internet community is as helpful as a trained, committed counsellor. YMMV. Anchoress 08:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think those who have suffered from a particular condition and survived are far more qualified to help than paid "professionals". BTW, what's "YMMV" ? StuRat 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your mileage may vary. And professionals aren't always paid; that's what this thread is all about. Anchoress 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree and think she should see a psychologist if she can. Shrinks excel at helping mentally healthy people work through immediate problems and difficulties that are causing stress and feelings of being overwhelmed. Where psychiatry fails is at treating serious, chronic mental disorders. She should be able to request that the shrink be someone who does not know her. At any rate, her treatment, even the fact that she is seeking treatment, is strictly confidential. -THB 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest checking the emergency numbers in your local phone book; often crisis lines are listed there, and your friend could call one (they are helpful in and of themselves, and sometimes such resources also have suggestions of further avenues of inquiry). Also, the local health board sometimes has free or extremely inexpensive counselling services (I saw a counsellor for bereavement, and it was free thru my health board). And try social services as well. Anchoress 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Anchoress. Believe me, I try to talk to her and help her get everything out, but there's only so much you can do on the phone/via e-mail. She has another friend who lives in her dorm who is helping her talk out some things, but she thinks that getting this out to a psychologist would be helpful. To be honest, she said she doesn't even like psychologists.

Does psychology work ?

Is there any objective evidence that going to a psychiatrist/pyschologist actually improves the mental state of individuals ? Most evaluations of the patients would tend to be subjective and, if done be "professionals", self-serving, as well. One objective stat I could think of would be the suicide rate. Is that lower for those under treatment, as compared with the general population ? StuRat 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with looking at the suicide rate is that it may be that people who go to a shrink are more likely to have problems that result in suicide than those who don't go to a shrink.

In addition, people commit suicide when they start to feel better, not when they're extremely depressed. The severely depressed often aren't able to formulate and carry out a suicide plan. So if treatment is successful, there is a period where the suicide rate would be higher than for those who are not successfully treated. -THB 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't whether or not psychology works, the point is the OP's friend in need says she wants to see one, and is looking for a free one. To do anything other than to suggest avenues of inquiry to the OP for finding free psychological counseling for her/his friend would be completely outside the mandate of the RD. In particular, telling the OP that counselling would screw up her/his friend more is waaaaay outside our area. Anchoress 05:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree with you. The main objective of a reference desk is to help people who seek help. The first premise of answering questions here is not "The question is right, complete, perfect," but rather, "The question is pointing to a subject that we must discuss in order for all the avenues of the question be sufficiently addressed." This is the humanities section. People are supposed to give informed views here. If we were in the exact sciences section, one answer is enough to a given question. But since we're in the humanities, we're all flesh and blood, we're all aware of the possibility of error on our part and on the part of the one asking questions, therefore, there is no one answer to a single question. Besides, as you can see, StuRat created a subheading for more in depth discussion of matters. If you just want to suggest a shrink then put it above. If you want to explore more possibilities, put it here. Moonwalkerwiz 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not criticising StuRat's section, I think it's fine. My comment was in response to you, and I disagree with your assessment of the RD, and I stand by mine. Anchoress 06:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. I like stubborn people. I think it shows self-responsibility. Moonwalkerwiz 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think we can stray from the stated question where the best advice is not a direct answer. For example, those who say they want to commit suicide and want to know the best way could benefit from being given suicide prevention hotline numbers, etc., even though that's not what they asked for. Now, back to my question, is there any objective proof that going to a psychiatrist/pyschologist actually improves the mental state of individuals ? StuRat 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed. For starters, look at the abstracts at http://www.apa.org/practice/peff.html or an analysis of the Consumer Reports study at http://horan.asu.edu/cpy702readings/seligman/seligman.html . In fact, PubMed, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed , has 4660 papers on the search "effectiveness of psychotherapy" which get into minute detail on when it is effective and when it is not. None of this constitutes a rigorous mathematical proof, of course, but I think it is more than sufficient to constitute a clinical proof. Gnfnrf 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did they follow proper scientific procedures, such as objective criteria and a survey of at least 1100 subjects to provide a 3% margin of error over a 90% confidence interval ? I'm not sure how any double-blind tests could be given, as the subject must be aware of which treatment they received. However, at least those doing the evaluation of the patients could have no knowledge of the subjects' treatment methods. So, you could, in theory, eliminate all bias except for the placebo effect. I'm a bit skeptical, though, that psychiatrists would be willing to perform proper scientific tests. StuRat 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean a 95% confidence interval. At a 3% margin of error, that would require a sample size of 1,068. A 90% CI would only require a sample of 752. Besides, most statisticians I know don't put much stock in any study that uses less than a 95% CI. (Sorry about the critique, but I don't get to talk about stats on RD very often :-). —Cswrye 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I see absurdly small surveys of a few dozen people all the time, so I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who knows how worthless such small surveys are. StuRat 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your third link doesn't work, for me. StuRat 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Those studies seem to show very little benefit, to me. For example, one said "On the average, the typical therapy client is better off than 75% of untreated individuals." If the treatment was absolutely useless, you would still expect those who got the treatment to be better off than 50% of the untreated individuals. And, a better comparison would be with individuals who talk their probs over with friends and family. In that case, I would bet the 25% improvement by getting "professional help" over no help at all would likely disappear entirely. StuRat 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to have a debate on the subject. I answered the question to the best of my ability. If you're so sure that answer is wrong, perhaps you didn't need to ask in the first place. Gnfnrf 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is entirely the correct place to interpret what a source actually says. BTW, does your third link work for you ? StuRat 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting for space reasons) The third link loads PubMed fine, but you have to enter the search parameters yourself. As for "what the source actually says", I can't see how you can think that the APA studies (first link) don't claim to show that psychotherapy works. The abstracts claim things like "Meta-analysis showed that psychotherapy is effective in enhancing psychological well-being, regardless of the way it is measured by researchers."; "The evidence suggests that previous doubts about the overall efficacy of psychotherapy with children can be laid to rest." ; "findings show that Ss who underwent therapy improved significantly more than controls on subjective and objective parameters." ; and so forth. You may look at these abstracts and critique the research methodology or results (as you did above). It's difficult to do so from just the abstract, since you don't know much about the results or methodology. However, they can't all be flawed, unless you believe that all of these studies are inherently flawed or not performed in good faith, since they are done by psychological and medical professionals. I can't help you with that, because hardly anybody else studies psychotherapy. (Other people make claims about psychotherapy, but very few actually study it, that I know of).

That being said, Consumer Reports DID look at psychotherapy and drew some conclusions. It's not a resounding, solid proof, but it provides very good evidence that psychotherapy helps people who use it, and indirect but strong evidence that psychotherapy provides more help than untrained counselling.

In PubMed (I hope you can get it to work), there are thousands of papers, many of which focus on a very small area, and some of which are not relevent to the question. It is mainly useful for a narrower question, possibly restricting to a particular condition or form of treatment. My point in including PubMed was that studying this is not a novel idea; it has been done many times in great detail. From these many studies, a scientific consensus to the general effectiveness of psychotherapy has developed.

Now, some personal perspective on what I think about all this. Is psychotherapy better than talking to a friend? Not necessarily. For plently of situations and plenty of people, friends are a great resource. For that matter, some of the time you don't even need a friend. Talk to your car while driving alone, a stuffed animal, or just sit and have a good think. However, many other times, it helps to talk to someone who has gone to school for this sort of thing. Where is the line? I don't know, and I expect that it is different for everyone. Gnfnrf 16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As a natural skeptic, I don't accept "evidence" unless I'm provided with all the study details. That said, those study summaries didn't seem to show all that much effect, like the "better than 75% of untreated individuals" study, which is only 25% better than would be expected at random. I wonder if people going to shrinks know they only help a quarter of the people who go ? StuRat 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It helped me. I used to ba a raving lunatic! Now look at me!--Light current 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, what type of a lunatic are you now ? StuRat 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I leave you to judge! Im sure you will come to the correct conclusion. --Light current 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Evil genius? :-) —Cswrye 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Stu the answer to your question is just like the answer to "does seeing a doctor ever work"? A doctor can save your life if you have adrenal failure or Hodgkins disease, make no difference at all if you have a cold or pancreatic cancer, or make the kind of difference some people would value and others would not for a variety of prolems. It depends on the type of problem, the patient, and the doctor. It is the same with the wide range of problems for which people see mental health therapists. alteripse 11:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You might have a point there. Going to a doctor for a minor complaint is likely to do nothing, or even make you sicker, due to unnecessary tests, surgery, and medications or due to diseases you pick up in the clinic/hospital. On the other hand, if you're going to die without medical treatment, then you don't have much to lose, so go to the hospital. Perhaps this is true of psychiatry, as well. Examples of them making things worse would be "false memory syndrome" and drugs which make people suicidal or exhibit addictive behaviors. StuRat 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem as you presented it is that it is too vague to answer succintly. First off, I think that you're really talking about psychotherapy, not psychology. Psychology is a science whose scope covers a wide range of topics, and therapy is only one subset of it. For example, I have a degree in psychology, but my concentration was on industrial/organizational psychology, which has nothing to do with counseling or therapy. However, even if we narrow the question to psychotherapy, we're still talking about a wide range of topics. Take this question: Does medicine work? Well, if you're talking about the ancient medical practice of blood letting to treat disease, the answer is no. Likewise, if you're talking about using hypnotherapy to treat mental problems, it probably doesn't work either, but that doesn't mean that all forms of therapy are useless. Some forms of therapy benefit people, and others don't, so they really have to be handled on an individual basis. Pretty much every peer-reviewed psychology journal has stringent standards on the scientific validity of the studies they publish, so you might find them a useful source in determining which types of therapy "work". —Cswrye 23:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'd really like is a table showing the effectiveness of each method. Something like this:

METHOD                            STUDY NAME  CONDITION TREATED  % IMPROVEMENT VS NO TREATMENT  MARGIN OF ERROR  CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
================================  ==========  =================  =============================  ===============  ===================
hypnotherapy
psychotherapy (Freudian analysis)
psychotherapy (Gestalt therapy)
psychotherapy (cognitive therapy)
   .
   .
   .

Does such info exist ? StuRat 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice, wouldn't it? There have been thousands of studies about various forms of psychotherapy, so the information is probably out there, but it may not necessarily be compiled all in one place. You might find a meta-analysis somewhere that covers a group of related therapies, but probably not a full summary of every one. When you consider all the different types of therpy, as well as all the recognized mental illnesses, plus the various demographic groups (that's another variable--for example, therapies that work on adults may not work on children), it would take a pretty thick book to cover everything. In fact, for this type of summary, a graduate-level textbook might be your best bet. (As an I/O psychologist, things are much easier for me. There actually was a meta-analysis performed a while back that looked at most of the major seletion methods to determine which ones were best.) —Cswrye 15:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how much a lengthy debate could grow out of a simple objection. But I would just like to inform everyone that my objection to psychology and psychotherapy in the first place, was not even about whether it works or not. Actually, I am quite sure that medical techniques work on patients, especially with the degree of the advancement in technology we possess. However, I was objecting to the fact that the practice of curing "abnormal" patients happen at all. I was objecting to it because I see it as a means of social control. If there are scientific studies that would show schizophrenics successfully being "cured," then I would just take it as proof that society does try to maintain a certain order meant to benefit the powers that be. Moonwalkerwiz 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Some conditions, like homosexuality, were formerly treated as mental diseases when clearly they were not. Other conditions, like hyperactivity, are likely also just "normal variations in human behavior", not mental illness. Still, I do feel that some indiviudals, like homeless people who wear aluminum foil hats to "prevent the CIA from reading my thoughts", could substantially benefit from being made "normal", if that was possible. StuRat 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I ignored Moonwalkerwiz' comment above because he is apparently a kid, but if he insists on repeating it, I have to say that in my opinion it was the most appalling combination of ignorance, arrogance, and potential harmfulness to the questioner I have ever, I repeat ever, read on the ref desk. And our standards are not high. He is spewing some low-brow echo of Thomas Szasz' discredited and long obsolete opinions about 1960s psychiatric institutions. See for some perspective. If he is half as smart as he thinks he is, after he has lived a few years and seen mental illness touch someone he cares about, he will be ashamed at having written off every mental health professional as simply practicing "social control". alteripse 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would never ignore a comment due to the age of the poster (and his home page statement "This user has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology" implies that he's not a kid, in any case). He is also not alone in his opinion. For example, I believe Scientology holds an even more negative view of psychotherapy. StuRat 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Stu. But I am amused that alteripse thought I was a kid. Or maybe I am a kid, who knows? Maybe I just put that userbox to seem big and smart. All the same, I think I should defend myself. First, I haven't even read any of Thomas Szasz' work. My views of mental institutions and psychotherapy as tools of social control actually derive from Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari. Secondly, I am tired of repeating myself over and over again. Mr.JackofOz had already engaged me on this comment, and his arguments were almost exactly like yours. So, in defending myself, I'll just copy and paste here my answer to Mr.Jack, replacing his name with yours:

...(alteripse), the fact that you sympathize with the tools of social control and see the "reason" and the significance of what they are doing, is in fact, a proof of subjection in the first place. And I never said anything about compassion getting "turned off" in psychotherapy. I will actually agree with you that these professionals have compassion and maybe even love for their patients! But (alteripse), social control is never manifest, conscious, full of obvious malice. Its tendency is to make itself seem natural and eternal. Ideology, social control, the superstructure is "proposed to all members of that society in order to make the ruling class' interests appear to be the interests of all. György Lukács describes this as a projection of the class consciousness of the ruling class" - Misplaced Pages. Moonwalkerwiz 02:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Shallow, intellectually vapid, and ethically bankrupt. One may analyze any human situation from a hundred perspectives. An intelligent person has the insight to use an intellectual perspective appropriate to a problem. A compassionate person chooses the intellectual perspective with an understanding of the meaning of the answer to the inquirer or listener. Critical theory is neither an intellectually nor an ethically defensible response to someone in emotional or social pain or someone seeking an objective assessment of the effectiveness of a form of therapy. If you are not a kid and you still think critical theory has any value for real problems of real people and real societies, your opinion is even harder to take seriously. alteripse 03:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my last reply to you because I can't have an argument with someone who thinks that Foucault and other philosophers and social analysts are "shallow,intellectually vapid, and ethically bankrupt." The case is just lamentable. However, I would just like to say that critical theory doesn't have any value besides it being applied to "real problems of real people and real societies." If someone views these analytical works as purely rhetoric and ghosts of the mind, then his case is indeed, lamentable. Finally, as for "A compassionate person chooses the intellectual perspective with an understanding of the meaning of the answer to the inquirer or listener," I could only characterize such action as cowardice in the face of hard reality. If someone cannot endure the ruthlessness of reality in his/her face, then that just speaks of his/her pitiful condition - the same may be true for the patient as for his/her doctor. Moonwalkerwiz 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

May I add something here? Moonwalkerwiz, I find considerable value in Foucault's work (I'm unconvinced by Deleuze and Guattari, who look like flashy charlatans to me, but maybe that's my problem). Nonetheless, Alteripse surely has a point. Some mental illnesses cause intense suffering. As a depressive and a friend of depressives, I know this from personal experience. Are you seriously suggesting that my desire not to be irrationally miserable - and my choice to take anti-depressant medication - are a symptom of subjection? I don't do this in order to be 'normal' - I do it because functioning is better than not functioning. And, note, the notion of 'functioning' I'm working with is derived not just from society or culture, but from my biological and psychological needs as a human being. Yours, Sam Clark 10:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on the matter, Sam. But this section is already unbearably lengthy. I'm posting my reply to you on your page. Moonwalkerwiz 00:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Gertrude von le Fort :Hymn to the Church

Frwerner 04:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Can you send me the text of the Hymn to the Church (Hymnus an die Kirche) by Gertrude vonb le Fort? both in German and in english? Fr.Werner Chakkalakal Centre for Faith & Democracy Thalore 680306 Kerala, India

Hello, Father Chakkalakal. Is there not more than one of these in Le Fort's corpus? I know that a collection of her poems, entitled Hymn to the Church, was translated into English by Margaret Chanler, and published by Sheed and Ward in 1942. I do not know if there is a more modern version, nor indeed where you can obtain a copy in the original German. Clio the Muse 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

British-Egyptian Trade betwen ~1880 and ~1900 Share of Revenue 1882-1956

Hello

I'm in the midst of writing a research paper on the colonization/decolonization of Egypt by Britain. I am a history and not an Economics student so I'm not sure exactly where to look for this information and some intensive searching has yielded little. What I need to know is if the amount of trade betwen England and Egypt increased as a result of Britain's occupation of Egypt in 1882. I would also like to know what share of revenue Egypt provided Britian following colonization relative to other colonies, I am hoping to gauge the economic importance of Egypt to the UK. The only source I could find is http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/brit-emp.htm which tells me that in 1905 Egypt was third behind India and Australia however this author provides absolutely no source whatsoever and therefore I am hesitant to cite it in a paper. Thanks.

Hello. For this kind of subject I think you are going to have to do a lot of the detailed foot-work yourself, which means digging out reports, digests and monographs from a good library. There is a extract from a Library of Congress Paper online which might be of some use, though it cites no sources-. The short answer is that British occupation had the effect of turning Egypt into a 'single product economy', with the emphasis on cotton to the exclusion of all else. Some investors, including Lord Cromer, made fortunes out of this. Clio the Muse 08:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an update- I found the information I was looking for in the 1911 Encylopedia Britanica, although I won't have a reference to show growth it's not all that important as my paper focuses on decolonization.

That's good. Be careful, though. It's massively out-of-date, even in the use of historical data. Clio the Muse 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I will be using it as a primary source, to present to Importance of Egypt to the British as THEY saw it THEN not as we understand it to have been then, now. Thanks for the advice though. Gradvmedusa 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Attacking neutrals during a war

According to the article on Vichy France, it was "neutral" during WWII. Yet the Allies attacked more than once (Attack on Mers-el-Kébir, the Operation Torch landings). Was there any legal justification for this? Clarityfiend 08:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Clarityfiend, this is a political minefield that requires some careful negotiation! The chief point is that though Vichy was indeed technically neutral, the form and manner in which this was applied was subject to quite wide variations in interpretation. Under the priemiership of Pierre Laval neutrality tended to give way to active collaboration, with French workers making an important contribution to the German armaments industry; there were also French volunteers serving with the German army in Russia. In general the allies took a fairly pragmatic view of the whole situation, responding as the occasion demanded. In 1940 Britain was fighting for its life. If the French fleet had fallen into German hands it is almost certain that the fight would have been lost. This was a chance Churchill was not prepared to take. The new government of Marshall Petain promised that the fleet would not be handed over to the Germans-a promise that was ultimately kept;but this was not enough. Churchill demanded that it be sent as far away from Europe-preferably to British controlled ports-as possible, away from any possibility of German seizure. The French refused; the attack on Mers-el-Kébir followed. It was understandable, but was it justified? Probably not, as it only poisioned Anglo-French relations, achieved none of its principal aims, and encouraged those who were inclined to a more pro-German line. But there again, you have to consider the matter from Churchill's perspective, and it at least demonstrated to the French what further action would follow if there were any moves towards naval collaboration with the Axis.

Other actions had more direct justification. The British invasion of Syria and Lebanon in 1941 was prompted by the establishment of German controlled airfields in these French mandates. Madagascar was occupied to prevent it becoming a base for the Japanese, in the same way that Indochina had. Operation Torch was the result of no provocation by the French, but an essential preparation for the allied offensive in southern Europe. The invasion of Sicily and Italy would have been highly dangerous without allied bases in Tunisia. Of course to this general mixture you also have to remember that there was an ever growing number of French people around Charles de Gaulle who considered the Vichy authorities as little better than traitors. In the end there probably was no strictly legal justification for any of the operations against Vichy. But in war legality is the last, not the first consideration. Clio the Muse 09:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to Clio's nice account of the historical detail, but I would like to suggest that there are philosophical issues here too. Clarityfiend asked whether there was legal justification for attacking neutrals, but I suggest that the prior question is whether there was moral justificiation. In the Just war tradition, discrimination between combatants and noncombatants is central, and the question would therefore turn on the reality of France's professed neutrality. As Clio points out, French workers made a contribution to the German war effort: does this count as being a combatant? In a total war, are there any noncombatants? But there are other traditions in the moral analysis of war: utilitarians, for instance, would argue that means are to be judged by their (predicted) effectiveness in bringing about good results. If attacking civilians saves lives or increases total welfare in the long run, that's what should be done, and the principle of discrimination is irrelevant. Apologies if this rambling isn't of any use to you, I just find the issue interesting. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Just saying you are neutral doesn't make it so. A nation's actions determine whether they are really neutral. On the other side, the US was "officially neutral", but quite obviously favored the British, as demonstrated by the Cash and carry and Lend-Lease programs. StuRat 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, if the UK had lost the Battle of Britain and either come to an accommodation with the Axis or been invaded (unlikely), the Nazis wouldn't even have had to put on a sham trial; Winston Churchill could have been convicted of being a war criminal! Clarityfiend 16:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes; it's possible. He was on a German arrest list, along with a great many others, politicians, artists and intellectuals, including H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw. Clio the Muse 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I read an account of Eisenhower's war years recently, and I recall reading that after the French territories in Africa voluntarily came over to the Allied side, the Germans invaded Vichy France and took direct control, so that by the time of the D-Day landings there was no pretense of French covereignty there. Does this square with history? Edison 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Edison. Actually the allied take-over in North Africa was not completely 'voluntary': there was some French resistance. On your second point, the Germans occupied Vichy France on 10 November 1942, two days after the beginning of Torch, in fulfilment of a contingency plan laid down by Hitler in Case Anton. They and the Italians also occupied Tunisia. Case Anton was, of course, undertaken almost two years before the D-Day landings in Normandy. It's worth pointing out, though, that Vichy was officially the government of all of France, including those parts in the north and west that came under German control after the armistice of 1940; and so it remained even after the country was completely occupied. In the wake of the liberation of most of France in 1944, Petain and the rest left for Germany, taking up residence in Sigmaringen, where a 'government in exile' was established. If you are interested, Celine, an active supporter of Vichy right to the end, covers this period in his novel, D'un château l'autre. Clio the Muse 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive what may seem like an incredibly obtuse remark on my part, and forgive me once again for using my tired old Swift analogy, but honestly, to me, this entire discussion is nothing more than an incredibly overintellectualized Houyhnhnm debate, unsuited for a world populated by Yahoos. War is indeed hell, yet most of the above commentators seem to be all too concerned with that mother of all oxymorons "The Laws of War". Once again, war is hell. There are no "Laws of War" per se, yet, admittedly, there are certain bounds that conscience alone provides. No "Geneva Conventions" no silly "International Conventions" on how war can be "legally" conducted. Human conscience alone is the only "Law of War" I recognize.

Early on, the British begged the Belgians (as well as the Norweigians, yet the situation was different) to allow them to reinforce their border with Germany, yet the Belgians insisted they were "neutral", and refused to allow the Brits to take up positions that early on could have turned the tide of the war and prevented the fall of France. But the Brits, faithful to the "Law of War" respected Beligian neutrality. Big mistake. The Brits should have occupied and protected Belgium like-it-or-not, and perhaps several tens of millions of lives could have been saved.

Was there a "legal justification" for an Allied attack on Vichy France? To me at least, the question is irrelevant to all but the truest of the world's Houyhnhnms. Look through all the silly legalities and formalities and what you get to is the fact that Vichy France was a de facto puppet regime, no matter the silly protestations of "neutrality". For her survival, Britain finally seemed to have come to the cold reality that for her survival, all those silly "Laws of War" that she had up to that point paid so much undue respect, were mere absurdity, save of course, again, for those lines for which conscience would not let them cross. The world is made of Nazis/Yahoos/Terrorists &c. and must be dealt with on their own terms, save, again, crossing that line, abandoning one's conscience and actually decending to their level. Loomis 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

When the allies landed in Morrocco and North Africa, there was some valiant resistance bu the French, but there were also negotiatiations with Darlan to join the allies, if I remember correctly. As for Laws of War, the US and Germany each observed certain niceties with respect to the POWs of the other side in WW2. The view was that if they treated our POWs well, we would treat their POWs well. This was not the case in WW2 between the US and Japan.Edison 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And it needn't be mentioned that it was most definitely not the case with the Nazis either! Loomis 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, the trouble with refusing to be a Houyhnhnm is that then the Yahoos take over the argument. As you demonstrate in your post, there is no option of refusing to think about what to do, and no option of not asserting what ought to be done. You say that 'the Brits should have occupied and protected Belgium like-it-or-not' despite any laws of war and that 'the world is made of Nazis/Yahoos/Terrorists &c. must be dealt with on their own terms, save, again, crossing that line, abandoning one's conscience and actually decending to their level'. What are these apart from moral claims? The alternative to discussing such moral claims rationally is not 'being realistic' - it's discussing them irrationally. Yours, Sam Clark 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a believer in "reciprocal laws of war". That is, follow the rules of war so long as your opponent does. If they violate a rule, then that rule no longer applies to that war. This would apply to things like use of chemical weapons. The object here is to get the enemy to follow those rules of war by the threat that they will suffer the same fate as their victims if they ignore them. However, there are some deeper laws of humanity which should never be violated, even if the enemy violates them, like not murdering civilians in your custody. StuRat 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, but why do you believe these things? Equivalently, what reasons are there for anyone else to agree with you? Why does one use of (your example) chemical weapons legitimate chemical weapons for the whole rest of the war, and not just for one retaliatory use? Where exactly do these 'deeper laws of humanity' come from, and how do we find out what they are? Why is 'not murdering civilians in your custody' one of them? What if, by doing so, we could shorten a war and save many more lives? Sam Clark 09:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say the goal should be to minimize the number of civilians killed and wounded. While the Geneva Convention is useful for that goal, if both sides follow it, the case becomes less clear when one side doesn't. For example, the Japanese during WW2 committed widespread war crimes against virtually everyone they had any contact with. If the Allies said "we aren't going to sink to their level", and refused to engage in widespread bombing of civilian areas (the only way to knock out factories with the available technology) then Japan likely would have won the war and killed billions more. So, bombing Japanese cities, even with the small nuclear weapons available at the time, ultimately saved lives by bringing the war to a quick end. As for your example, I can't think of a case where murdering civilians in your custody would save lives, can you ? StuRat 11:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Loomis. At the risk of 'overintellectualizing'-Houyhnhnm as I am-there are one or two points that really do need answering, for the sake of clarification, if nothing else. Now, I realize that thrust of your submission is directed at another war altogether, but my response is confined here to the point under examination. First, a word in defence of poor old Belgium. My goodness, what a burden you are making her carry! Belgium was, in fact, part of a western defensive alliance, to the threshold of the war. Even after withdrawing , in the empty hope of preventing violation of her borders, the country remained in a strong defensive position, ready to fight a conventional war, in much the same fashion as in 1914. In that conflict, even as a neutral, Belgium made a vital contribution in delaying the Schlieffen Plan. But in 1940 the Germans were not intending to campaign in the conventional sense. At no point did the British 'beg' the Belgians, as you put it, to 'reinforce the border' with Germany, nor would it have served any constructive purpose if they had. No sooner had the Germans crossed the border on 10 May than the whole of the British expeditionary force-a mere ten divisions-was drawn into Belgium, which is precisely what the Germans wanted. Hooking with the right in the old Schlieffen style, they also hooked to the left through the 'impassable' Ardenne towards Sedan, then thrusting westwards towards the sea, catching the Belgians, British and some of the French in the north. Neither Britain, nor Belgium nor yet still France were in a position militarily to counter the Germans in 1940. The British, moreover, did not always observe the rights of neutral nations. They were busily mining Norwegian waters before the Germans invaded in April 1940. Your remarks on the political standing on Vichy France are also wrong; but rather than carry on here to excessive length I will let that pass. However, if you care to raise a separate posting on this I would be happy to tackle the question.

On your wider point, forgive me for saying so, but you are showing signs of some serious intellectual confusion. War is a dirty business, true; but over the centuries there have been some attempts-not entirely without success-to define what is right and what is wrong. We no longer openly massacre prisoners, as Richard I of England did at Acre in 1191. The rules may not always be observed, but they-including the Geneva Convention-have at least established the bounds beyond which it is not permissible to go. Otherwise anything, literally anything is possible. British, American and French soldiers did benefit from the Geneva Convention. Without its protection the Russians suffered appallingly. The very first gassings at Auschwitz, incidentally, were not of Jewish people, but of Russian prisoners of war. If you have no laws, no attempt at laws, then you tumble into barbarism, a world populated by yahoos, no distinction at all remaining between good or bad, not even an attempt at a distinction.

I think it might help you, Loomis, if I drew to your attention one of my favourite passages from Robert Bolt's A Man for all Seasons. It concerns a debate between Sir Thomas More and Will Roper, his son-in-law, on the function of law, which is relevant, I think, to the position you are taking, and the terrible dangers of that position. Anyway, I've cast you in the part of Roper, with me-of course-as Sir Thomas:

ROPER. Now you give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE. Yes. What would you do? Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER. Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

MORE. And when the last law was down and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted with laws from coast to coast, man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own saftey's sake. Clio the Muse 09:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll begin with a note to Sam. I'm not advocating any resort to a "Yahoo" mentality. Swift was equally disgusted with the Yahoos as he was with the Houyhnhnms. One needn't choose between the two. I've taken great pains to mention the high value I place upon human conscience. For what it's worth, to myself at least, it's our conscience that defines our humanity and is our best protection against our descent into inhumanity. No positive law can do that, rather, I would argue, some of these positive laws can actually serve to provide ourselves with a sense of false legitimacy for our descent into inhumanity. All I'm saying is that we have to be aware of the Yahoos in the world, and govern our action accordingly. Think of all the atrocities throughout history that were legitimated and rationalized due to this or that twisted manipulation of some "Holy Book". Yes, many of these books contain great wisdom, yet their abuse has led to the most enormous of atrocity. To me, today's "Holy Books" come in the form of International Conventions on Human Rights, Geneva Conventions, UN Resolutions &c. I say we look into our own hearts and minds-our conscience-for guidance, and, if necessary, rely on these other "texts" as secondary sources.

Please forgive my factual innaccuracies, Clio. Having checked my favourite source, (Churchill's "The Gathering Storm"), I recognize that it's been too long since I read it and so I have a few of the facts confused. Indeed, the British apparently did not beg the Belgians to give up their neutrality and let the Brits defend their border. Yet, though I may have erred in my facts, and for that I apologize (especially to the Belgians!), nonetheless, my broader beliefs on the subject remain unchanged. I find the following words of Churchill to be magnificently apposite:

"The advantage which a government bound by no law or treaty has over countries which derive their war impulse only after the criminal has struck, and have to plan accordingly, cannot be measured. It is enormous...Hitler, unhampered by any restraint except that of superiour force, could strike when and where he chose; but the two Western Democracies could not violate Belgium's neutrality...Of course, if British and French policy during the five years preceding the war had been of a manly and resolute character...Belgium might have adhered to her old allies, and allowed a common front to be formed. This would have brought immense security, and might perhaps have averted the disasters which were to come. Such an alliance properly organised would have erected a shield along the Belgian frontier to the sea against that terrible movement which had nearly compassed our destruction in 1914 and was to play its part in the ruin of France in 1940. It would also have opened the possibilty of a rapid advance from Belgium into the heart-centre of German industry in the Ruhr, and thus added a powerful deterrent upon German agression." (The emphasis is mine)

Sir Winston seems to speak of a rather formidable "shield", yet you seem convinced that would...have served any constructive purpose. Apparently the two of you disagree. Yet the two of you are clearly intellectuals. I suppose you were right on that count at least, I'm truly "intellectually confused"! Which one of you is right?

But you're right, it wasn't the fault of the Belgians. Rather, as Churchill put it as the theme of his work, it was the fault of "the English-speaking peoples, , through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm."

Yet "the English speaking peoples" did not heed Churchill's endless drunken rants, but instead, as true devotees to that absurd legalistic fiction referred to as "The Rules of War", felt legally and morally prohibited from taking any action whatsoever against Germany absent the clearest possible casus belli...i.e, not until it was too late for a good 50 million souls. That, to me, is one of the saddest things about WWII. The whole thing could have been totally averted, with barely a drop of blood spilt, had the Allies not been so almost religiously dedicated to that absurd fiction of "The Law of War". True, no doubt the authors of these legal absurdities had the best of intentions. Yet, trite as it is, the old cliché rings true: "The Path to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions".

You also mention, apparently with great satisfaction, that "e no longer openly massacre prisoners, as Richard I of England did at Acre in 1191". Is this really true? The 20th century, despite (and I'd actually venture to say in large part due to) the establishment of all those well intentioned "Laws of War", the 20th century is considered by most historians as one of the bloodiest in the history of humanity. Did Hitler not massacre an unprecedented number of innocents? What about Stalin? Pol-Pot? Saddam? The only difference I see is that in the 12th century, it was considered ok for a victim's family member to take vengeance upon a Richard I, something that must have disuaded many other would-be mass killers no doubt. Today, thanks to that other legal absurdity known as "international law", these monsters are provided a pretence of legitimacy. After all, despite, for example, Kristallnacht, any "foreign" interference would have been considered "illegal". How dare the outside world intervene in a purely domestic German matter! It would be nothing less than a clear, "illegal", violation of the sovereignty of the German State!

As for your assertion that Phillippe Pétain and the Vichy Regime wasn't a mere puppet regime of Hitler, I'm at a complete loss for words.

I realize I haven't addressed all of you points, Clio, (and they were very good ones, some clearly uncontrovertible!) yet I feel I've taken more than my fair share of RefDesk space here so I think I'd better save the rest for another time. All the best! Loomis 02:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your waffling on the Belgian issue, I agree completely. StuRat 05:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No one can say if WWII could have been averted. I personally doubt it. The root causes wouldn't have just gone away. If the Western allies had been firmer pre-war, Hitler might have had a few more years to prepare, at which point he could have had jet planes, better U-boats, etc. Clarityfiend 06:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Allies insisted on the restoration of the Weimar Republic and insisted on rigid inspections to ensure that Germany wasn't exceeding it's permitted military, and then invaded Germany at the first sign of a breach, the war could have been averted, although it likely would have been necessary to break Germany up and annex it to the adjacent nations. StuRat 07:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your scenario is a non-starter. The Allies had no contingency plan, political will or legal basis to overthrow the democratically-elected government and replace it with the weak, discredited Weimar Republic (kind of sounds like the current Iraqi government). Nor could they invade at the first sign of trouble. The civilian population, particularly the French, would never have stood for it. The western leaders in peacetime simply did not have dictatorial powers. And don't forget who the British PM was - Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain. I just can't see him doing anything remotely like any of this. Clarityfiend 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously, to get a different outcome, different actions would have been required and different political wills would have been needed. StuRat 12:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Loomis. Thanks for your response: less bristling; more reflective! I love Churchill: he's one of my great all-time heroes. But you have to remember that he wrote history as a politician, exaggerating as a politician, simplifying as a politician and justifying as a politician. I love his prose, and I love his rhetoric; but it is precisely that-rhetoric. Yes, I know if we had only done this or done that, and if only Alois Hitler had not met Klara Pölzl then all would have been for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But this is not how history works. History begins from where we are, not where we might have been, or from what we might have done. I agree that if Britain and France had stood up to Hitler in 1936, at the time German troops marched into the Rhineland in defiance of the Versailles Treaty, history might have taken a different path. But they did not stand up to Hitler, and this had nothing to do with fear of violating 'legal absurdities' You are obviously under no obligation to accept my contention that the presence of British troops on the Belgian border in 1940 would not have affected the strategic outcome. All I will say here is that Churchill's strategic vision was among the weaker of his qualities, and he had a tendency to overlook inconvenient facts when they did not fit is vision of the big picture. Italy, contarary to his contention, was not a soft underbelly but a tough old gut.

Loomis, you must understand by now that if I lay out a historical fact it is not because I derive 'satisfaction' from so doing, but to illustrate a point. The massacre at Acre was but one small example of how prisoners were dealt with in the past, before the existence of international law. I could have mentioned far worse examples of bad treatment and atrocity, which might have included the sack of Kiev by the Mongols or the dreadful horrors that accompanied the fall of Magdeburg during the Thirty Years War, with no greater sense of satisfaction. You see, I do not believe that we are any better than we were in the past, any less prone to murder and atrocity; but history moves by degrees, and we have, in formulating international law, at least defined what horror and atrocity are, and what is and what is not acceptable. Your catalogue of all the horrors includes those for whom international law was an inconvenience or an irrelevance. Are we to drape ourselves in their bloody mantle? It's easy when you mention Kristallnacht, and I am sure Will Roper would have rushed into Nazi Germany in pursuit of the Devil. But who would rush in to British India in the wake of Amritsar, or Northern Ireland in the wake of Bloody Sunday? Who would rush into America to protect black people from southern lynchings, quite as dreadful as anything carried out during the Night of Broken Glass? Who has rushed into Iraq and ignited a fire that will not burn out in our life times, or those of our children? The questions are easy; the answers never are.

So my assertion about Vichy France left you speechless? Well, let me see if I can put words back in your mouth. Among the main definitions of a puppet regime is that it has been imposed by some outside force against the will of the majority of the people over whom it has authority, and it has limited international recognition. Vichy falls into none of these catagories. It was not imposed by the Germans, it arose from internal French political processes, had wide popular support and international recognition. You may not like Vichy, I may not like Vichy, the French, in retrospect, may not like Vichy; but this has no bearing on the the political and historical realities.

Loomis, among other things, I am at present working my way through Ruth Scurry's book, Fatal Purity. Robespierre and the French Revolution. Do you know anything of his life? He was a young and promising lawyer at the outbeak of the Revolution: a pacifist, an opponent of the death penalty, a strong advocate for social justice, a warm and loving human being. Yet by 1794 he was sending thousands to their deaths, including some of his closest friends, in pursuit of some abstract notion of virtue. You are a decent human being; I think you mean well; I know the path you take is that of good intentions; but it is still the way to hell. Since you are fond of Swift let me leave you with one of his quotations; A maxim in law has more weight in the world than an article of faith. Let it so remain. Clio the Muse 09:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Stu, I wouldn't call it "waffling", I'd call it openly admitting that I was wrong on a particular fact and correcting it; being intellectually honest with oneself and others. Nonetheless, I really do appreciate your supportive comments.

Clio, as you've said concerning another issue, I suppose our debate is without resolution. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it thoroughly and look forward to future disagreements with you! All the best. Loomis 13:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't get my pun ? Too subtle, I suppose, although I'm rarely accused of that: . StuRat 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AHH! Belgian Waffles! But of course! Yes, the pun was obviously way too subtle for me to have recognized it. Alas, I suppose my limited wit is incapable of mastering the sheer genius that are puns. Even at this very moment I'm trying to come up with one to counter with, but nothing good comes to mind. Would it count if I mentioned the fact that after the war, in convicting Petain of treason, the French made good on the old proverb "Revenge is a Dish Best Served Cold"? No? Oh well, I tried. :--) Loomis 21:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can't beet a good cold dish pun. :-) StuRat 07:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that one was a reference to borscht, a cold beet soup. Yes, borscht and vichyssoise are both cold soups, yet beyond that I don't see any connection. Perhaps if you let some of your genius to leek out upon me, I'd better understand. God that one was bad! Look at the level you've gotten me to stoop to!:-) Loomis 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tax Evasion (UK)

If the Inland Revenue fail to tax someone for some reason, and the individual notices this, are they legally obliged to inform the Inland Revenue? If not, then it would be advisable to have the money ready in case it is asked for - in which case, how long after the income, does the Inland Revenue's opportunity to ask for tax expire? --Username132 (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, and I can't give you chapter and verse, but people are definitely legally obliged to pay their income tax.--Shantavira 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have my textbooks to hand, but the rule used to be that in normal circumstances HMRC had six years in which to assess tax, but there was an extended time limit of 20 years where - as in a case like your example - the taxpayer is culpable in failing to inform them of the liability. Since the introduction of self-assessment, the taxpayer is obliged to inform HMRC of his own liability to tax, so HMRC failing to notice something has become irrelevant. What it boils down to is that you are liable to inform HMRC, and to pay the tax plus any interest and penalties, and you are committing a potentially imprisonable offence if you don't. (I think it's unknown for someone to be imprisoned where they disclosed the matter - but there have been a few high-profile imprisonments where they tried to hide things.) I expect you'd find the detail of all of this on HMRC's website - although of course it will all be described from their viewpoint. Your question doesn't tell us how much is in question. There's an informal tolerance which used to be £100 in tax (that is, if you get away with £100 less than your due, they don't care and won't pursue the matter). HMRC have taken to denying that there's any tolerance at all - but as a matter of practicality they must be applying one internally. If it's big numbers, I can recommend some good accountants to help get you out of trouble! AndyJones 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chateau Mouton-Rothschild's label

I would like to see the Marc Chagall painting that was used as a label for Chateau Mouton-Rothschild wine. I have tried to search and have found nothing. Judith

It's "GOUACHE, WATERCOLOUR AND CRAYON": . StuRat 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Artist is Marc Chagall. His work is readily available as prints and posters. -THB 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Search for poem

Many years ago at school I studied a poem but don't know what it was or who wrote it. From memory it went something like this. The sun went down and the stars came out far oiver the Spanish sea, But never a moment ceased the fight 'tween the one and the fifty three. Ship after ship the whole night long ????????????????????????????????????, Ship after ship the whule night long drew back with their dead and their shame. God of all battles was there ever a battle like this before.

Would anyone know the poet and the poem please? I've been trying to find out on and off foe years now,

--""""

Ian

I don't know the poem, but it seems to refer to the Spanish Armada. See England Under the Tudors, by Arthur D. Innes:

Grenville on the Revenge (Drake's ship in the Armada conflict) of set purpose allowed himself to be entangled in the Spanish fleet; and thereupon ensued that great fight, that glorious folly, which has been told in immortal prose and sung in immortal verse; in which for fifteen hours Drake's favourite vessel did battle, almost unaided, with fifty-three Spaniards.

Wareh 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the poem: "The Revenge: A Ballad of the Fleet", by Tennyson. Wareh 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Six Exercises of the Sage of Rochester

Does anyone remember what "The Six Exercises of the Sage of Rochester" are ? Back in the 60's, during the quest for higher consciousness, someone resurrected these "Exercises", which were originally formulated by the famed Sage in Ancient Greece. They were simple and really worked. You reached a state of higher consciousness without any chemical or herbal help. Unfortunately I have forgotten them and can find no reference to them anywhere. Help please. Thanks, Dennis O'Shea <e-mail removed>

There was a Rochester in ancient Greece? I must say, Dennis, this really is a revelation! Clio the Muse 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry cant be of much help this page mentions the sage of Rochester and four experiments. meltBanana 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Devine Revelation: Intervention or Self-Communication

Thanks for the help --Tomy 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan

How can I find information about how Religion in Japan has been globalized through it's history?

Try clicking on the link I just made in your question. Remember, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. You'll find answers much faster by typing in the search box and clicking Go. --Kainaw 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion in Japan has not been globalized throughout the history of Japan. Quite the opposite, as you will find that almost all religion(s) in Japan came into Japan from the outside world. The only religion that Japan exported to the outside world is zen Buddhism and even that is a bastardized version of an imported religion. 202.168.50.40 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

weddings

I am attending a 6pm wedding in the south next weekend. The location is in a church chapel and the recption is located at a Hotel. Can I wear a hat to the 6pm wedding? Thanks Melissa Jones

Is that the Southern US ? StuRat 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette is more about decorum and less about strict rules. In other words, think more about good manners and less about Emily Post - and good manners at a wedding is not wearing anything too flashy or ostentatious and which could serve to take attention off the bride. Thus, a nice, conservative hat is fine. Of course you can always ask the wedding planner.Wolfgangus 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There's also an issue of respect for religious customs. You're speaking of a church (what denomination I'm not sure). I know that, for example, in synagogues, where all males and all married females are by tradition required to cover their heads, when non-Jews are invited, out of respect they do likewise. Among certain Christians the reverse seems to be true. I remember visiting a good Catholic friend of mine and he told me to take off my baseball cap upon entering their house, as wearing a hat in their house would be impolite to his mother, who is a devout Catholic. I also remember being in London with him, also wearing a baseball cap, and when we visited Westminster Abbey he removed his cap and made sure I removed mine. I really don't know all too much about the significance of "hats" in the various Christian denominations, but just to be sure I'd check up on whatever particular denomination you're speaking of, and ask someone in the know about that denomination's position on wearing a head covering in their church. Loomis 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The old tradition in Christian churches was that women and girls always wore hats or some form of head covering, but men and boys never did. It was considered highly disrespectful for a man to wear a hat, or for a woman to go bare-headed. Talk about discrimination - but then, this has always been a special thing with many established religions. Nowadays, you'd be lucky to see 1 woman in 10 in a church wearing a hat; but men are still not supposed to wear one. It might be different depending on whether you're attending a church service, as compared with just visiting the building as a tourist; but even then, I'd err on the side of respect and do whatever the local custom dictates. The tradition of men removing hats when entering a building (whether a church, office, or house) had nothing to do with the religion of the occupant; it was just considered the generally polite thing to do (just as a man holding the door open for a woman, or giving up his seat for a woman on public transport, were the norm). But apart from baseball caps, very few Western men seem to wear head covering at all these days. Btw, I agree with Wolfgangus. JackofOz 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's "discrimination", in the dictionary sense of the term, but I wouldn't say it's sexist at all. I think my example is a case in point. For Jews, generally speaking, men wear hats and women don't, whereas for Christians, apparently, women are supposed to wear hats and men not. Discrimination, of course; in both cases, the sexes are expected to dress differently with regard to headwear. But is this sexism? I suppose it all depends on whether a "hat" is considered a privilege or a burden. To me it only depends on the preference of the individual. I regularly wear a baseball cap, just because I feel comfortable wearing it. I suppose if I were a Christian, any possible "sexism" involved would be anti-male, as I would be required to remove my hat when a female acquaintance wouldn't. In any case, we're just talking about hats here, let's not go overboard, we're not talking Burqas! I suppose that my position is that respect for another's religious tradition should come first and foremost (so long as it doesn't pose a great disrespect for one's own). If it doesn't matter to you one way or the other, I'd stick with my original recomendation: try to find out what the host is most comfortable with, and politely comply. That's what I would do. Loomis 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

St. Paul said that women in church should cover their heads "because of the angels" (unclear what he referred to: would the angels be jealous of women's hair? Would they attack the women?)Edison 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have never seen anyone attacked by an angel. :-) | AndonicO 11:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the tradition in Christian churches is to not wear hats. About entering homes and having to remove them, I have never heard. Back to the original question: if you are a man, do not wear a hat; if you are a woman, choose as you like. | AndonicO 11:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Angel attacks: check the Old Testament experiences of the Egyptians around the time Moses wanted to leave. Edison 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To Andonico: It seems to be "old hat" now, but that was certainly the custom not so long ago. I forgot to mention that a man wearing a hat or cap out in public would remove it (even if only for a second) as a mark of respect if they stopped to talk to a woman, or a priest, or an elderly person of either sex, or anybody they considered worthy of respect. You'll see this all the time in old movies (by which I mean anything made before about 1965). JackofOz 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And if I can just indulge in a mini-rant: while I applaud many social changes that have occurred in the past few decades, I still hate it when sportspeople front a press conference wearing a baseball cap. Sometimes it's pulled so far down over their face that their identity is almost a mystery. To his shame, the worst offender I know of is Lleyton Hewitt. What does he have to hide? C'mon Lleyton, show us what you've got. JackofOz 00:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

November 30

"black" Countries

Which Spanish-speaking countries that has the population of Black people?

There are Black people throughout the Spanish-speaking world, though more in the Americas than Spain, and more in Cuba than, say, Argentina. You'll find some detailed figures in Afro-Latin American Clio the Muse 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you define 'black' ?--Light current 00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea? --Cody.Pope 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. I forgot about Spanish Africa. Clio the Muse 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you forgot a word and meant 'largest population'? Indeed, this depends on your definition of 'black'. Blacks in America and outside Africa in general are usually mixed with whites. And where does one draw the line then? It's a sliding scale. So if you mean pure blacks then you'd have to look in Africa. Assuming you mean percentage. If you're after absolute numbers, then the biggest American countries might have more than Equatorial Guinea because that country has only half a million people. DirkvdM 08:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked through the CIA World Factbook and found the following figures for "black" people in Spanish-speaking countries:

• Cuba - 1.24m
• Dominican Rep. - 1.01m
• Nicaragua - 0.5m
• Ecuador - 0.41m
• Puerto Rico - 0.31m
• Honduras - 0.15m
• Costa Rica - 0.12m

Spanish is an official language of Equatorial Guinea, but a study cited on Ethnologue says only 11,500 people in the country actually speak the language. -- Mwalcoff 00:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Creek Indians

Creek Indians migrated to Florida after they were defeated by: A) the English B) the French C) the Spanish

We have looked for this answer everywhere and cannot find anything on it. Thanks for your help.

Judging by the Creek people article, I'd say it's not any of them. I think the Americans would be the best choice. bibliomaniac15 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It was very helpful.

For your exam? ;-) | AndonicO 11:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Taliban Reaction to 9/11

Shortly after 9/11/01, I remember seeing the reactions of various world leaders to the attacks. There was even a statement from the Taliban (I assume it was Mullah Omar) expressing regret for the loss of life, albeit with some caveats. I've tried searching for this statement, but to no avail. If anyone can provide a video or transcript of this, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. GreatManTheory 03:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked the New York Times and other publications and could not find any expression of sorrow by Mullah Omar for the U.S. losses of 9/11. Almost every other country expressed sorrow and solidarity with the U.S., including Iran. Edison 04:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Can anyone imagine an attack on the twin towers that would not have resulted in huge loss of life? That was the whole object. Clio the Muse 06:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It says regret for the loss of life. DirkvdM 09:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the Taliban was briefly trying to "sit on the fence", so they would not be attacked. But, when forced to choose sides by the US, they choose to side with Al Queda, and were thus attacked. Also, it might have been a specific apology for killing Pakistanis and other Muslims, even though they were proud to murder "infidel" civilians. StuRat 07:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You make that sound as if they did it. DirkvdM 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened was that the US demanded that the Taleban hand over Bin Laden and they asked for evidence that he was behind 9/11. Then they were attacked. Skarioffszky 09:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Taliban knew full well that Al Queda was behind 9-11, they were just stalling for time with their "demand for evidence". I certainly think that Bush is an idiot, but he got one thing right, those who fund, host, and support terrorists should be treated as terrorists. StuRat 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Soneone else's eye for an eye. I wonder how blood feuds start. DirkvdM 07:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stu. The US had every moral right to dismantle a government that shielded those murderers, no matter what "regrets" the Taliban expressed. Remember 9/11 was neither the first nor last of their mass murder attacks on civilians. Excising the Taliban was so absolutely right that it unfortunately garnered support for the stupidest and most destructive US policy decision in 40 years: to invade Iraq. alteripse 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to provoke a war of words about the merits of U.S. foreign policy. Yes, I believe the Taliban deserved every bit of what they got, but I'm quite certain that some form of regret was issued nonetheless. Was this "regret" just a way for the Taliban to "sit on the fence" as StuRat said? Of course. Still, I think it would be interesting to see exactly what was said, if possible. Thanks. GreatManTheory 12:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I seem to remember this being on video, but I might be wrong about that. Thanks. GreatManTheory 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I also believe the Palestinian Authority issued an official "statement of regret", even though Palestinians were filmed dancing in the streets and shooting guns in the air in celebration. The Palestinian Authority tried very hard to suppress this footage, knowing it wouldn't help their cause. This was before the PA was taken over by Hamas, so I don't know how they would react now. The typical PA reaction to the murder of Israeli citizens seems to be along the lines of "Yes, it's regrettable, but they can expect more of the same until we get what we want", so perhaps the Hamas-led PA would react the same way to 9-11, if they were in power at the time. StuRat 13:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In almost any country, you'll find examples of individuals holding diametrically opposed views to those of their government. Palestinians dancing and shooting in the streets was much more newsworthy to the western media than Palestinians going about their business quietly and peacefully. Do the loud minority represent the silent majority? Hardly ever. JackofOz 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any Canadians or Australians doing that, however, showing that a larger percentage of Palestinians support murdering Americans. This is the type of thing that needs to be considered when the US decides if it will financially support the PA. StuRat 02:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In Amsterdam there was a demonstration on the Dam that didn't really know what it was about. Speakers had to express their condolances and such, but at the same time sought different ways of saying that finally the US got a taste of what it had been doing to others for so long. And that was certainly a strong attitude in the crowd that had gathered. When we had a street party the next day, someone passing by asked if we were celebrating the attacks on the US. DirkvdM 07:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it those with the "US got what it deserved" attitude were Muslims ? Or were you leading the crowd ? StuRat 07:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not been able to find vid but here are some responses. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/worldtrade.crash/ http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/usa/Taliban_opinion.htm and here is some details about the taliban handing over bin Laden http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing002.htm I agree the taliban were probably stalling and being duplicitous (they were politicians after all) but too much politiking and not answering the question is going on here. meltBanana 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Here http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=430 are a few more condemners. meltBanana 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Where can I get Too $hort's Blow the Whistle (instrumental version)?

I don't want a link to a sight that can remove lyrics. I just need something that I can download the instrumental version or atleast play the track on the internet. Bryan the Magnificent 05:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Parsees and the Indian caste system

According to our article on the Indian caste system, non-Hindus such as Muslims and Christians have traditionally participated in the system. But the article doesn't mention Parsees. Where would they fit in? Presumably, since they're endogamous, they would form their own little self-contained caste. But what is their standing? Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 06:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That article is poorly worded. By definition, non-Hindus are outside the caste system, so they don't have a place in it except as out-castes. I assume what the writer means is that Christians and Muslims (and Parsees) went along with the caste system in the sense that (unlike Buddhists) they tolerated the system and its customs.--Shantavira 08:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I had suspected as much, but I wasn't sure. Am I wrong in thinking that quite a few non-Hindu out-caste groups enjoy a status above many low-ranking Hindu castes? For example, Parsees seem historically to have held much greater esteem than Dalits. Does anyone know where Parsees would "rank", so to speak? A friend of mine, a Hindu from Mumbai, tells me that the position of Parsees in India is somewhat analogous to that of Jews in the United States. I guess he meant that while they are subject to exclusion and prejudice, they are generally prosperous and respectable. I've never met a Parsee myself. Is the comparison valid? Bhumiya (said/done) 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wake me up" song

I'm looking for a certain song that has the lyrics "Wake me up" in it. And no I'm not talking about Wake Me Up. I've seen the video of this song but somehow missed the artist/title. The video consists of a woman who keeps falling off a skyscraper and also the band (4 members). I normally would have figured it out but there are too many damn songs titled "Wake up". Thanks --Srikeit 11:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about pop music, and I don't know what the video is for this song, but is it Wake Me Up When September Ends? | AndonicO 11:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wake Me Up Before You Go Go, by WHAM! ? (That's a duo, not a quartet, however.) StuRat 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you mean "Bring Me to Life" (sample) by Evanescence, in which Amy Lee dreams she's falling off a skyscraper, and the band try to save her, but fail. Laïka 12:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep its Bring Me to Life by Evanescence. Merci Beaucoup :) --Srikeit 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Northern Soul(?) song

I heard a song on a club, once, which I think is some Northern Soul or American 60's-70's Soul Music track, with, IIRC, the chorus going something like

"You gotta swim, swim, swim, swip upstreams cross the water, 
with no one to help you out!"

Does this song sound familiar to anyone? Anyone know the band name or song title? I tried googling the lyrics, without finding anything. 惑乱 分からん 13:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok it is nothing like it but Jill Scott A Long Walk does have the word upstream and is a good song. meltBanana 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for recommending it, anyway. 惑乱 分からん 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• • well...i tried to look for anyone te lyrics on mnay lyric websites but nothing with these wordscame up. Best of luck to ya. do your remember any other part of the song? i can look that up with my sources if you'd like.

Books released under different titles

Does anyone know why Philip Pullman's Northern Lights novel was released in the US as "The Golen Compass"? In other cases where this has happened (for instance, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone being released as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the US because it was felt that a children's book with the work "philosophy" in the title would be less appealing - as it says in the article) I can see the reasoning behind the change, but I am baffled by this one. The article doesn't give a good reason, I was wondering if anyone knew more? — QuantumEleven 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The article does give a reason, but I would have thought it might be because fewer Americans than English would be familiar with the aurora borealis (which is what the term "northern lights" usually refers to in Britain).--Shantavira 13:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It could also be a copyright issue. Northern Lights is also the name of a Canadian band, which might have been copyrighted in the US. I know a looong time ago, Shari Ulrich's band Pied Pumpkin had a terrible legal and financial kerfuffle when they were sued by the owners of the rights to Erica Jong's Fear of Flying, when they produced an album and called it Fear of Flying. Perhaps the opposite is also possible? Anchoress 13:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial fansite http://www.darkmaterials.com claims it was a down to a lack of communication between Pullman and the US publisher. Apparently in the intervening months between Pullman first contacting the publisher RandomHouse and RandomHouse agreeing to publish the novel, Pullman's working title 'The Golden Compass Says...' was changed to 'Northern Lights'. 'The Golden Compass' was used as the cover artwork had already been produced before they were aware of the title change. Here's the link . I seem to remember reading about this in The Guardian some while back, and I'm pretty sure this was the explanation given. Hammer Raccoon 00:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, look at the names of the other books in the series. It is possible that, when he came to release the book in North America, he had already decided on the form he wanted to give the titles and wished to keep them consistent. Although it was too late to change it in Britain, he could still make the names tie together in North America. This is a guess, but I assume you are asking for possible reasoning. Skittle 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Amour Fou

What does the notion of "Amour fou" cover? I always assumed somehow it meant a total and destructive love and that the notion was popular in France in the 60's in the wake of the romantic protester ideal. I just checked a moment ago the term to get more details on it and found no reference to it appart from in titles of works of fiction (and in Hakim Bey's TAZ). There is Breton's Amour Fou novel, a film by Jacques Rivette from the 60's "L'Amour fou" and an episode of The Sopranos "Amour Fou". Does anyone have more details on what the idea of Amour Fou might refer to? - Keria 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think (but I'm not an expert on the topic), that, just as in English "madly in love", it means a fierce and blind love, which may easily but not necessarily prove destructive.  --Lambiam 18:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What I got so far: Amour fou: from French "crazy" or "mad love" a passion without concern for anything else. A love you can’t hold on to. A love that is so boundlessly mad as to involve sacrificing oneself. An unacceptable or immoral love relationship in which the lovers are opposites (age difference, different social status) and are attracted to each other because of this opposition. In psychoanalysis: a risk of experiencing hostility related to primary dependence. (<- not sure what that means, is it hate towards the opposition to one's love or is it transformation of the love relationship into a hate one?) maybe we could make an article out of it but I couldn't find any good source. - Keria 19:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chartered Accountant in Germany

Hi there,

does anyone one know what the equivalent Qualification to a Chartered Accountant (CA) is in Germany?

Thanks a lot. Julian

If I understand the article Wirtschaftsprüfer on the German Misplaced Pages correctly, to become a Wirtschaftsprüfer you must meet some criteria and pass an examination, and then you can register as a member of the Institut der Wirtschaftsprüfer and thereby become a Mitglied des IDW. Does that answer the question?

Coat of arms - help

I recently found an old drawing of a coat of arms, but the usual sources can't identify it. It looks like the following: Seadog holding a black bird Helmet shield with 2 black seadogs (standing on 4 feet) in upper half on white background; lower half is 1 white seadog on black background. motto at bottom: Per Mare Per Terras Thanks. Ronbarton 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sign your posts with four of these ~. Anyway, the motto is that of the Clan Donald, by sea and by land. --Cody.Pope 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also the motto of many other families, but none of my relatives are commonly listed among those.Ronbarton 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Animal Sacrifice to Zeus in the Odyssey, Eumaeus and "Des-Troy"

Soem Odyssey questions, based on the Robert Fagles translation: 1. Why is the thighbone of the animal the preferred piece to offer to the gods in sacrifice?

2. Why is Eumaeus addressed in the second person by the narrator at times ("You, Eumaeus") e.g., Book 19?

3. Towards the end of Book 19, Penelope refers to Troy as "Destroy". Is this a pun in the Greek?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.68.68 (talk • contribs)

This is a poor contribution but it's a start. According to my copy of Hyde's work on tricksters (reviewed here), in a sacrifice the orders of articulation dictate that the thigh go to the regional king or magistrate, while the gods take the bones and blood; they did so because bones were viewed as immortal, leaving the meat to mortals and condemning them to a life chasing after hunger (a tale which goes back to a disagreement between Zeus and Prometheus).Wolfgangus 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I think they are simply regarded as the best bits. 2. This is probably to give the reader/hearer some familiarity with Eumaeus. While much of the poem recounts the deeds of the might from a distance, we are introduced to Eumaeus as if to a friend with which we can share what is going on, ish. 3. Dunno but the Perseus Project is good for comparing the translation and original. meltBanana 20:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2. The second-person address certainly does give an unusual effect. While there are other cases where the vocative is used out of metrical necessity (and some earlier scholars argued that this is the sole reason for Eumaeus), recent scholars' studies have suggested that it has some emotional significance; this review says, "apostrophe, a figure...which indicates the narrator's (or the audience's) sympathy. This sympathetic pattern is used for Menelaos but not for the protagonist Agamemnon... Patroclus and Eumaeus have this type address while the protagonists Achilleus and Odysseus have none."

3. Not a pun exactly, but a striking neologism. Penelope makes a new compound word Kakoilion, where kako- means something evil/harmful and Ilion is a proper name for Troy. A very similar example occurs when Paris is called Dysparis (Iliad 3.39 and 13.769). More properly a pun is in the Agamemnon, when a bunch of compounds with the hele- ("destroy") stem are made as puns on Helen's name. Wareh 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Deaf or blind film directors

Have there been any notable deaf or (perhaps less likely) blind film directors? --Richardrj 18:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. Our list of deaf people lists several deaf actors, and list of blind people says that André De Toth was a film director who was blind in one eye. Of course it's very possible that several film directors became deaf in their old age.--Shantavira 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is this guy. Skarioffszky 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed Wood? Oh wait...he only directed like he was deaf and blind. Clarityfiend 05:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

peace be upon him

Why do muslims say peace be upon him after the refer to allah?

It is not said in reference to Allah, but to the Prophet, Muhammed. Clio the Muse 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Peace be upon him (Islam) meltBanana 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I had asked this some time ago. How could somebody dead not be at peace ? Is there violence in heaven, according to Islam ? StuRat 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Islam, Christians say Rest in peace, exactly the same thing. Vespine 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well RIP is usually said about ordinary people who may not be at peace. As the article says PBUH is mentioned in the Qur'an, at the time when Mohammed was still alive. Also it prevents the name from being used lightly if you have to offer a short prayer after every mention. meltBanana 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a general expression of veneration. It does indeed add weight to the use of his name. Clio the Muse 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In Christian belief, dead people do not necessarily go to Heaven. Some go to Hell, and some to Purgatory. Both these places are full of torments, the only difference being that those in Hell stay there forever while those in Purgatory eventually graduate to Heaven. "Rest in peace" essentially means "I hope you've gone to Heaven where there is peace and love and bliss, or will soon get there". JackofOz 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone say Jesus(rest in peace) since he is thought by Christians to be in Heaven at the right hand of God, expected to return when we leat expect it to judge the living and the dead. I did once hear a comedian say "If Jesus knew what was being done in his name, he would turn over in his grave!" Edison 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Essays by Jean Paul Sartre

Sartre wrote an essay titled "The Occupation of Paris". How can I find a copy of that for reading purposes only?

Bob Godfrey

I can't see it in his english or french bibliographies - Keria 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this, perhaps, from Combat or Les Temp Modernes? If so, I seriously doubt if many of these essays have been translated into English. Clio the Muse 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for an applet working out the political d'Hondt method

I was taking a look at d'Hondt methodand (as I wrote on the talk page as well) it would be nice to have some sort of applet working that out. I tried hard but didn't find any on the net. Does anyone know where one can be found? (sorry if this belongs in Computer desk or something) Thank you,Evilbu 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Freeza

Initially, in the fighting against Freeza, Goku fights without Kaiokenh and Freeza fights with 2.5% of his power? After, what percentualy of his power Freeza uses? And in what episode Goku starts to use Kaiokenh 10? --Vess 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For the bewildered readers, this is a question about the manga/anime series Dragon Ball Z (although I don't know the answer...) 惑乱 分からん 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that some people on the internet write "Furiza" instead, which looks more like the original Japanese pronunciation. I think Songoku started using Kaiokenh 10 way before that, when he was fighting Vegeta. About the percentages, I don't know. There was a lot of bragging in Dragonball Z about using powers etc... I remember that Furiza first used only one percent, then went to 50% and eventually to 100 (he was bulking up then) when Songoku went Super Saiyan.Evilbu 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Alliance of North American Pipe Band Associations (ANAPBA)

How can I have information placed on Misplaced Pages regarding the Alliance of North America Pipe Band Associations (ANAPBA) www.anapba.org ?

Thanks

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation. DJ Clayworth 21:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah

wikipedia, this is jesse king. account is jk31213. why am i blocked from editing. i threatened you guys for a reason.

Perhaps you were blocked for threatening?.... =S Seriously, you canot act like that just for reverted edits. 惑乱 分からん 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

the point is, i have made edits to countless articles and EVERY single one of them have been changed around. what i put on here is true. i just don't understand...69.31.216.242 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you exemplify? This is open source. We do change things around. That's the whole idea. Not everyone agrees with what you said - even if it is true. They may have been changed for other reasons.22:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen your talk page ? People are giving reasons for changing your edits around, if you disagree you can always argue your point in the article's discussion page. Misplaced Pages is a community that does things by concensus, there's no room for angry teenagers who spit the dummy and make threats when they don't get their way ;) Vespine 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the edit page says:

Please note:

• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

AndonicO 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

>>>i agree. if your going to post things that threaten or SHOULD be edited for some reason even if it is just your opinion then be prepared for it to be edited. hell..i got suspened for two weeks when i was in school for threatening to kill someone...even though i was joking and everyone knew it. things like thatare not taken lightly. im sure there is a reason you threatened but they have a right to change it.<<<

And if you keep adding things like "he is considered the greatest ..." your edits will keep being reverted as unsourced POV.  --Lambiam 09:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesse, have you read the response to your earlier question, above? Sam Clark 10:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a Multi-cultural Society

Hello,

My friend and I have been having a protracted argument over the above. I am currently in Britain and I feel that Britain is a multicultural society since it has many different 'cultures' in it, such as Muslims, Jews and Christians. All these different religions and cultures exist under one government and one constitution so therefor we live in a multicultural society - in my belief. My friend argues that despite different cultures living under one constitution (perhaps not the right word) and in one country, we do not integrate ourselves together well enough to be truely described as 'Multicultural'. An example that could be used, he says, is a Muslim in England will rarely enter into a relationship, friendship or otherwise, with a Jew and vica verca (example only, don't yell at me). I believe that although Britain is a Multicultural society, it is an intolerant one and this is what my friend is referring to when he speaks of it as being non-multicultural.

Sorry if this is hard to understand, but a third party opinion would be helpful,

Thank You, A Ron

The term multi-culturalism has long been used by the government and other public agencies to describe life in the UK. More recently fears have been expressed that this might be leading to a form of 'cultural apartheid', with no clear definition of what it is to be British. Clio the Muse 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on Misplaced Pages's article, you are right. Multiculturalism doesn't require different cultures within a society or a nation-state to integrate and learn about each other, the term for this is interculturalism. Multiculturalism just means that different cultures are bound together by laws, which provide them equal status. Of course, equality here is merely legal, and may not reflect the relations of power in real life. Moonwalkerwiz 00:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The UK Cant be called as multi-cultural. This is apparent from racist acts on the muslims, on the other minority communities. on a comparison of the way each culture tolerates the existence of the others India is a multi cultural society. Because it can accept different cultures and tolerates any act of terror. Unlike in the west where minute differences are created in the mind and simply complicated and taken to a different level. 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)~

December 1

Dan Rather

From Dan Rather:

During the presidency of Richard Nixon, critics accused Rather of biased coverage. At a Houston news conference in 1974, Nixon fielded a question from Rather, still CBS's White House correspondent, who said, "Thank you, Mr. President. Dan Rather, of CBS News. Mr. President..." The room filled with jeers and applause, prompting Nixon to joke, "Are you running for something?" Rather replied "No, sir, Mr. President. Are you?"

I don't understand the exchange. Could someone please provide context and meaning. It's bugging me... Oh, I'm British, so understand my confusion. Hammer Raccoon 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is during the Watergate, isn't it? "..Mr. President. Dan rather..." sounds like Nixon should rather not be the President. Moonwalkerwiz 00:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. Perhaps something has been taken out? Or perhaps there was no pause after 'CBS News' and beginning 'Mr President'? Or perhaps it was his tone of voice? I'ts obvious I have not got a clue! Clio the Muse 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Dan Rather" sounds like "than rather." What would it mean to say, "Mr.President, than rather"? Moonwalkerwiz 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with his name. By that time (March 1974) Rather was widely known as a tough questioner of President Nixon. This reputation is what caused the hubbub in the crowd as he introduced himself. --Cam 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's it. The other newspeople were reacting to Rather's reputation or to the question he'd just asked and Nixon's reaction. This is unusual, so Nixon made a joke to the effect that Rather was trying to make himself popular so he could run for office. Nixon at the time had already been elected president twice and was therefore ineligible to run again, but as the Watergate scandal developed, he was trying to maintain his popularity in order to be able to retain the presidency -- just as he would also have done if he had been running for reelection. And Rather made a riposte about that. --Anonymous, 01:53 UTC, December 1.

I recall the exchange very well. Dan Rather smarted off to the President, and did not offer to Nixon the courtesy expected from a reporter speaking to the U.S. head of state. The President has more license to kid the reporter than contrariwise. He could have left off the "No, Mr. President, are you" and just asked his question. Edison 05:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Edison, for that clarification. So Nixon might have said 'Any man rather than Dan'. This reminds me of a little couplet by George Wither, a seventeenth century English poet-I grow and wither, both together. Clio the Muse 09:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, forgive me for being dense, but Rather's riposte is what makes this memorable? If Rather's statement meant little more than "are you trying to maintain public support" then I still don't get it - isn't it obvious Nixon would want to remain popular? Is the real controversy here that the reporter would 'talk back' at all to the President? Hammer Raccoon 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreign educated lawyers and the Hawaii Bar Exam

Can a foreign educated lawyer sit the Hawaii Bar Exam. I noticed that Misplaced Pages says that 'in many states' this is the case if they have studied three years of common law, and cites New York as an example. Is this the case in Hawaii?

Thank you

CatCantrell 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to the applicable rules can be found here. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article mentioned "many states" rather than "all states" due to the situation in Louisiana, where neither an LLB nor a JD is sufficient. Rather, being the only civil law state a BCL is required. Otherwise I don't see why an LLB or a JD from a credible foreign university wouldn't be sufficient. Loomis 03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare- out, out

Does anyone know from what shakespearean play do the words "out, out" appear. If so, what play is it, what are the lines they appear in and what do they mean? Thanks

"Out, damned spot! out, I say!" --From The Scottish Play (Act V, scene 1, line 38). JackofOz 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also from one of my favourite soliloquys in Macbeth, Act V scene 5 line 23: "Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more..." СПУТНИК 02:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always found this to be a good Shakespeare resource, although for some reason its search feature is having a hard time with this quote. GreatManTheory 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet II,2: "Out, out, thou strumpet Fortune! All you gods,/In general synod take away her power"

Henry IV-1 V,2: "Out, out! My lords, an please you, 'tis not so/I did beget her, all the parish knows"

Merry Wives of Windsor IV, 2: "Out, out! I'll conjure you,/I'll fortune-tell you."

Two Gentlemen of Verona II,7: "Out, out, Lucetta! that would be ill-favour'd."

Macbeth V,5: "Out, out, brief candle!/Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player/That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then is heard no more."

For my money, you're looking for the Macbeth quote. dpotter 04:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is almost certainly the 'Out, out, brief candle' speech, where Macbeth muses on the transitory and pointless nature of human existence. Clio the Muse 10:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Shakespeare outted quite a few people (I hope I'm not Bard for that comment). StuRat 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But who outed Shakespeare? 惑乱 分からん 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration in the UK. Late 90's

I've been trying to find a song that I am 99% sure existed. Released in the UK in the late '90s. It was a collaboration of several artists for charity - Childline comes to mind.

I have done a bit of searching but to no avail. If anyone can help - would be greatly appreciated. :)

Is it Do They Know It's Christmas?, to raise money for Ethiopian famine relief? I'm reading through Charity record. -sthomson 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably the cover of Perfect Day, each line done by a different artist or group, including Lou Reed himself, Bono, David Bowie, Elton John, Boyzone, Huey from the Fun Lovin Criminals, Tammy Wynette, Shane McGowan, Evan Dando and Tom Jones. It was for Children in Need, and released in 1997. Proto::type 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the version described above, Children in Need also released versions performed exclusively by male artists and by female artistes. All three versions were on the CiN CD. -- Arwel (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Red Collar Crime

Google search result (1st up) on "Red Collar Crime":>

redcollarcrime080306 (As far as we could determine, the term “red collar crime” was first used in this context by a California activist who calls himself “The Toxic Reverend. ... http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/redcollarcrime080306.htm

This could change our world and stop the war ..... a District Attorney that has won over ten reckless homicide cases against corporations is listed at the main

"No More Red Collar Crime" http://www.angelfire.com/nm/redcollarcrime

Second Google search term: "toxic reverend red collar crime"... too much information ...... but scanned and posted responses from the california Attorney General from homicide complaints filed against Pacific Lumber for the death of Earth First activist David "Gypsy" Chain are linked intoo many.\ of the returned search question.

Oh my God ......... try "toxic reverend profile". http://people.tribe.net/toxicreverend i.e. Quote from the profile page: "Every advocate needs a homicide complaint that they have filed themselves, framed and hung on their wall".

Do I hear an Amen or what ?

Is there a question in all that somewhere ? StuRat 05:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What?! Clarityfiend 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Music Question

On tonights episode of Family Guy Brian and Stewie have enlisted in the army and are going through basic training. During Brian's attempt at completeing the obstical course they played a really catchy, up beat kind of song. Anyone know the name of it? 70.254.22.143 07:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this page, the theme to the movie Stripes is playing. Here is the soundtrack listing for that movie, but there don't appear to be any actual songs on it. Confusingly, the film's IMDB entry just lists one song, by the Spinners. Or by 'song', do you mean piece of instrumental music? --Richardrj 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was all instromental, there were no words to it. 70.254.22.143 10:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Then presumably it was the main theme to Stripes. --Richardrj 16:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda In The Cold War

I am making a thesis about Propaganda in the cold war and in particular the development of methods of propaganda, and as a result I have been busy researching several elements but It seems I can not find specific information about:

1) Propaganda In Africa and Southern America-- 2) Specific Propaganda in the Netherlands-- 3) The Usage of Subliminal Messaging in propaganda-- 4) The antipropaganda in the opposite forces (Soviet propaganda in America and American Propaganda in the USSR)-- 5) The inter(propaganda)relations between the Publics republic of China and the Soviet Union (which I know wasn't good but that is about all I can find) -- 6) The influence of the radio<->television war on propaganda (early 50's it was cold, end 60's begin 70's it became rather enheated)--

Thanks In Advance,

ps. please state what exact question you are answering if you will, It would make things easier for me. sources are not mandatory but it would be enjoyable.

Graendal 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• 5 — there was a lot of anti-Soviet propaganda created by the PRC after the Sino-Soviet split. The WP page on that has an example of some of that. Also I am not sure where one draws the line between "propaganda" and "normal public political discourse" in countries like the PRC and USSR. --24.147.86.187 14:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated question

Don't delete those questions. In what episode Freeza declare to uso only one percent of his strenght? Initially, in the fighting against Freeza, Goku fights without Kaiokenh and Freeza fights with 2.5% of his power? After, what percentualy of his power Freeza uses? And in what episode Goku starts to use Kaiokenh 10? --Vess 15:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Be more civil, state the subject of your question (and put that question into a better title) and contact the culprit directly who removed it. They probably had a valid reason, you just need to be more open minded. Telling someone here "don't delete questions" won't get you anywhere. I can't find the person who deleted it. martianlostinspace 15:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's Dragonball Z, but I don't know the answer to the question, it's ages since I watched them. Cell was the bomb. Proto::type 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You asked the same question yesterday. Not sure if it was deleted, but at least it's there, now, further up on the page. 惑乱 分からん 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

History

Did Canada achieve National Security in the postwar world? Are there any good websites that provide information about this topic? Thanks Cee Cee

Are we in a postwar world ? That's news to me. Do you mean the post-WW2 world ? Or perhaps the post-cold war world ? StuRat 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer - yes I think so - I'm not canadian but from what I've heard it's pretty safe there - no major external threats or enemies...87.102.8.53 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is the first recorded human by name?

I am not talking about biblical references to Adam, and I am not looking for named bones of Neanderthals, or frozen cavemen named by their location found.

In my research, I found this reference to the first predynastic Pharoh in Egypt, Tiu.

This is referenced under significant people in 4000 BC.

There is no section for significant people under 5000 BC, so I am guessing that even if Tiu is not the first known named person, that person is likely from the same era.

In other references here, the people mentioned are noted as possibly mythical. This seems to be the earliest confirmed human known by their own name. If this Tiu is the first known reference to a human by their name, it might be worth noting on his page.

This is my first time using this reference, so please let me know if I have made any errors in usage. Thank you in advance, CodeCarpenter 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The modern humans who lived before writing was invented History of writing likely had names and owned things. We just have no way of knowing their names. Once writing was invented, then the names were likely recorded. The Tărtăria tablets have been carbon dated to 5500 BC, although stratigraphic info suggests a more recent date. The figures on them look like writing, but there is no clue what it means. An inscription could mean "This is a devout man who sacrificed to the god of harvest" or "I owe you 10 jars of oil. Joe" Doubters claim they are just meaningless doodles, in a way reminiscent of some medieval scholars who thought Egyptian heiroglyphics showing for instance a man plowing, then a flock of birds, then a man holding a stick just meant that a man who was plowing got mad at the birds and waved a stick at them, while a late 19th century analysis after Decipherment of hieroglyphic writing might show that such an inscription was written language about kingship and administration and dynastic succession. Scholars using the Rosetta stone and considerable cleverness by 1820 were able to sound out the ancient Egyption language as well as decipher the heiroglyphics, so they could look at king list written centuries after the the fact and give a name to the earliest king. If the listing was done centuries later, it might be as doubtful as Adam or any other folk tradition of a people's origin. The point is, the very earliest writing may contain names we just have not yet (and may never) learn to read and pronounce. Any symbol incised or stamped in grave goods of any caveman might be his personal name-symbol in the same sense. Edison 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Tiu article lists no dates (and I can't find any non-Misplaced Pages related info on Tiu from Google) so we can't tell for instance if Tiu pre-dates the Upper Egyptian Pharoahs Serket I, Iry-Hor or Ka who also have no dates (See List of Pharaohs). The earliest verified Sumerian name is Enmebaragesi who lived perhaps five centuries after Tiu. Rmhermen 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question will depend on what exactly you mean by "recorded". For one thing, the record may be much later than the person: Tiu lived in the late 4th millennium, but I believe that his name is known from king lists that were compiled centuries later. By "first recorded" you obviously mean "first surviving and understood (deciphered) record", so the Tartaria tablets are out. This still leaves open, does your record need to be in phonological script, or can it just be a symbol or heraldic device? For example, does the scorpion king count? We know this was some ruler that used a scorpion as his heraldic badge. Is this a "record"? But then, as Edison says, will not any totem animal drawn in a cave by a paleolithic hunter be a "record" as well? If you settle for "linguistic record", and will not allow records of legendary kings many centuries in the past at the time the record was made, your earliest record will date to after 3000 BC, probably rulers mentioned in the Pyramid Texts. A more meaningful question might be, what is our earliest phonological record of a name? Here, we do not need to decide whether the person named is mythical, semi-mythical or historical, we just have to decipher the record and date it. I estimate this will be around the 26th century BC or so, and will probably not change even if we should decipher the Tataria tablets, which will in all likelyhood be logographic, not phonological. dab (𒁳) 19:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To Edison, I agree that there might be (and quite likely are) references to people that predate Tiu, but that have not been translated or cannot be translated. After all, Tiu had to have elders before him, but their names have been lost to us. It is an unfortunate limitation, but still part of my curiousity, in the sense that any earlier person, by not being read of, is not who I am looking for. Perhaps the question should be changed to "Who is the first recorded human by name based upon our current understanding of known artifacts?". CodeCarpenter 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To Rmhermen: Nice catch on Serket I and Serket II. The confusion comes in when they both link to "Scorpion King" page (one as Scorpion King and the other as King Scorpion), and the reference in 4000 BC only lists Serket without a I or II designation. Your page does open up the question (which the 4000 BC page does not, since the only Serket listed had no predecessor) as to which of these two pharaohs were first to exist. Thanks for finding that, this is a fun challenge! CodeCarpenter 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To Dbachmann: For my purposes (non-scholastic curiousity), the references to Tiu and Serket are both acceptible. Since drawing a line in the sand could represent a name, but only if others also recognize it, I will go with the idea of any glyph, image, impression, or writing that is known to represent a real living person's name. It just came to me when I saw that 5000 BC had no significant persons, while 4000 BC did. CodeCarpenter 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

apology.

ok fine. i was wrong to threaten but im still defending the words that were on there before. For example on the jimi hendrix (1 out of maybe 10 articles already) the words read According to fans and critics alike, jimi henrix may have been the greatest and most influential electric guitarist in rock music history. then when i read it again about a week ago (up to present), it says he is ONE of the greatest and infuential guitarists. but when i change it back, it goes back the way it was recently. so im just sayin somebody else should get blamed for that. im nopt the one who put those words on there in the first place. srry for threatening. wont do it again.Jk31213 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "one of" is clearly more NPOV. 惑乱 分からん 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, apology accepted. 惑乱 分からん 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fan opinion carries no weight here. What you need to do is find a critic or some other famous guitarist who stated that in a book or newspaper article. Then you can cite him/her. "may have been" is what we call a weasel phrase and is to be avoided (there's an article somewhere that explains it). Clarityfiend 20:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz Theodicy - objection III

Hi, I am having trouble understanding Leibniz's response to objection III. It can be found here: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Leibniz%20-%20Theodicy.htm

I would greatly appreciate anyone who can simplify it so that a person not involved in philosophical study can understand it. Thanks. --Sish 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Shorter Leibniz: it may be that he who knows all can see our actions as predetermined, but that does not mean that we do not make decisions. The key quote here is, I think: "if it is certain that we shall perform them , it is not less certain that we shall choose to perform them." Does that help? See also: Free_will#Compatibilism. Skarioffszky 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(Comment:It really looks like Liebniz is on sticky ground here - if all things are predetermined then invoking choice or feelings of being able to choose seems to me to be logically inconsistent (ie ridiculous) - this makes the sinner a prisoner to the will of god and hence makes god lacking in goodness..)87.102.8.53 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a good start in helping me understand this. However is it possible to get something a bit more indepth? A LOT more is said by Leibniz and I understand so little of it. --Sish 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think Liebniz has waffled a bit here on objection 3 - it's not a particularily good point for an objection and so doesn't get a particularily good answer. The objection says effectively Action A (sinning) is unavoidable, therefor action B (punishment) is wrong (or in effect a sin). I draw two conclusions from this, firstly bad begets bad. And secondly and more importantly if it is impossible not to sin then why not impossible to not punish.

ie if the sin is unavoidable then the punishment will be equally unavoidable - why judge the punishment as unjust - such reasoning reduces all actions (good or bad) to simple events and so is immoral. Surely the point of philosophy is to think - not to attempt to follow poorly set up arguments and the responses to them.

I use the rule of thumb - Poor arguments give long answers. If too answer is difficult (long winded) then maybe there was something wrong with the question. Apologies for wasting your time.87.102.8.53 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Twice apologies for any offence - You could say I have shown "The doctrinaire contempt for metaphysics, characteristic of analytic and linguistic philosophy" (Gottfried_Leibniz#Posthumous reputation)

What Leibniz himself says he is doing is denying that predetermined equals necessary. He admits that human choices are predetermined in the sense that God has already seen us make them, but he denies that they are necessary. To him, necessary things (necessary in the sense that is relevant here, or absolutely necessary) are those that happen regardless of what any animate being wills, such as a rock falling when it is dropped. By definition, then, human acts are not necessary, because they result from voluntary choice.

Toward the end, he compares the objection to what he calls the "lazy sophism": since everything is predetermined, why bother to do anything? The error here is that if you have no choice, you can't choose to do nothing. Foreshadowings of Sartre there, we're doomed to choose.--Rallette 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuing, I think it is also useful to consider here what Leibniz says in response to objections vi and vii. He says that God does give everyone sufficient opportunity to see the light and choose the good. But he apparently admits that God does not give everyone the means, or character, to do so. It is in this that his goodness seems to fall short of perfect, and it is here that Leibniz resorts to the mysterious ways explanation: "The best plan of the universe, which God could not fail to choose, made it so. We judge from the event itself; since God has made it, it was not possible to do better."

It appears to me that Leibniz does not consider this as a question of freedom of will. Will is will and it's a pointless quibble whether it is "really" free or not: freedom is an attribute that belongs to will by definition, and to ask whether it is really free is like asking whether the number five is "really" five, as if there were some more profound fiveness or idea of five somewhere that the number might conceivably fall short of.

Hm. Sorry, I'm afraid I may not be making the issue any clearer for you, and I really don't know what Leibniz would have thought of my last paragraphs. It's rather past my bedtime and I'll stop posting for tonight. But this is a very interesting question.--Rallette 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I really think the question/objection needs looking at and analysing before considering Liebniz's response - the question has various errors of reasoning and should not be answered - namely it suggests there is no 'free will' (ie everything is predetermined) then judges an action as a sin (how can an unforced action be judged? can I judge a ball for rolling downhill?), then it judges one who would judge the first action despite the fact that under the conditions described the person making judgements would also be incapable of free will and therefor just as innocent of any responsiblity as the 'sinner' - it's an illogical argument - I too would have difficulty understanding the answer to an illogical question. I hope this may help you too.87.102.8.53 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare quote

Where in a Shakespeare work is the remark that goes something like: "The appetite grows by what it feeds on"? 66.213.33.2 18:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet, Act I, scene 2:

"...So excellent a king; that was, to this,

Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother

That he might not beteem the winds of heaven

Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth!

Must I remember? why, she would hang on him,

As if increase of appetite had grown

By what it fed on..."

Skarioffszky 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sections of a page

How do you add a section?

Great, one gold star awarded. Well done!87.102.8.53 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See Self-fulfilling prophecy or Misplaced Pages:New contributors' help page - which ever applies.

fernand pelez 1843-1913

(i asked this question before but then i couldnt find the reference page again and now it is too old and i cant find it.) where can i get any kind of information about this painter? thank you --Mkpdp 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

countries the US has helped

How can I ask/find what countries the USA has provided both military and economic aid to as part of peacekeeping missions, in the 20th century? I need at least 10 countries. Can't seem to find an area to search or ask for information from.74.228.122.146 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You are better off taking a list of every country and removing those the U.S. hasn't helped. To make it real easy, just look at World War II and pick any 10 of the allied countries. --Kainaw 20:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration and you'll find at least five.Wolfgangus 20:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this list from the Census Bureau, but they tie both types of aid into one as dollar amounts.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/06s1286.xls

In terms of military aid, there are multiple lists to pull from, but this one is pretty conclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

This one mentions the annual cost of military aid, not including Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States#Military_aid

I hope this helps, CodeCarpenter 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional law and constitutional theories

I am ordered to write a project concerning constitutional law and constitutional theories as tools to achieve political goal. It is mainly about the battler between concervatism and reforms. I do not know where to begin.

I would be extremely thankful for any help --Yarovit 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC

You could start at Conservative. Do a bit of background - it might help to know where you are (eg. in the UK, an MP called Edmund Burke is the "father of modern conservativism".) Remember that conservativism isn't unilaterally opposed to reform (in general) - they're just slower on it than the political left normally is.martianlostinspace 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If US law applies, consider the impact of certain Supreme Court decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v Wade Wolfgangus 21:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Reference Desk archive