Yes, squirrels that have evolved into children would be a bit scary, LOL. But seriously, why not let them live in your yard, since you seem to be a humanitarian. You could build them a squirrel house something like a large bird house, nailed to the side of a tree. Also, you need to seal whatever holes there are in your garage or else other squirrels and animals will continue to live in there, even if you get rid of this squirrel. A place protected from the environment to which animals have access is just too irresistible to animals. StuRat 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This link suggests they have a homing instinct of "several miles". Our squirrel article suggests they can be put off by the scent of cat or dog fur. Also you can buy deterrent sprays (mine is called "Squirrel Stop") at garden stores.--Shantavira 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When I had a squirrel/raccoon problem, I think that I usually deported the squirrels to the next county (about ten miles). I never found a spray that really worked, but this was a couple years ago, so I can't really speak for any of the products on the maket now. Carom 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd let the little fella make a nest in my home. The day I wake up with a squirrel biting my face, though, I'd reconsider. Vranak

Youngest congressman

Who is the current youngest member of the US House of Representavies? And who is the all-time youngest? Catchpole 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently the youngest is Patrick McHenry from North Carolina, born in 1975. Historically, anyone?Wolfgangus 12:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

William C.C. Claiborne was the youngest ever -- actually, unconstitutionally young, having been elected when he was 22. Harold Ford, Jr. was the youngest of legal age. How did that Claiborne thing happen? --jpgordon 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trafalgar Square

I wrote asking for help in dating a postcard of Trafalgar Square in December 2006. Thank you everyone for your assistance. I apologise for not answering sooner, but my computer has been down for some time. I do not know the sites to scan my postcard into so that you can see it. Am I able to scan into this site? If so, how do I do that? Thank you again. 60.246.249.109 11:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)fayekj

Do you have a home page you can scan it into ? That would be best, if it's not something that belongs in Misplaced Pages permanently. If not, you can scan it into Misplaced Pages temporarily and then have it deleted. You can upload a file to Misplaced Pages here: Special:Upload. StuRat 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Easier still is to upload it to a free image hosting site like this one, then post the link to it here. --Richardrj 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trafalgarsquarepostcardca7.jpg (Wikified --Anonymous, Jan. 6, 04:25 (UTC).)

Thank you for your help again. If it helps to identify the time of postcard, I will also send copy of back. The back has nothing written on it. It is in English & French and I think the photographer is french. 60.246.248.253 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Fayekj

Anglican Baptism

I was "baptised" or "christened" as a child, into the Anglican church (Church of England). Is it possible to reverse this process somehow, so that I would be recognised as a non-christened person in the eyes of the church? Thanks, jamesgibbon 13:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can be "un-baptized". In addition to welcoming a child into the church, baptism is also seen to remove the guilt of Original Sin from the new-born. I don't see how forgiveness, once given, can be revoked. That said, if what you want is to stop being seen as a Christian or an Anglican, it shouldn't be that hard. A simple renunciation of your faith would probably do it, making you apostate. If you were Roman Catholic, I'd suggest trying to get yourself excommunicated. You could always try to commit some act of heresy - that would probably work too. - Eron 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a little bit about the C of E within the excommunication article, but basically the Church does not make provision for this sort of thing. Several friends of mine have looked for such a procedure upon becoming Buddhists, without success. Some of them ended up writing a formal letter of resignation, but I don't know whether these letters were ever acknowledged. I suppose you could write your own ritual of declaration of your beliefs (perhaps including a bit of blasphemy) and see if it works on a subjective level.--Shantavira 14:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

James, the church does not 'perceive' you as a Christian in any abstract sense, and you will not be married or buried (sorry to raise a gloomy subject!) as such, unless you specifically request this. You are only an Anglican if you practice as an Anglican, even if you only pay lip-service to the outward forms of ritual and belief. Otherwise, your Anglican baptism will not preclude you from becoming a Catholic, a Muslim, a Satanist, or anything else you may wish. Clio the Muse 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A distinction should be made between one's status as a baptized person and one's status as a member of a church. The C of E, along with most other churches, regards baptism as an indellible mark of God's grace. As such, it can never be undone. The C of E (again, like most churches) believes it does not have the power or ability to undo your baptism. Membership in a church, however, can be renounced. Writing a letter to the bishop whose diocese you're in is probably the proper course of action, but I'm not certain. The C of E, and all mainstream Christians, will continue to regard you as a baptized person, only one who has apostatized, as Eron said. Being excommunicated or committing heresy will not undo the baptism (neither for Anglicans nor Catholics). Excommunication means you're not allowed to receive the sacraments until you repent of whatever it is you were excommunicated for. It doesn't even necessarily involve a loss of one's formal membership in a church. Heresy is by definition when a baptized Christian knowingly and willingly endorses heterodox doctrine, so it also has no effect on the fact that you're baptized. Evan Josephson 06:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial representative offices?

Are there other countries except for the UK and USA where states operate unofficial representative offices like those of the TRNC?

The wikipedia link on the TRNC unnoficial representative office is: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TRNC_Representative_Office_to_the_United_States&oldid=83581783

Thanks Ashwin

I don't know about the TRNC, but Taiwan runs unofficial representatives (usually called a Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office) in countries like Canada. - Eron 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ISTR that the Knights Hospitallers of Malta have semi-official diplomatic status in several countries (not to be confused with the Republic of Malta). And I'm pretty sure that Mount Athos has diplomatic representation to Greece, the country which surrounds it, despite being hardly recognised by anyone. Palestine's another place where there is almost certainly unofficial representation in many countries- especially those within the Arab world - despite its questionable status in terms of full international recognition. Grutness...wha? 12:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Many states have unofficial representation through a Third Party when they lack a consulate/embassy in a particular state. The Swiss often serve as such. Somewhat different is when countries share representation officially. EG: No Candian citizens will be helped by a British embassy in some countries which lack a Canadian embassy.

Knowledge buffs needed

Users knowledgeable in various subject areas are needed to add missing links to the basic topic lists (they are listed at Lists of basic topics).

How many missing basic topics can you spot?

Suggestions and critiques are also welcome!  The Transhumanist 14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

German bomings of London

German's dropped incinerary bombs on London there is a famous photograph of an evening raid with most of London in flames except St. Paul's Cathedral. It is untouched (it seems). I've been told there were many citizens on the grounds of St. Paul's tha night (as well as other nights) running to put out the fires! Do you have an image of this picture?Arbonnebcf 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• This one? Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg --jpgordon 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have one small point to make in reference to what you have written here, Arbonne:St. Paul's stands right in the heart of London and does not have extensive grounds; so I doubt there were many ordinary people standing around that night. However, there were, on Churchill's specific orders, units of the London fire brigade, ready to prevent nearby blazes catching hold of the cathedral. In addition to this, there were volunteer fire watchers, stationed in and around the cupola, ready to extinguish incendiary bombs, one of which almost took hold. Clio the Muse 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do women prefer men who are soft or do they prefer men who are hard while sex

While having sex, do women prefer a man who would have soft, gentle and slow sex or do women prefer a man who is fast, furious and hard hitting? We all see movies which show men hitting/torturing and having sex as if there is no tomorrow. Thats why I am asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.114.92 (talk • contribs)

Short answer: Different strokes for different folks

Long Answer: I tend to see slow passionate love making in movies, maybe i'm watching too much You've Got Mail and too little action movies? There seems to be an underlying theme that sex is portrayed towards women as deep and meaningful, love making and towards men it is portrayed as passion-filled, on the counter-top, vigorous activity. Both are perfectly good forms if you ask me, but you should probably try to do what works best for the enjoyment of you and your partner. Disclaimer...i'm a male, maybe a female wikipedian might be provide more valuable insight...ny156uk 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the woman, and the body part... =S 惑乱 分からん 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that most women prefer lovers who are a) clear about what they want and willing to communicate their wishes; b) interested enough in what their lover wants to ask her; and c) willing and able to strike a balance between the two. In between foot rubs and taking out the garbage. ;-) Anchoress 18:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be said in many ways, but this way (Anchoress) sounds as good as any. Atom 13:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Minus the 'hitting/torturing' part, do it just as they do it in the movies. When she doesn't come back, you'll know for certain that the film industry can't teach you anything of applicable value about sex. Next time, do it the way you feel like doing it - which should be what she inspires in you to do. I'm guessing she'll come back.Wolfgangus 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Imagine your a woman... no that's too strange, imagine your gay. What would you want from a man? Same style all the time? It depends on the what you feel like at the time. Sometimes your just in the mood for long and slow, sometimes you might be on a schedule and hard and short just right. Now, should this be moved to Entertainment or Miscellaneous? :) But when I first saw this question, on my first reading of Hard or Soft, the answer was definitely "Hard" ;) 217.43.184.59 01:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See zipless f***. Vranak

Women are people. They're not all carbon-copy cookie-cutter identical. Some women do like a man to be soft and gentle, but others hate that. Ask the individual woman what she wants. There is no greater turn-on than a man who is willing to actually do what the woman wants. There is no greater turn-off than the guy who assumes that what he likes is sex, and what he doesn't like isn't sex. --Charlene 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

british law banning catholics

I read that Catherine_of_Braganza wasnt crowned as a queen because of an old British law that banned roman catholics from Anglican services. Is there still a law like that or has it been amended. nids(♂) 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There were various anti-Catholic laws in Britain, but the one I am most aware of pertaining to the succession of the monarchy is the Act of Settlement 1701. - Eron 18:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

More generally with regard to Catholics in Britain see Test Acts and Act of Uniformity and the various articles leading off of them and Roman Catholicism in Great Britain (although I think that that article needs some NPOVing). Jooler

There's a lot of anti-Catholic history that could be reviewed, all interesting, but bigoted laws are not necessarily the reason Catherine wasn't crowned. No British queen consort has been crowned in a ceremony separate from her husband since Anne Boleyn was crowned in 1533. And Catherine couldn't have been crowned with her husband, for he was crowned in 1651 and she married him in 1662. - Nunh-huh 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Nids. Actually, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion here: there was never any law banning Catholics from taking part in Anglican services. The Test Act of 1673 merely prohibited the holding of state office to all those who refused to take the Sacrament in accordance with the rite practiced in the Church of England. The suggestion that Catherine of Braganza, or Henrietta Maria, the earlier Catholic queen, were denied coronation because of their faith is plainly wrong, even if you did read it in Misplaced Pages! They were not crowned because, as Nunh-huh indicates, they were married after their husbands had come to the throne, and queen consorts were not given a separate coronation. Consider this: if there really was such a law in England James II could never have come to the throne. As it was, both he and his Catholic consort, Mary of Modena, were crowned in 1685. Eron is quite correct: Catholic succession to the throne was only finally outlawed by the 1701 Act of Settlement. Clio the Muse 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the qualities of Che Guevara's "New Man"?

What defines (or demands) the "New Man" in 1960s Cuba? (Is there a theoretical or secondary source that defines the "New Man" in detail?) thanks! 140.247.40.231 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Kimberly

The paper you need to look over is one he wrote in 1965, entitled Socialism and Man in Cuba. You will find a copy here . Clio the Muse 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New question: is there a capatalized or quoted new man or similar in Karl Marx? Anything prior to José Martí? In his many incarnations, was The New Man first a revolutionist, a marxist, or a communist?—eric 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Eric, what a question! It would seem more fitting for a possible doctoral thesis, than a quick Misplaced Pages answer. Where to begin, and what terms of reference to use? First and foremost Marxism, unlike more traditional forms of utopian socialism, is essentially a critique of capitalism, rather than a philosophical prescription for new forms of human behaviour as such. You could say, I suppose, that in a Marxist view, human beings are as much a product as anything else within a capitalist system, with one important difference-as products they remain incomplete, objects rather than subjects. In the Theses on Feuerbach, Marx wrote-The materialist doctrine that men are the products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are the products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances, and that the educator must himself be educated. Revolution then becomes a way of liberating the subject, a way of finishing, if you like, the whole process of human production. It becomes, in a sense, a form of both collective and individual realization. I can think of one quotation from Che Guevara which might simplify this; There is nothing, he wrote, that can educate a person...like living through a revolution. On this whole question might I suggest that you also have a look over George Lukacs' History and Class Consciousness, as well as the notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, especially where he deals with problems of education and cultural hegemony. I'm sorry, this answer is far more complex than I would have wished; but it simply reflects the nature of the subject! Clio the Muse 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're giving my question more credit than it deserves, i was trying to solve a little rhetorical puzzle, and as an American, it's probably both beneath and beyond me to try and understand Marxism. I ran across a number of references to The New Man and a few mentions of old Adam, even a source which attempted to make a religion of Marxism—and used the passage you quote above to define marxist 'redemption'. But i could not find a use of The New Man prior to Martí's nuevo hombre—who i gather was only a revolutionary and just occasionaly suspected socialist. Which New Man was the first to take up the class struggle? Or is all this just an artifact of the translations, the allusion to the biblical New Man only in the English?—eric 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term is so general that you will likely find it in many contexts. As far as I am aware, expressions like 'the New Man and the Old Adam' really apply to sexual politics, used to define reformed and unregenerate attitudes. It has no specific meaning in Marxist theory and practice, which views man, as I have indicated, in politically evolutionary terms. Marti, incidentally, was a poet and a Cuban nationalist, and not a Marxist, and is admired as a political icon in both Havana and Little Havana. Clio the Muse 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Age of consent in Thailand?

A question has arisen at Talk:Ages of consent in Asia about the age of consent in Thailand. Most websites list an age of consent of 15 (and 18 if prostitution is involved), but they all seem to be somewhat outdated, and recently the lead singer of the popular Thai band Big Ass was charged with statutory rape for allegedly having sex with a girl who was 16 at the time (see last paragraph of Big Ass and references given there). Can anyone offer insights? Is there anything akin to a legal reference desk or portal on the Thai Misplaced Pages where I could ask this question? Thanks, AxelBoldt 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• My first question would be if there was prostitution involved. That would mean the 18 bit would be relevant. - Mgm| 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Chain of Custody of Codex Vaticanus

My understanding of the term Chain of custody is a record of each person that had that particular document or manuscript through time. It would be equal to that in real estate called "Chain of Title" showing the recorded title of a property through time as a history all the way back as far as possible (i.e. a land grant from a government). For the Codex Vaticanus the only verifiable Chain of custody is the date 1475 from the Vatican Library from their own earliest catalog. Now if the library was founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448 would there not have been an initial inventory and catalog as to what the library initially consisted of? Either way the earliest Chain of custody is the middle of the Fifteenth Century. They even admit: Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain. So anything prior to their inventory and catalog is pure speculation where this Codex came from and when. It could have just as easily came from Avignon in 1400 as from anyplace since there is no good Chain of custody records. How much weight is there placed on Chain of custody? I would think this to be very important. In our legal system of today it is. Even in the records of real estate as far back as the formation of the United States a "Chain of Title" records has been kept. Apparently this concept came from Europe, perhaps England or Italy; don't know for sure. Anybody know? Even royalty keep track of genealogies (a type of Chain of Custody) so that the next in line (sons) would inherit the land and power. This is even recorded in Egyptian history going back thousands of years. So based on this idea of Chain of custody then who is to say the Codex Vaticanus is much older than just 1475 (i.e. coming from Avignon in 1400 where it was made up in the Fourteenth Century). There is otherwise no scientific proof of its age, so I would think the next best is the Chain of custody. Anything beyond that in determining its age is pure spectulation since there is no other documentation. --Doug 20:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following. What is the question? - Eron 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the question is "What do you know about the great conspiracy to hide the fact that the Bible was written around 1475?" --Carnildo 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that question. Well, as a good Roman Catholic, I'll have to take the Fifth on this one. - Eron 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty close on that answer of 1475. I am thinking closer to 1373. I believe the New Testament (not Old Testament) to be from the Fourteenth Century, not of the first few centuries as some say. If there is no records (even from the Vatican itself) that anybody possessed (Chain of custody records) the Codex Vaticanus any sooner than 1475, then how does one know of its true age and "dating"? I believe it came from the Avignon library material moved to Rome about 1400. There is no scientific proof that it is any older than from Fourteenth Century. --Doug 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing you may wish to consider: there are other forms of Christianity from the Roman form, that do not rely on the Codex Vaticanus or any descent through the church in Rome. If the New Testament is a 14th Century European forgery, how do we explain the existence of the various forms of Eastern Christianity such as the Coptic Christians, whose documented existence greatly predates the Codex? - Eron 21:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't tell you about that since I have not researched any of that. Only know of the 27 books of the New Testament. I have figured out that this is from the Fourteenth Century. It was written by Petrarch. It is not a faked document, but rather a document that was written in code (in secret). The reason for this was because of the powers to be of Avignon. Petrarch had this translated in Greek (for protection) from his original Latin Vulgate version. Petrarch then placed this with the Avignon library material which about the year 1400 was moved to Rome. Then later when Pope Nicholas V formed what we know today as the Vatican Library it was later cataloged as to its inventory. In the inventory was found this in Greek manuscript, now called the Codex Vaticanus. I know most of the elements to The Petrarch Code. When the four Gospels are decoded it reveals a history of the French and English royalty surrounding Avignon. Of course the other books of the New Testament are other items that Petrarch wrote about. Acts of the Apostles just happens to be a list of 28 ancient Lives. The information for these 28 moral biographies Petrarch obtained from the ancient historians Livy and Polybius. Petrarch refers to this as Chronicle of Universal History of 28 homilies. What is an homilie?--Doug 23:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, take a look at those links. There are other sects of Christianity besides the Church of Rome. If your contention is that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century, you'll need to explain how groups such as the Coptic Church were established following various New Testament traditions. You'll also need to determine how early Christian writers like Origen were able to study and write about the New Testament more than 1000 years before Petrarch was born.

And, a homily is a sermon or religious lecture. - Eron 02:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A street called Straight

In Acts 9:11 there is reference to a street called Straight. Also there is reference to Tarsus. Now it just so happens that the Appian Way (a.k.a. Via Appia or via recta) was a great Roman road (notorious for going straight) that went to Taras. This to me is just to close to being just a mere coincidence. Are they not in fact talking of one and the same thing?
That being of this street called Straight being the Appian Way or Via Appia (a great Roman road or via recta) and that it went to the town of Taras. --Doug 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think it far more likely that there was some street in Tarsus called Straight, to which the verse refers. This passage is just one of several in Acts that refers to the city of Tarsus. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. - Eron 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You have pointed out exactly my argument. I believe in each case it is refering to Taras. There is not a street in Tarsus called Straight, however there is a Straight street in Taras. I know because I already research this to find out. It then connects that this street called Straight is the Appian Way because it went to Taras. --Doug 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're hopelessly muddled. Saul was from Tarsus, but Acts 9:1-19 takes place in Damascus. Damascus is in Asia Minor, not Italy. Indeed, the article on Damascus mentions the street called Straight, under Damascus#Historical sites. –EdC 03:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting about your Appian Way theory over and over and over will not, unfortunately, make it any more true. I would suggest that perhaps Misplaced Pages is not really the reference nor the webhost (see WP:NOT) you're looking for. — Lomn 07:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is getting a little tiresome. BenC7 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A side note - I never knew where the phrase "kicking against the pricks" came from before, but there it is in Acts:9... Grutness...wha? 00:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this expression was already proverbial in Classical Greek. Many believe that the writer of Acts had in mind a specific passage of Greek tragedy (Euripides, Bacchae lines 794-5, "I would sacrifice to the god rather than kick against his spurs in anger, a mortal against a god"). Certainly, this usage is strikingly compatible (also referring to a theomachos, one who fights against a god). Wareh 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Empire in 500 BCE

Is it not true that the Persian Empire in 500 BCE was the largest anicent land mass under one empire? How many "providences" or Countries did it have at this time; all under this same Empire? Has it been the largest land mass of people of Countries collected under one Empire ever (even to modern times)? --Doug 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the largest of it's time (about the size of the US); the Mongol Empire was bigger though. As for "providences", they probably had them by their names before conquest (i.e. Mesopotamia or Egypt). Also, like I said, the Mongols had a larger empire, as did the Russians later. | AndonicO 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The page on List of largest empires gives all the relative sizes. The first Persian entry, that for the Achaemenid under Darius the Great, comes in at number eleven in the list of all empires, and number six in the list of contiguous empires. You'll find maps on the pages about Darius the Great and the Achaemenid Empire Clio the Muse 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on that information on the empires from you all. That is most useful on my research. In this Achaemenid Empire of the Persian Empire which I do in fact believe these provinces had their names before conquest. I believe Cyrus son Cambyses was a part of Egypt, while Smerdis (or usurper) was part of the eastern provinces. What I am interested in is the total of the provinces in the year 500 BC? Even if it is a best guess (i.e. "50" or "100" or "150" or "200")? Is there a way to find out? Livy or Polybius? --Doug 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Go a little more slowly, Doug, and read the articles highlighted. You will discover that the empire was divided into twenty provinces under Darius, each with its own governor or satrap. I do not kown the precise form these subdivisions took. However, you may be able to find more detailed information in the pages of Herodotus. Clio the Muse 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Searching for pictures of old Bible covers to identify mine.

I have only the cover of a antique family Bible and I 'm trying to find the origin and age. It's leather with gold leafing etched in pictures of Bible events on the cover. The old temple santuary,Adam/Eve's casting out of the garden,Nativity,Jesus entering Jerusalem on donkey,Arc of covenet,etc.There were no other pages or instriptions anywhere on cover. Are there pictures in your encyclopedia that I can look at to compare?

The date and location of printing, the printer and perhaps the society the Bible was printed for will be on the title page or its verso, or on the verso of the blank page preceding it. Since the leather binding will have been original to the printing or later, that gives you a terminus post quem. --Wetman 04:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that about 5-6 billion Bibles have been sold in the world, I don't like the chances of finding that particular one. Sorry. BenC7 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Folktale or Legend

I have got a classwork as " My ideas about a Folktale or Legend" . Could anyone please give me Some ideas about it. How ca I write it.?

Have a look at Folklore and Legend, which should give you some good general ideas. Perhaps the simplest notion is one of collective memory, traditions and beliefs carried down generations. Clio the Muse 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of folktales focus on someone helping the poor, or doing something dangerous for the person they love. Robin Hood characters exist almost every nation's folklore. A modern take on a folktale could perhaps have a strong female saving her man (as opposed to the other way around). Look at the wikipedia articles on folklore and legend and see, there are a lot of common themes for these sorts of things. ny156uk 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ny, a female slant on the Robin Hood legend, an excellent suggestion! Not so long ago, growing up in England, my favourite TV show was Maid Marian and her Merry Men. It gave me a lot of confidence! Clio the Muse 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many folk tales and legends which seem to contain at least a grain of truth, like the tale of Johnny Appleseed (almost entirely true) and the legend of the Trojan War (parts of which are true), as told in the Iliad. StuRat 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

History

why does the history page have this:

"As an academic field, history is the study of a black man in the ghetto past human activities when he shoots white people in a drive-by and is generally considered a social science"...

on it? I dont' really get the joke and that should probably be removed.

thanks

It was just a repulsive piece of vandalism, now removed. Thanks for your concern. Clio the Muse 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette help

I seem to have upset a woman friend of mine by mentioning to her (in public hearing of a few people) that her ears looked a bit red. Is she right to take offence. Or was I wrong to mention it?--Light current 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably depends on the reason for her ears being red (and on the various reasons you, she, and the other people might have presumed). If you were warning her that she was in danger of sunburn then in most circumstances it seems like a good thing to do; but if you were pointing out that her ears were betraying her embarrassment at something then it probably increased her embarrassment, which is not generally a good thing to do.

However, since you can't change the past, possibly a more useful question is to ask what would be good etiquette for your behaviour now. It seems that whatever your intentions, you have upset her. Additionally it seems to me that going back to her and saying "The interweb says I'm right and you're wrong" is not under very many circumstances at all good etiquette. So as a matter of etiquette I'd recommend apologising to her for upsetting her, assuring her that you meant no offense, and promising to be more careful in future. (If you can't say this all sincerely, then settle for the most you can say sincerely. An insincere apology is almost always worse than none at all.) --Zeborah 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As the author of more than a few articles on etiquette, I have to hand it to Zeborah -- that is dynamite advice. Take it.Wolfgangus 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this seems good advice to me and almost identical to what I had decided myself:

Apologising to her for upsetting her, assuring her that you meant no offense, and promising to be more careful in future.--Light current 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a Baby Animals CD titled 'Let Go Of My Ears.'

I thought the title innocent, until a friend talked of the sexual practise, in oral terms. DDB 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I hadnt thought of that. Are there any other things that might turn the lower part of the ears red?--Light current 08:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bluntly, Sex. --Judged 09:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from sex?--Light current 10:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Infected ear lobes are common following a piercing, especially if they were lax on hygiene. StuRat 19:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but as shes not so young I guess she was pierced many years ago 8-|--Light current 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and make sure your apology doesn't imply she was unreasonable to be offended. That would sound more like getting at her than actually apologising. And it may very well have been the way you said her ears were red: we cannot know exactly what words you used, and with what tone and body language. That, by itself, may be the cause of the offence. 86.139.237.132 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The question "was she right to take offence" is an interesting one. If you say something intended as a compliment, but the other person is somehow offended by your statement, the fact is that some offence has occurred. There's no right or wrong about it. JackofOz 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But you shouldn't just assume that if you offend somebody you must have done something wrong. If you say "you look nice today", and the person takes offense, by interpreting that as meaning they look horrid the rest of the time, is it really your fault or is the fault in the offended person ? StuRat 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you came up to me and said, "You look nice...today", then I'm more likely to be offended than if you say, "You look nice today", although that could offend the people around me! Or what about, "You look nice today" (but I smell?) Skittle 02:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To StuRat: I specifically removed the concept of right/wrong from the equation, because it's not useful. You've now introduced the notion of fault, equally unuseful. When I said "There's no right or wrong about it", perhaps I should have gone on to say that one cannot simply ignore the fact of an offence, whatever the speaker's intention may have been. If you intended to offend, then you've succeeded, and you're happy. But if you didn't intend to offend, nothing is achieved by taking the line of "I didn't mean it, so you have no right to be offended", or "I didn't mean it, so fuck you for getting uptight", or "I didn't mean it, so if you're offended it's your own fault", or anything else that does not acknowledge the actual outcome - offence. Acknowledgement of the offence, and an expression of regret that this occurred (which has nothing to do with admitting guilt or fault or wrongness; or, indeed, imposing such burdens on the other person), are better ways ahead. An apology does not have to equate to an admission of personal liability; it acknowledges that one's involvement in a communication contributed to an undesirable outcome. JackofOz 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Her ears could have been red from an infection (they can set in decades after piercing, as I have found out personally), by the metals in her earrings, or even by some skin condition that she hoped nobody would notice. She might have interpreted your comment as, "Gee! Your eczema is really obvious today!! Why is that?" She might have been a bit guilty that she couldn't fix it herself (people are like that, men and women alike) or that she hadn't 'tried hard enough' to make them look right (again, even if trying wasn't part of it). Best just to apologize, and not follow the apology with a justification. --Charlene 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

British civil law question

Would it be possible for a british legal entity like an estate to sue a foreign legal entity such as a chartered NP society in another EU country in a british court or would it have to resort to the courts of the society's home country, especially when the society specifies a legal seat in its charter? --84.60.107.82 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Countries have legal control of its citizens, so you can't sue another country's citizens in a British court. But if for example, a foreign company has a manufacturing plant in Britain, you may be able to sue that company. --Bowlhover 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the EU, jurisdiction is regulated by the Brussels Regime. As a general rule, the appropriate jurisdiction is the domicile of the defendant, though there are various exceptions. –EdC 03:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

January 6

James Cameron

Hi. I was just wondering if there was any possibility of James Cameron being an a**hole to anyone on set. I've heard some documents about his personality before and that's quite accurate. It doesn't say anything about that here on Misplaced Pages. I just thought an article should say something about that since Misplaced Pages is all about accuracy.Jk31213 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is indeed about accuracy. If there is a referenced source and it is considered worthy then such things about his 'controversial' manner on stage could well be worthy of addition to the entry. Find it, reference it, add it and wait and see what the community thinks. ny156uk 01:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well not really written but on T.V. It is said that Linda Hamilton yelled at him on set, not to mention you could figure one or a couple things about him just by listening to him in the Titanic commentary. He says that he was arguing with a costum designer or something about a hat that kate winslet should wear in a scene. He threw the hat into the ocean to end the argument. Those are a couple examples, anyway. I cant find actual written ones about him. Jk31213 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Linda Hamilton was his wife, she had a right to yell at him.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This was before she married him.Jk31213 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all unusual for there to be arguments on a film set on occasion. Artists are often passionate people, and successful ones develop considerable egos. Furthermore, on a film set, people work long hours in often trying conditions. So it's not surprising that occasionally people snap on film sets. In any case, this discussion probably belongs on Talk:James Cameron. --Robert Merkel 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Power of God

Aside from a few miracles that don't significantly affect everyday life, why does God have so little influence on Earth's events? It seems as if humans are in control of our planet instead of God. Also, if God never intervenes in earthly matters, why did the people who started religion believe he exist? --Bowlhover 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is god (presumably the christian god) supposed to rule over the earth? God's apparent existance is a matter of faith. The people who believe he existed believe as a matter of faith, as a matter of understanding the way of the universe. If God made every decision (or even just the big decisions) for us what more would be than puppets on a string? Any god worth their salt creates a world and people and sets them free - kinda like an experiment. ny156uk 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... just maybe... God doesn't exist. --The Dark Side 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously now, according to the Bible he has alot of influence, you just don't realize it. For example, in the first book of Samuel, how likely is it that Saul would go to the town where Samuel was waiting? I'm pretty sure that the hand of God was guiding him or his servant/slave. See Saul's appointment as king. --The Dark Side 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to which "few miracles that don't significantly affect everyday life" you're referring to. But that's a side issue. I really like NY's answer. All I'd add is a little anecdote from a trailer for some tv show that eventually got cancelled I believe. I never watched the show so I don't even know what it was called, but I wouldn't doubt if the show was crap. Still, a couple of lines from the trailer were actually quite profound and worth repeating:

For whatever reason, God decides to take the appearance of some ordinary teenage guy, and has a conversation with a teenage girl in a park. At one point He reveals to her that He's actually God, to which the girl responds in the most sarcastic of tones: "Yeah right! If you're really God, why don't you prove it and show me a miracle, huh?" God, in the form of the teenage kid, responds: "Alright, wanna see a miracle? I'll show you a miracle". He then points to the most massive, most amazingly beautiful oak in the park and continues: "There's a miracle for you". Loomis 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ny156uk: surely God made enough decisions to make his existence apparent? If a terrible, cruel act was commited, shouldn't God interfere to set things right? If I had unlimited powers, I wouldn't abandon my creation. I would watch over it to make sure nothing goes wrong.

But if this god interferes where is your freedom? Virtually all law is retrospective (punished AFTER the event). It's not about abandoning a creation, it's about letting your creation do what it does. I'm just saying if I was a god I wouldn't interfere because where does it stop. What if I help Dave survive a crash in America but forget about Jorge in Spain? Wouldn't that make people think I had favouritism? And if I did save Jorge too at what point do I let people make mistakes (again back to the puppets on a string). If a god showed their actions for everyone to see, that god would be more hated than loved - because that god would either have to save every bad action, or pick and choose - so less 'freedom from god' or more 'why didn't he help me?'...Much better to do nothing but send a prophet to 'guide' people...again all assuming a belief in god.ny156uk 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Side: I'm an atheist too, but it's interesting to speculate why people like the creators of religion believed in God. Also, the Bible was written by theists, and it wasn't the reason people started believing in deities.

Loomis: By miracles, I was referring to images of Jesus on pieces of bread or concrete walls, and the like. --Bowlhover 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural anthropology seems to say that mythology and deities are what people with primitive technologies use to explain the world. Those "miracles" can be attributed to observer bias (observer-expectancy effect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjoonlee (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because no one knows the meaning of life. --The Dark Side 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there is one. Maybe we're just atom machines moving around the universe. We don't have to have a meaning, per se, but we can make the best of the fact we're here. A lot of people seem to think that lack of intrinsic meaning means we have no reason to live or exist at all, which is a pretty stupid thing to say since you still have the choice to do whatever you want. — Kieff 11:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's 'I'm not touching you' on a cosmic scale." --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is a good example of how antecedant beliefs define a question's answer. As a Christian, I'm rather surprised at the total mastery God has over the universe, and the deftness of touch that allows forgiveness and free will.

My interpretation of the question is "Why doesn't god change the minds of those who choose not to respect god?" The bible provides a perfectly adequate answer to that, as any mainstream local (Christian) church should endorse. I gather though, that questioner didn't frame it that way for a reason.

Phillip K Dick, in his book Valis, poses many similar questions. If you enjoy reading books of great writers who just don't get it, give it a go DDB 08:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The people who believed in God before the Bible did so because he dealt with them personally. God communicated with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job and others long before the Bible was written. The plagues on Egypt in Moses' time, the deliverance of the people of Israel (through a sea, mind you) - these things were done before the Bible was written. God dealt with them first, then things were written down - not the other way around. BenC7 13:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm also reminded of a quote from C.S. Lewis which seems relevant to post here:

We can perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of abuse of this free will...; a wooden beam would become as soft as grass when it became a weapon, and the air would refuse to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry insults. But such a world would become one in which wrong actions would be impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void... All matter in the neighbourhood of an evil man would be liable to undergo unpredictable alterations. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce miracles is part of the Christian faith; but the very conception of a... stable world demands that these occasions should be extremely rare. BenC7 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a paradox: God can't exist, be infinitely powerful, and also be infinitely good. This is because very bad things happen to good people, some of them from natural phenomena, like tsunamis. Either God doesn't exist, or lacks the power to prevent a tsunami, or has the power and chooses not to do so. This is still true if you assume all evil is the action of Satan. Either God lacks the power to stop Satan, in which case He isn't infinitely powerful, or he chooses not to stop Satan. Allowing Satan to do as he pleases, given the ability to stop him, seems to be rather immoral. StuRat 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

God is good, and has the power to stop evil. He doesn't always, because he has given us free will (see quote above). Many people have the mistaken impression that God is good only, or love only. But God is more than a single characteristic. God sometimes causes evil things to happen to people as well (see Amos 9:4, for one example of many). He does this for his own reasons. Sometimes for punishment; sometimes so others will be protected; sometimes for discipline; sometimes so people will think about their life, and perhaps what awaits them after death; and for other reasons. Other times evil things happen because of our own choices or the actions of others. Does that make God less good? No, it just means that God has more than one aspect to his character. BenC7 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So the consensus here seems to be that God doesn't try to stop evil because he wants to let humans do whatever they want with each other and their planet. But what about natural disasters? Surely God could stop those without taking away anybody's freedom? --Bowlhover 10:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but where is the line drawn? Certainly God could stop a tidal wave from killing several hundred people in some place. What about if only 5 people were killed? Only 1? What if many people were injured, but no-one died? What if a few people were injured? What if no-one was injured, but people lost their property? What if only one person lost their property? What if... (and you can keep going down the list of injuriousness as much as you like). It's like saying, if God stops only large things, what about things that are kind-of large? Medium sized? Small? Eventually we end up in a world where nothing can ever possibly go wrong. And many times it is affliction that brings people closer to God, or at least gets them questioning if he exists. God's plan is not ultimately to make us comfortable or to get us to enjoy this life as though it were the only one we had; God's plan is for us to be with him. BenC7 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But to go against your view, where is the line drawn regarding how bad things go until you say "enough, there's too much needless evil in this world"? If you adopt the Leibniz's "this is the best of all possible worlds", then you'll never stop saying that anything bad is for overall good. What do you say to the innocent AIDS victims? Their children? The hopeless starving children in Africa? Are their suffering for some kind of good? Isn't that kind of cynical and insensitive to the real issues? If you haven't, read Voltaire's POEM ON THE LISBON DISASTER; Or an Examination of the Axiom, “All is Well” at http://courses.essex.ac.uk/cs/cs101/VOLT/Lisbon2.htm.

I'm not a theist, but even if I were to believe in a god, I wouldn't go so far as saying that evil things are for the best because that would mock those who truly suffer. 128.163.241.210 05:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that all bad things are for overall good. But let me take AIDS orphans as an example. Somewhere along the line, at least one person would have made a poor decision that ultimately culminated in the (tragic) death of both parents of particular children. What do you want God to do? To step in, miraculously transport the children to a better country where they would have better chances at life? What about people who are moderately afflicted? People who are lightly afflicted? People who are only lightly afflicted for a particular period of their lives? Where would God end up having to transport people to? A perfect family in a perfect neighbourhood with perfect parents, friends, relatives, teachers, etc. in a perfect country in a perfect world. In a world where God intervenes to negate every possible consequence of evil actions, we again end up in a world where people don't have free will. BenC7 11:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not a theist either, but a Buddhist. The bible says that mankind chose in Eden to bite an apple from the tree of knowledge. This action was a choice of free will over being controlled by God. If God were to intervene every time someone prayed, then he would be taking away free will. He respects mankinds desire for freedom and free will by letting mankind be responsible for their own actions. Suppose no one were responsible for their actions, but just had to pray to have things fixed when they messed things up? Some feel that wew need to wait until "rapture" until God will interact with us again.

Another view is that the world as we know it, as is increasingly described by scientists, including physics, chemistry, and even evolution, is God's prescribed mechanism for creating and managing the world. All of the things we take for granted every day are God.

Some Christians feel that God, being all poweerful and all knowing had no capability for directly understanding mankind. (as paradoxical as that sounds) That there was a time when God was angry and vengeful at Mankinds disobedience, and that through the act of allowing himself to be born, and experience life from a human perspective, God gained compassion and understanding of the human condition, human frailty and limitations. Hence why there are no recorded miracles since Jesus. In this model the old testament is then historical, and all of the old rules (hebrew bible/old testament) no longer apply, as God made a new pact with mankind through himself/son Jesus.

There are countless variations, and hypothetical variations of these. There is not, and will never be any way to know. Whatever the purpose, or lack thereof, we are obligated to live our mortal lives seperated from God, and this was by our choice, in order to have free will. It is by design, or by necessity a matter of faith. If it were not a matter of faith, there would be one true way, one true path, one set of rules we must all live our lives by. Clearly, this isn't the case. Some hypothesize that ALL paths lead to the same place eventually, and that compassion for one another, and helping each other on our mortal path is appropriate. All religions and all paths eventually get there. (paradoxically, even the ones who say that they are right and everyone else is wrong.)Atom 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any Christians who believe that God did not have the capacity for understanding man. The Bible says, for example, that God knows the depths of the human heart. It also says things like, God knows what we are going to say even before we say it.

Also, all paths cannot lead to God. That is essentially saying that there are multiple truths, which is an internally contradictory statement. (i.e., if A is true, and A contradicts B, A and B cannot both be true.) BenC7 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lost his bottle of oil"

In The Frogs, during the 'battle' between Aeschylus and Euripides, Euripides recites various lines, which I take to be the prologues from several of his plays. Each time, Aeschylus interjects with "lost his bottle of oil". As far as I can tell, this is a criticism of some sort, based upon the claim Aeschylus makes that,

You frame your prologues so that each and all Fit in with a "bottle of oil,"

I'm having trouble understanding what exactly Aeschylus' point is. Could someone help me with this? --Awesome 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is famous that Seinfeld episodes contained a reference to Superman. Such comedy can be obscure. One philosopher friend of mine was puzzled over a reference to vice, which complained of many having too much liking for wine, small boys and fish. Apparently, some fish used to be good for smoking, providing an effect akin to cannabis.

Cicero, in argument for a man accused of killing his father, fingers a wealthy Greek man who used a fashionably large amount of hair oil. Euripides characters were supposed to be more common than Aeschylus. It is possible that their vanity required hair oil. But I'm guessing. DDB 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Guesses are fun! But actually, it's the rhythm of the words, not the words themselves, in this case. Euripides is quite proud of his explanatory prologues. Aeschylus is showing them to be boring and monotonous, every one of them in the same meter, into which can freely be injected the "little bottle of oil". It's kinda like singing the poems of Emily Dickinson to the tune of The Yellow Rose of Texas. (Try it; you'll never be able to read Dickinson again without hearing it.) --jpgordon 15:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

or singing "My Darling Clementine" to the tune of the German national anthem, for that matter... Grutness...wha? 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps my favorite, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening to the tune of Hernando's Hideaway. But neither of those are entire work like Dickinson's yellow roses. --jpgordon 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How did they figure out you could milk a cow?

Hi all. I was wondering how early man figured out you could milk a cow. I mean, honestly, think about what had to have been running through his mind. Any resources would be wonderful. Much help appreciated ! Xhin 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely he just saw a calf doing it. In any case, would he not have been suckled himself?--Shantavira 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Most people don't remember the age when they themselves would have been breast-feeding, but that doesn't matter if they get to see others doing it. "Hey look, that calf is doing the same thing as Baby Ugg was this morning... and Mrs. Cow's got room in there for a whole lot more milk than Mrs. Ugg! I wonder if..." And thus we see that the nudity taboo in many of today's societies is crippling to man's inventive powers. :-) --Anonymous, January 6, 2OO7, 10:OO (UTC).

Actually, traditionally, children were breastfed for years rather than months or weeks (see the work of Katherine Dettwyler who apparently doesn't have an article here, but probably should). But that doesn't change the fact that you mention, that kids would also see others nursing. Ingrid 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was alone in enjoying this smutty joke. Notes were not taken of the time. Dogs were apparently domesticated in Asia about 70,000 years ago. Anthropomorphism suggests it seemed a good idea, being more plentiful than cat milk. DDB 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Enigma Machine

I have read articles about the royal navy capturing an enigma machine from a german sub and a rumour that the captor was a young sailor from runcorn but cannot find any details or. Does anybody know the true story. richie mercer

There were several captures of Enigma machines and codebooks from German U-boats during WWII (see our article on Cryptanalysis of the Enigma), but the most famous event is probably the capture of U-110 by HMS Bulldog in May 1941. After a depth-charge attack, U-110 was abandoned on the surface by its crew in the mistaken belief that it was about to sink. According to this BBC article a boarding party from the Bulldog, led by Lieutenant Balme, searched the U-boat. The Bulldog's telegraphist, Alan Osborne Long, found an Enigma machine in the U-110's radio room. Although he did not realise exactly what it was, it was sufficently unusual for it to be taken on board the Bulldog. The Bulldog took U-110 in tow, but it sank before they could reach port. When the Bulldog returned to Scapa Flow, the Enigma machine and associated documents were collected by a RN Intelligence officer and taken to Bletchley Park. Can't find anything about a Runcorn connection, however. Gandalf61 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is U-559, although it appears that none of the three sailors directly involved in retrieving the enigma codebooks, etc. were from Runcorn. The "young sailor" was, in this case, a canteen assistant named Tommy Brown, but he was from North Shields, not Runcorn. Carom 16:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Renaissance

Sometimes Petrarch is considered the father of the Renaissance; while on the other hand Dante is also. Perhaps there are also others (i.e. Boccaccio)? What is this definition and what is meant by this title? Are there then some sort of subcategories to this title? When in the Renaissance was this given out?--Doug 13:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In Florence, Italy, there is a long road with statues on either side. Primarily 'Renaissance' figures. One of the two nearest to the river is Machiavelli's. He may not be the father of the Renaissance, but his name tends to be known and remembered better than most. Dante is surely one of the top two as well. Then there's the Medici family. Vranak 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, Doug, there is no great mystery here, nor is there any strict definition to what is merely a colloquial, and loosely applied title. Later generations, loooking for a seminal figure, draped the honour on Petrarch, because he might be said to have been the first to develop a new and disinterested mode of intellectual inquiry, in a clear break with the prevailing attitudes of the Middle Ages. I dare say there are many others, like Dante and Boccaccio, who have every right also to be considered as fathers and step-fathers; and the various branches of art and thought probably have their own favourite 'petty' fathers. The complex taxonomy you seem to be looking for does not exist. Finally, on a point of procedure, can I ask you please not to link the names of people like Petrarch every time you mention them, as you have now ad nauseum: there is simply no need. Clio the Muse 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

history

hi all , im not a student of history but would want u all to help me with a question which has been troubling me for long, i will appriciate ur response.

the question is as follows.

Some one long back told me that the start of human race came from a very few civilizations? for eg the chinese, korean,, japanese etc have originated from the mongolian civilization, the Europeans from the mesopotimian civilization, where did the other races in the world come from for eg African, Asians, Latin Americans , Russians etc.

will be great full for ur support

As I understand it, current understanding is that the first humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago and spread from there, replacing populations of other hominids that had already migrated to different parts of the world. Civilisation, i.e. living in settled communities, didn't start until about 10,000 years ago. --Nicknack009 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See the article Single-origin hypothesis. This is, as the name indicates, a hypothesis. The article links to other hypotheses.  --Lambiam 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

i prefix fad

Does anyone think the i-prefix has become a fad? with obviously the inclusion of apple's products, and alot of other products have also adopted the i- prefix i guess to be 'hip'. if it is, around what time do you think it became a fad?--Technofreak90 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Steve Wozniak explain it in his autobiography iWoz:  ? :-) StuRat 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The i prefix, imho, is an excellent marketing tool that gets results. DDB 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

iMac, released 1998, mentions some of the history it is more difficult to determine when it caught on a became a fad, probably shortly before apple started issuing lawsuits. A much older i- fad in english, from about 1000 years ago, added i- or y- to lots of words to denote several different things such as past participles. Yclept meaning called, named is one of the longest lived, kept alive by poets and logorrhœa sufferers. meltBanana 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sumer is icumen in: lhude sing cuccu: the first line of the first recognizably English poem. The Early Modern version would have been "a-coming", however. --Wetman 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume the question means the recent use of the "i" prefix to mean "Internet". StuRat 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, but also in terms of the individual's revolution, such as the video revolution and creative commons and the ability for one person to have the same power as any other on the internet to present their own ideas.--Technofreak90 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

E-well, e-at e-least e-it's e-a e-change e-from e-the e-ubiquitous e-e-prefix. JackofOz 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Driving age in Greece

What is the driving age in Greece?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.180.179 (talk • contribs)

Sixteen or eighteeen, depending on the category of vehicle. See driver's license and this page.--Shantavira 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Familiarity seeking behavior in children

I've noticed that children tend to like to reread the same books, watch the same music, and eat the same foods, to a greater extent than adults. What explains this difference ? There might be a partial evolutionary reason in the case of foods, in that children who ate unfamiliar foods were more likely to die. However, when the parents say it's good to eat, and even eat some to prove it, this no longer seems to be the case (unless we consider the risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction to be significant). In the case of music, this strong desire for familiarity seems to last into the teens and perhaps even the 20s, as evidenced by top 10 radio stations, which repeat each song many times a day. StuRat 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't find the exact text, in The Uses of Enchantment Bruno Bettelheim argues that one reason children like to hear and read the same fables and stories again and again is because it takes these repeat performances for them to absorb the various implications not so readily apparent the first time around. Wolfgangus 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A secret of obsessive/compulsive behaviour is that when a victim finds something they like doing, they want to do it again.

A reverse behaviour may be described as masochism.DDB 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is comfort in familiarity and routine, important for all children. Rudyard Kipling used to tell his daughter, Josephine, the same stories night after night, and if he deviated at all from the established pattern she would immediately object, No! I want it just so. From this simple admonition the world was to be given the Just So Stories. Clio the Muse 02:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Adults do it too. The women I work with have a small library in the office - dozens of books in a filing cabinet, and they all seem to be romances set in the late 19th or early 20th century and have covers featuring a woman in a shawl looking wistfully into the distance while her hair blows in the wind. Not exactly the same story, but they've discovered something they like and are sticking to it. Likewise science fiction fans, soap opera addicts, comics fans and so on have found something they like, and often get upset if their choice of entertainment does something unexpected - "George Lucas raped my childhood", anyone? --Nicknack009 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, bodice rippers. StuRat 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the idea that heaven and hell have no philsophical foundation

Apart from people like Flew, Wittgenstein, Dawkins & Marks for the pro-argument & Augustine, Ireneaus & Hick. How would you go about tackling such a statement in providing arguments for & against this topic. What other people would you include, critical Bible passes & atheist thinkers.

--85.189.4.34 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The heaven/hell concept seems an expression of Western Thinking. I personally find it interesting that a biblical description of Hell is akin to symptoms of Diabetes (thirst, heat). Heaven, as I understand it, is merely to 'be with god.' The nebulous nature of the biblical concepts seems to have been adapted to suit 'dark age' peasants.

I understand there are aspects of heaven/hell demarcations in ancient cultures. US Indians having hunting grounds, Asia having a motif of being with family. Not much of a division for Norse peoples, but the Karmic cycle sounds satisfying for many.

In some ways, Judaism seems to have created the demarcation as a result of identifying one god. DDB 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Like anywhere else, I suppose, even Hell has a history. But beyond this, although heaven is illusive and absent, hell is ever more present. For Arthur Schopenhauer, hell was something created by humanity on this earth, and for Jean-Paul Sartre Hell is other people. Clio the Muse 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that Jesus talked about both heaven and hell numerous times...? The fact that hell is akin to diabetes is laughable. Yes, God will punish sin by giving people diabetes. Please. BenC7 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea Solutions

What are some solutions to the problem in North Korea with the nuclear weapons? Thanks! -I choose to remain anonymous

Please, anyone?

It's hard to see any solutions, when NK doesn't seem to be willing to cooperate. 惑乱 分からん 21:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Invade?martianlostinspace 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of solutions, but they aren't all practicable. Rewording the question, 'Why is it that the world wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons?' To an extent, China makes use of a dangerous, unpredictable NK as a mentor of a troubled child. If the world criticises China, China can point out that they are the only ones who can deal with NK. Iran must feel grateful for NK. They can share expertise and trade and won't seek to undermine each others paranoia. UN must appreciate NK, as it justifies UN existence without requiring a solution. US, European anti conservatives must love the opportunity to be critical, siding with UN and China.

Getting back to the original question, ideally, NK will implode. NK leadership are aware of the possibility, and are committed to nullifying any benefits through propaganda. China does not want a failed state on its doorstep. Nor does China tolerate outside interference.

For the possibility of armed invasion, China will have to acquiesse. Perhaps China will do it for the world, if NK lose their usefulness. DDB 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think invasion plans are avoided, as long as there is a threat of NK nuking nearby countries such as Japan, South Korea and possibly China... 惑乱 分からん 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea generally wants certain guarantees before it would think about getting rid of its weapons and rejoining the NPT. Some of these guarantees would not be hard to give if it weren't for the current US administration's reluctance to deal with "the axis of evil" (a strategy which has worked out wonderfully). One thing N. Korea has been looking for for a long time was a promise from the US not to invade North Korea — to me this seems like something that would be easy to give, with of course conditions under which it would be declared null and void. But the current administration's "tough" stance seems to lean away from negotiation, which I'm not sure gets good results when all is said and done. --24.147.86.187 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A US invasion is silly, NK can't possibly think that's a possibility. A Chinese invasion on the other hand, seems quite plausible to me. It would allow China to expand with very little world opposition, unlike when they invaded Tibet (or if they were to invade Taiwan). They could then govern it like Hong Kong, allowing a degree of independence, keeping the economy from collapsing, thus preventing a flood of refugees into China. China might also benefit from increased trade with South Korea. And, maybe in a few decades, NK could be united with SK. StuRat 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you actually visit North Korea, or at least read around the subject a little more before making blanket declarations of this kind. For whatever reasons, silly or not, Pyongyang perceives America as the greatest threat to its security, a fear made all the worse by the invasion of Iraq, the first link in Bush's Axis of Evil. The best guarantee of North Korean integrity is not Kim Jong-Il's weapons programme, but China, which would never tolerate either serious military or economic actions against the regime. Also you might care to look a little more deeply into the whole course of Korean history. Then you might really begin to understand why China would not in any light sense consider invasion.Clio the Muse 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that only people who have visited NK are qualified to comment ? Have you ? StuRat 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I have. But you entirely miss the point. To make the kind of sweeping assertion you have you either need direct experience, or you need to have looked into the question in some depth. Your statement is so far removed from the facts that it is patently obvious that you have neither the experience nor the insight. Your observations in the matter are therefore fatuously incorrect. Clio the Muse 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove you have visited NK ? Otherwise, I'm not inclined to believe you. And, even if you had visited NK, that would in no way make you any more competent to say whether China would ever invade NK, any more than touring Pearl Harbor prior to WW2 would have told you that the Japanese were planning on bombing it. As for what NK thinks of the possibility of a US invasion, the only opinion that matters in a dictatorship is that of the dictator. Kim Jung Il certainly claims to be afraid of a US invasion, but then again, so does Hugo Chavez. It's just a useful propaganda tool to say "we're under attack by a powerful enemy so you all must whatever I say to protect our homeland". StuRat 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall just have to manage to live with your disbelief, StuRat, which will, I assure you, not trouble me overmuch. But once again you are completely missing the essential point. I am not saying that it is absolutely necessary to have visited North Korea, or any other country, to understand the political situation, though that is obviously one way of deepening insight. What I am saying is that you have to have acquired some depth of knowledge and understanding based on serious inquiry, and by this I mean reading and research. Your initial statement is so far from the truth that the only insight it provides is into your complete lack of any meaningful comprehension. You are now, in qualifying your statement, tying yourself up in contradiction: how can North Korea use a specific fear for propaganda purposes which, by your contention, it can't possibly think of as a possibility in the first place? Venezuela is not part of the Axis of Evil; Korea is. Chavez may not be mindful of the fate of Saddam Hussein; but it is a fairly safe bet that Kim Jong Il is only too well aware. I have no idea if even George Bush is mad enough to invade North Korea; but it would be a foolish leadership that discounted such a possibility. I have now said all I intend to on this subject; so if you wish to continue in your belief that North Korea has no real fear of American military action, and that Chinese troops are massing north of the Yalu River, then you may do so free of contradiction. Clio the Muse 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your total lack of comprehension is evident. The propaganda can be used because the people of NK have absolutely no idea what the true military situation is, they only know what the NK gov cares to tell it. If they tell the citizens the US is poised to attack, the people may very well believe it. But, as I've said before, and you apparently are incapable of comprehending, what the people think in a dictatorship simply doesn't matter, regarding it's foreign policy. The leadership of NK is fully aware of the impossibility of a US invasion, due to a lack of available troops, lack of political will to do so, the presence of NK's nuclear weapons as well as massive conventional forces, the threat to SK and Japan, etc. And your allegedly having traveled to NK in no way whatsoever helps you to increase your comprehension of the motives of the leadership, unless your next claim is that you've spent several weeks in deep conversation with Kim Jong Il. On the contrary, people who visit NK are likely to be even less capable of understanding the motives of the leadership, especially feeble-minded individuals who will believe the government propaganda. StuRat 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comprehension, comprehending, comprehension-very good! Could you maybe manage just one more, purely for the sake of balance? Let me see: what about comprehending? Clio the Muse 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here I thought you had promised us you would stop talking, and then you come back with a brilliant piece of unassailable logic like that which so completely proves your case. StuRat 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, being neither Korean, nor having the most intimate of understanding of Korean culture, I would seem to be disqualified from making any comment whatsoever as to the nightmare of a nuclear North Korea. Fair enough. But there are two sides of this coin. As a Jew, and therefore being as intimately familiar as is humanly possible with the Jewish State and its political relations within the Middle East, I suppose it goes without saying that the above poster will graciously defer to my authority on all things regarding at the very least, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, as well as the larger Jewish-Muslim conflict.

In fact, just tonight, a news report finally mentioned the fact that Israel is indeed training for and planning a surgical strike to finally whipe out Iran's nuclear ambitions. I'd welcome anyone intimately familiar with Zionism and the Jewish State to comment on these reports. I'd love to get as many perspectives as possible on this. Unfortunately, though, unless you're as intimately familiar with Zionism and possess an in-depth understanding of the Jewish State of Israel as I do, I'm afraid your comments will display only ignorance and a complete lack of insight. Any sweeping assertions by non-Jews and non-Arabs/Muslims are therefore unwelcome as being based on sheer ignorance. Loomis 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

\:::More specifically: Korean War. Carcharoth 09:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that rather than asking randoms on the internet, as a starting point you could consider reading some of the works of Bruce Cumings. I find his political views intensely annoying (and I certainly wouldn't be recommending his implied solutions), but he has done a great deal of research in the area and does a thorough job debunking some of the nonsense regularly written about North Korea. --Robert Merkel 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a Mexican standoff. The US can't do anything other than bluster and NK can't seriously threaten the US. China doesn't want to upset the status quo; it wouldn't look too kindly on any disruption of trade with its biggest(?) export market. It only becomes interesting when Kim Jong-Il gets old or starts to lose control of the government. Up until then, it's not in the self-interest of the "Dear Leader" to do anything drastic. When he's got nothing to lose, who knows what he might do. Clarityfiend 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea is China's biggest export market? That sounds unbelievable... How would NK pay back China? 惑乱 分からん 13:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this source, the top five export markets for China are: US 21.4%, Hong Kong 16.3%, Japan 11%, South Korea 4.6%, Germany 4.3%: . They might very well ship the most grain, etc. to NK, but aren't paid for it, so it's just charity, not classified as an export. StuRat 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about China slapping North Korea down if it disrupted Sino-American trade. Clarityfiend 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

christ on a bike

Hi does anybody have any clue to the origins of the phrase "christ on a bike", beyond it being provocatively profane. I am especially interested in literary or theological origins.

Sounds more like one of those attention drawing names Catch phrase or slogans associated with one or more bike crusaders who hold services and preach and maybe even render spiritual or even physical help to other bikers in the name of Jesus Christ. Barringa 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably derivative of "Christ on a crutch", where crutch is an old word for cross. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

'E gets around a bit that christ bloke, I've heard of him on a bike, a cross, a crutch, a raft and fire engine! Earliest cites: 'bike' 1972, 'crutch' 1941, 'raft' Joseph Moncure March, The Set-Up 1928 and specifically as a profanity 'cross' 1956. Goodness knows where the fire engine came from but it is out there on the internut. My guess for the bike is that they have a cross-bar and some people probably think riding one is like being crucified. 'Strewh meltBanana 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard "on a pogo stick" circa 1976. Edison 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Song Lyrics - brighter day, I'm looking for a brighter day

This section was moved to the Entertainment desk .

January 7

Rich and poor in greek theater

I have searched on the internet and in the library in several books but am unable to find details on how greek theater was different for the rich and poor. Any help, even just links would help.

According to one web page the tyrant Pisistratus granted certain groups of people free admission (and some of the best seats in the house) to Athens' yearly City Dionysia festival. So apparently most people had to pay for admission, which would have made an immediate difference. Further, this web page tells us that priests and other dignitaries had a row of specially designed reserved seats. In our own article Theatre of ancient Greece we find that these were the first stone seats, rather than just sitting on the ground.  --Lambiam 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

East Indians (ethnic group)

This article is a bit confusing to me. My understanding is that this is not a very common usage compared to North American and possibly other usage which define East Indians as people who are from India as opposed to West Indians from the Carribean or Indians, which can mean either the indigenous peoples of central North America (or I suppose anyplace in the Americas except for the Arctic) OR people from India. Plus it does not have much in the way of references. Comments? Suggestions?--Filll 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article name is fine. If you search for "East Indians", you get a disambiguation page listing the sense of the term "East Indian" more commonly used outside of India. This is as it should be. The link to the disambiguation page also appears at the top of the article that you cite. This ethnic group is apparently known as "East Indians" within India, so there seems to be no other appropriate name for the article. Marco polo 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical Question: Love and the Heart

You might be interested in this question asked on the Science Desk. Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Love_and_P_A_I_N. --Judged 04:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The name “Ishmael”

In modern times is the first name “Ishmael” a Muslim name? I always thought it was, but in the film Fanny and Alexander there is a Jewish character named Ismael. In real life, however, I have never met any Jews named Ishmael or Ismael. Also in the novel Moby Dick was the narrator Ishmael supposed to be from a Muslim background? Thanks for any clarification.--Citefixer1965 05:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not a "Muslim" name per se - but you might expect that Muslims would use it. For Jews and Christians, the focus is on Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Islam, the focus is more on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob. Muslims believe that Ishmael was born to Hagar, who was married to Abraham. Christians (I'm not really sure about Jews on this part) believe that Ishmael was born to Hagar in a human attempt to bring about the fulfilment of God's earlier promise to Abraham, and that Abraham was not married to Hagar at all. There is more detail in the article Ishmael. BenC7 06:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ishmael is not commonly given as a name to Jewish boys, but it is a good Hebrew name, and for an example of a Jew called Ishmael see Ishmael ben Elisha. As far as I know, there is no reason to think that the fictitious character Ishmael has a Muslim background, any more than that Abraham Lincoln has a Jewish background.  --Lambiam 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much; that answers my question. --Citefixer1965 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Arabic form of the name is Isma`il. AnonMoos 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there was a typo in Moby Dick. In fact the first line was supposed to read "Call me fishmeal" :p DDB 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the writing of Moby Dick, Biblical names were very popular. Ishmael is a Biblical name, just one of many given to Protestant New Englanders. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible says of Ishmael, "He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." Because of this negative reference, the name has not been traditionally used by those (for example, Jews and Christians) for whom the Hebrew Bible is holy scripture. Ishmael in the Qur'an "is a highly regarded person," which is why the name is common among Muslims. I personally wouldn't believe the claim that Protestant New Englanders, etc., used the name, without further evidence. (I don't think they named their kids "Cain" either.) I'd guess that virtually all persons with the name Ishmael were named by (A) Muslims or (B) Moby-Dick fans. Wareh 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wet finger in air to indicate wind?

Why is it in movies, and I think in real life too, that people make their finger a little wet with their mouth and then stick the finger into the air, to see from where the wind blows? How does that work? Feeling a little colder on the side of the finger the wind blows on? Gettin dry on the side where the wind blows on before the other side? And especially, why would people do that, to me it seems you could just stick your face in the wind and have a much greater surface to feel the wind on, and to better judge the wind therefore. -- Aetherfukz 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, both ways work (try them), but raising a wet finger (one side feels colder) is quicker, because you can sense all directions at once without turning around. --Anonymous, January 07, '07, 10:32 (UTC).

I would also note that it is a signal to the person you ask that you are checking (if you just told them without doing anything they would wonder how you knew and not them, potentially). A common thing to do is to pick up a bit of grass and dropping to see which way it blows in the wind. ny156uk 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Evaporation of water from the windward side of the wet finger causes a much stronger cooling than mere exposure of dry skin to the wind would. Also, the finger is more or less round, and therefore about equally sensitive to wind from all directions, whereas the your head probably has hair on the back, which makes it much less sensitive to wind from that direction. But yes, if you are bald and have a tub handy to wet your whole head with, that would indeed be more sensitive... I prefer ny156uk's grass method myself. (By the way, this question would be suited for the science reference desk.) --mglg_(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Man whose wife is dead

Dear Friend, What is a man whose wife is dead known as? (like woman whose husband has expired is known as widow) Thank you, Best regards, Bijal

The word is 'widower'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This would have been an excellent question for the Language ref Desk. StuRat 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A Person with Great Intelligence - Adolf Hitler & Napoleon Bonaparte

Does the Ability of a Person to Manipulate others = A Person with Great Intelligence? --Foundby 14:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Naaah, that's social competence. --User:Wakuran 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And what might social competence be? --Foundby 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would call that guile. Also note that there are different definitions and ideas about the word "intellect" Chickenflicker---♣ 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guile makes no sense at all. There should be an Article descibing what Social Competence Entails. Or did you guys just make it up Social Competence, never heard of it. --Foundby 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You would agree that manipulating someone is tricking someone into doing something - being deceptive, being duplicitous, right? Thus, while guile means "insidious cunning in attaining a goal; crafty or artful deception; duplicity" , a manipulative person would need to be guileful. Chickenflicker---♣ 16:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't social competence used in English? As far as I have understood, it's just a common catchphrase for vaguely perceived as "people skills". It was a joke... =S 惑乱 分からん 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and why are we on the word Guile? When we are talkking about human intelligence? --Foundby 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Then that would make the person manipulated, stupid, retarded, unintelligent, a person who is not very bright, and without much intelligence? --Foundby 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's not nice, but people who let themselves be manipulated will often be described in those words. Skarioffszky 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Emotional intelligence is "the ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups" (emphasis added). Skarioffszky 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So if you have high Emotional intelligence you can control the world? --Foundby 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A person of high intelligence will know well that manipulating others will generate bad karma. Vranak 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And this Karma article redirects me to a spiritual article. I am an Athiest. --Foundby 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that article is very useful or even accurate. Karma's the type of thing that cannot be taught... and once you do know it well, you can forget the about the concept entirely. Vranak

Say this person has no Karma but high Emotional intelligence, then he would be able to control the whole world? And rule the whole world? --Foundby 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Consider two people with extremely high emotional intelligence and very little karma/scruples: Napoleon and Hitler. It's impossible to manipulate everybody at the same time, no matter how good you are at it. Clarityfiend 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I remember now before the war how Adolf Hitler started building up military, and by breaking that treaty, by manupilating England & France, saying its all for peace. Then he took over the Austria I believe, and told England & France that Austria wanted to be invaded. He conviced Englands Prime Minister so much that the war started too late. Then when he invaded Poland, England was not fooled this time. So Hitler signed a treaty with Russia by Deciet (he broke it later). Then he tried invadeding the whole Europe. And then he died. The End. --Foundby 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The ability to get others to do what you want is power, not intelligence, at least according to Bertrand Russell, who seems as good as any expert to consult on this. --24.147.86.187 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time." --The Dark Side 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but couldn't Hitler just send some diplomats after the war was declared, and make Britain and France call it off by a signing a treaty with them? (see I am smarter than Hitler lol) --Foundby 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of "smart?" Some Nazi leaders were thought to have high IQs, but they were dumb enough to blindly follow a paranoid leader into a war that nearly destroyed their country. Hitler may have been charismatic and succesfully manipulative, but that doesn't mean he was intelligent. It's clear his views on race were completely wrong from a scientific point of view, not just a moral one. I mean, this was someone who (assuming Nazi propaganda reflected his views) not only believed blacks (and Jews) were inferior intellectually but believed they were inferior athletes! Doesn't sound too smart to me. -- Mwalcoff 03:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff There is a difference between IQ and Emotional Intellegince. So even though they may have had high IQ, they must be defficient in Emotional Intelligence. --Foundby 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Define further: Coincidences verses fact

When is a number of coincidences consider then a fact? In other words, how many coincidences does it take on the same item or same subject before the consensus is toward it being an actual fact and not longer a mere "coincidence"? --Doug 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When you can identify something that is causing the coincidence to happen and prove it in a stable environment (kinda like an experiment) it would potentially change. A co-incindence could well already be a fact you aren't aware of (e.g. it might seem a coincidence that it is always colder in the countryside, but in reality inner city heat causes cities generally to be a little warmer than the countryside) though. ny156uk 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If, by a mere coincidence, you happen to have some intuition, you'll find it is a mere fact where others still think of a coincidence. -- DLL 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cf. epistemology --OliverH 18:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent answers. I especially like this of "opistemology". This is a new term to me. Will have to study this further since it is very deep material. I do believe this is what I am refereing to. Also like that of the "experiment", because I believe this to be true then. Also of this of temperature: Through the last 30 + years I have noticed a general overall trend of "global warming". Perhaps a year or 2 of extra high temperatures may be just a mere coincidence, however overall it has been accuring at least the last 30 years. Perhaps this may lean towards that of a fact then since it has happened so many times over a long period of time? What do you think? --Doug 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your question is a main subject of the science of mathematical statistics. The question is not about epistemology, which discusses which questions can or cannot be answered in principle, but about statistics, which determines quantitative rules for whether, and with what certainty, an answer is supported by the observations at hand. Importand concepts include confidence interval and p-value. Basically, no statement about the real world is an absolute fact, but some things have negligible probability of being false. The direct answer to your question is that it depends on how unlikely each of the coincidences would be if your proposed "fact" (hypothesis) were false, and on how many such hypothesis tests are being done in parallel. If you are interested in the general question of coincidences vs facts, I suggest you ask it on the mathematics reference desk. If you are curious about the observational certainty of recent global warming in particular, you may want to ask questions on Talk:Instrumental_temperature_record. --mglg_(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at how statisticians deal with determining whether a collection of facts has real meaning or not. Our articles on correlation and chi-square test might be of some value to you. Generally speaking though, what separates out superficial from more rigorous conclusions is a combination of methodology, repeated measurement, and large data sets. One person's informal observations over the last 30 years would not be a terribly rigorous data set — however if you took standardized readings of temperatures over time you could potentially make certain claims about them (though your claims are often limited by your data set — measurement of yearly temperatures in your local area would not tell you about the entire world, for example). --24.147.86.187 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this last answer makes the important point that whether a number of things occurring simultaneously are related or not, each of them is still a fact. A fact does not cease being a fact just because it happened coincidentally with something else. That the 2 things are related, may be an additional fact. JackofOz 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What events led to South African independence?

What were some events (wars, protests, meetings, etc) that led to the independence of South Africa? NIRVANA2764 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer depends on what you mean by independence. If you mean the achievement of statehood and self-rule, then read about the historical roots of the Union of South Africa and follow the links from that article. If you mean the achievement of full sovereignty, which came with independence from the British government, then you should read the articles on Statute of Westminster 1931 and Dominion and follow the links. If you mean the severing of all ties with the United Kingdom, you might look at South African referendum, 1960 and follow the links. If you mean the achievement by South Africa's black majority of self-determination, then read History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Marco polo 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You pretty much just pwn3d my World Cultures teacher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NIRVANA2764 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Saudi Arabia

Is it Illegal to not be a Muslim in Saudi? If it is what punishments can be received for practicing your faith. If its not, are things forbidden to Muslims, such as Alcohol and Pork banned for non-Muslims too? Ken 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The main point of reference here, Ken, is Islam in Saudi Arabia. Strictly speaking it isn't illegal to be a non-Muslim, and there is an ancient Jewish community, as well as significant numbers of Hindus and Christians, concentrated chiefly among the migrant workers in the Kingdom. However, with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the practice of other religions has become increasingly difficult, and public worship of Christianity is now effectively illegal. For this see Roman Catholicism in Saudi Arabia. I cannot really comment on the consumption of items like alcohol and pork by non Muslims, but I believe that the wealthier expats, who live more or less in isolation from the rest of the community anyway, may have access to some illegal goods. Clio the Muse 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is not an "ancient Jewish community" in Saudi Arabia (there was one before Muhammad, but it has not existed for over a thousand years) -- and for many years the Saudi authorities explicitly prohibited Jews from entering or working in Saudi Arabia (see Horace Phillips (diplomat) etc. etc.). AnonMoos 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, Anon. Judaism is basically verboten in Saudi Arabia. There exists no "ancient Jewish community". Without an in-depth understanding of the subject of Judaism in Muslim countries, I'd suggest that the original responder refrain from making such ignorant statements concerning areas for which s/he is clearly uninformed. Loomis 05:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon is ever-so-slightly incorrect. The Saudi authorities do not prohibit all Jews from entering Saudi Arabia and, in some areas, they are allowed to work (Jewish workers for foreign countries/companies in Saudi Arabia). For example, the U.S. press tried to make a big deal out of the American Jewish Committee visiting King Fahd. But, they were not the first ones to visit there and meet with the royals. As for workers, there are many oil companies working in Saudi Arabia that hire Jewish employees and the U.S. has Jewish military that have been stationed in Saudi Arabia. Of course, all of those are non-Israeli Jewish people. I would not be surprised if they are extremely strict against Israeli Jews entering the country. --Kainaw 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't now forbid all Jews from entering now, but in the 1960's they did. AnonMoos 07:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true. As for Christianity, during the lead-up to the Gulf War, during Christmas of 1991, Christian soldiers from the various coalition countries stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect that country from a seemingly imminent Iraqi attack (Iraqi forces were mobilized along the Iraq/Saudi border) were under strict orders from their superiours to make sure that they do not celebrate Christmas in any public way, lest they offend their Saudi "hosts". Loomis 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi badges

Good day

I have been given 2 pieces from my mother from WW2. One looks like a Weibliche Jugend female Rad badge with no inscriptions on it at all. The other made of bronze has a piece approx 1cm width by 2cm length black, red yellow flag and in the centre is what looks like a compass and something else I cannot discribe, I think it is a hammer. The piece attached to it is aprox 2cm by 2cm and incaves at each side as it is a square piece with a circle in the centre with the hammer and compass and wheat either side of it. Around this is KOLEKTIV DER ARBEIT SOZIALISTISCHEN. On the back is enssribed " SOZIALISTISCH ARBEITEN LERNEN UND LEBEN". Still in original plastic box. Please let me know if anyone has a clue where this came from. I think my Grandmother may have been part of the Rad National labor service in a Third reich depot her surname was Martins. The first piece I talk about looks exactly like the gold female Rad badge but it must be alluninium. Thank you and have a great New year.

Karen Bronkhorst South Africa

Hello, Karen. Actually it looks to me as if these badges might be Communist rather than Nazi, perhaps from the German Democratic Republic or even the pre-Nazi KPD. I am almost certain that a Nazi badge would mention the Nation as well as Socialist Labour, rather than have labour isolated in this 'red' sense. Oh, yes, there is one other thing: the compass and the hammer are indeed the symbols of the old Communist East Germany, and you will find them on the red, black and yellow flag, together with the wheat sheaf. So, if it's any consolation to you, your grandmother seems to have been involved in Communist rather than Nazi youth organizations. Es lebe unsere DDR! Clio the Muse 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

See illustration at Commietravel. They may be able to help you date the item. --05:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's easier than that. shows these particlar medals and slogans. --jpgordon 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre and post 9/11 America

for some reason lately i have been intensely researching late 90's and early 2000's culture, and since i was a little too young at the time to really 'feel' what the time period was like, i wanted to know how huge (or not) the shift in American and global culture was after 9/11. It seems that the decade was heading in a different direction up until that point, with late 90's more dressed-down futuristic fashions and a more electronic-influenced feel to popular music. I have read specific points of view saying that America had to rethink the direction it was going, and the progressive fashions were replaced by fashions of the past, which exists even today. Also, music seems to have had the same transformation, with many styles from previous eras coming back. Is this a result of the fact that we aren't specifically in a decade with a name, or have we run out of ideas, or like i said previously, a result of 9/11 and possibly the collapse of the "new economy"? --Technofreak90 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective as an Irish person, America has definitely changed since 9/11, I think it has more to do with the changer over from Clinton to Bush however. I don't think Americans realise how much better of a leader Clinton was in regard to keaping a positive image of the U.S.. Bush (aided by 9/11) has brought out a much more conservative America which has sort of isolated the US from other world cultures. I'm not trying to be critical of the Bush administration, just telling things as I see it. Ken 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that 9/11 was not a major change for the direction of the U.S. - except for allowing it to finally finish Desert Storm a good 10 years after it began. The collapse of the stock market and the fallout of related corporate crime afterward is the big change. Before 9/11, anyone who suggested that the stock market was unreasonably inflated would be laughed at. Middle class people thought they had it made. Throw money into any stock and you profit. Shortly after 9/11, the stock market collapsed. Not the whole thing - primarily the highly profitable tech and med stocks. Middle class people who thought they were going to retire and live on a private island in the keys were suddenly stuck with being middle class again. Then, one executive after another was investigated for making illegal stock trades or illegally inflating their stocks. The rich got richer off the collapse while the middle class got much poorer. Things went back to the way they were before the 90s. This is, of course, not unique. Look at the "roaring" 20s and the following depression. I'm sure it will happen again in 30-50 years. --Kainaw 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Even both of those things weren't related to 9/11 - the Dot-com bubble burst before 9/11. Rmhermen 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is unencyclopedic and completely subjective, but here goes: I am in my 40s and was an adult during the 1980s and 1990s. I saw a big shift in popular sentiment and culture in the United States after 9/11. The biggest changes that I perceive are increases in fearfulness and cynicism. Fearfulness of terrorism was in my opinion fanned by the Bush administration (for example, through the Homeland Security Advisory System). The public's fear was used by the Bush administration to muster support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as Kainaw suggests. Repeatedly, however, Bush and his team made claims that turned out not to be true, such as the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This, together with revelations of rampant corporate fraud, led to widespread public cynicism and distrust of claims by people in power. From a cultural point of view, I think that these events have led to a loss of national self-confidence among Americans (despite the almost desperate flag waving) and a loss of confidence in the future. This may explain the popularity of "retro" cultural styles, which offer nostalgic reminders of seemingly more innocent, secure, or hopeful times. Marco polo 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was watching West Wing on 9/11 and recall attitudinal changes that have largely been ignored by the popular press. Generally, voters were disgusted at the sleazy Clinton administration that hamfistedly broke peace accord in the Middle East as Clinton tried to score a foreign goal. During the storm that followed, Democrat leaders lay low, and, not actually having any congress responsibilities, began promising much which they will never have to address. Spin doctors used to say that sexuality had nothing to do with administration. Now, spin doctors want to ignore worthy achievements made in times of adversity. imho. DDB 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Power: A New Social Analysis

I am looking for the complete book online of Power: A New Social Analysis. Since it was released in 1938 it is free domain now. Where can I find the complete book. (I am a bad google searcher). Much Appreciated. thnx. --Foundby 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not public domain. Copyright extends to either 50 or 75 years (depending on jurisdiction) after the author's death, and Bertrand Russell only died in 1970. --Nicknack009 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find the pirated version, you know the ebook for free? --Foundby 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

January 8

China and the G8

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I don´t understand why China is not a full and regular member of the G8 (or its coming adhesion to the group not being announced in the press). According to GDP figures it is 4th (nominal) or 2nd (PPP) in the world, so why is it still excluded? (btw: The G8 wikiarticle doesn´t seem to directly address the issue of Chinese membership). Thanks for info. as I don´t understand the reasoning here. --AlexSuricata 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex, it is not just the relative size of the economies that is important here, but political processes as well. Members are expected to be democracies, which would obviously preclude China. This site will give you some more detail Clio the Muse 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the G8 members have a floating currency, while China does not. StuRat 07:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything to with the fact that it is (rediculously) a developing country?martianlostinspace 11:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category Lacking: Jewelry Design

I am working on several projects about great jewelry designers ranging from Celinni, Castelani, Lalique, Tiffany, Boucheron, Belperon Jensen and Andreasen.

You have no category for Jewelry Designers under the main category of Design. To whom can I address this problem?

thanks, Archie Martin 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Jewellery designers - note the spelling and lowercase. Stevage 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Benvenuto Cellini, René Lalique, Louis Comfort Tiffany, Georg Jensen: also Bulgari, Van Cleef & Arpels, Harry Winston: their careers as jewelry designers are under-represented at Misplaced Pages, it's true. --Wetman 06:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Political terms

I was looking for a place to categorise Sexennio (and somewhere to redirect Quinquennat to) and can't seem to find any very relevant pages or categories. We must have an article about the normal lengths of political terms? There's term limit (and List of political term limits) but that describes how many subsequent terms one person can have, not how long those terms last. And political term, term of office, term (politics) are all red links. Am I thinking about this the wrong way perhaps? Thanks in advance. Stevage 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the definition given at sexenio, it is a term limit and should be so categorized. (I've gone ahead and added a link at List_of_political_term_limits#Mexico.) The definition at term limit ("a legal restriction that limits the number of terms") clearly includes a restriction to one term, and that article goes on to cite the ancient Roman "law... imposing a limit of a single term on the office of Censor" as an example of a term limit. Wareh 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading fiction - is there any point to it?

Apart from escapism and relaxation, what good does it do anyone to read fiction/novels? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.24.62 (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Fiction can make you think, it can give you a new look at certain things, and it can also teach you a lot of things. Science fiction can be quite an inspiration. — Kieff 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Escapism and relaxation both may be regarded independently as sufficient reasons to read fiction. And to expand on Kieff, fiction does make you think, and reading, as an activity, can keep your mind sharp and broaden your vocabulary, both of which contribute to an improved ability to communicate and express yourself. And really, that's just for starters. Wolfgangus 04:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My philosophy is that real life is for real life, and gross unrealism is for fiction. If outlandish and absurd situations didn't exist in fiction, then they would not exist at all. Moreover, I think that most of the people who have read, say, The Lord of the Rings would not hesitate to tell you that the experience of doing so improved them somehow. Vranak

It helps you empathise. Try reading, say The Chrysalids without gaining new insights into disfigurement. Or any novel where you are invited to see the world through the eyes of someone markedly different from yourself, in terms of age, sex, class etc. People who can't empathise are psychopaths, but there is a continuum of how much one is able to truly empathise. Moving along that line makes you a better human being. --Dweller 11:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Character traits that you can apply to your own life can be found in fiction. Pictures of bravery, courage, valour, integrity, leadership, perserverance etc. can be gleaned from fiction. That they are in fictional stories does not necessarily mean that nothing can be gotten from it. Sometimes important concepts can be conveyed and remembered better in a fictional story rather than simply telling the reader straight out. The Pilgrim's Progress and Chronicles of Narnia spring to mind. BenC7 11:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no point to doing anything, if you have to ask. Instead of fiction you might read Roman history or perfect your figure-skating skills. If you have to ask "what's the point of going to church?" the experience is not doing you any good. Why not leave fiction alone and learn to speak a new language? Or to bake a cheese soufflé? --Wetman 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Request information on 'Psychological Distress'

Please help me glean / collect information on "Psychological Distress" from a seriously academic point of view 06:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Dr. Pant

"Psychological distress" is seriously vague topic, not defined well enough to treat "seriously". It can range from realizing that one has missed a train stop to paranoid schizophrenia to existential angst. I don't think we can help you further. alteripse 12:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the topic is too vague. Distress is merely stress caused by adverse events. As our article on stress points out, stress has a physiological dimension that is eminently suitable for scientific study. Unfortunately, the sources cited by our article have more to do with avoiding stress than describing it. However, this article, from the website for a university course, provides a useful introduction to the topic, with some additional references listed at the end. Marco polo 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Population Vs. Ethnicity

I have been searching the census pages and encyclopedias trying to find an average statistic for my question and cannot find an answer. Here is my question: Q.What is the total population of "americans" in the world in realtion to the total population of caucasians in the world? Any help eould be appreciated Michi Yamano —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

From the perspective of a European, you've managed to choose two of the most ambiguous descriptors of human groups you possibly could. Over here, Caucasian usually refers to people living in the Caucasus, but I believe in the U.S. it's typically used as a synonym for white people. On top of that, it appears it also refers to people who speak one of the languages of the Caucasus, but don't necessarily live in the region. Progressing to "American", do you mean "people of the Americas", or of North America, or of the United States? Do you want the number of people that live in those regions, or have citizenship of a country in them? I'm not being disingenuous, I really don't have any idea which combination you're after.GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 12:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Try this: What is the total number of "white americans" in the world in relation to the total number of "white-skinned" people in the world (to include that of european, australian, and every other "white-skinned" person? The question is derived from my job where I am to ask a citizenship question and an every day response I get is "well, I'm white" where I would like to be able to say "well Jean Claude is white too, but he's from France and is not a citizen" but I can't say that so I would like some kind of statistic I could use. Thanks for any help!

I don't believe that you cannot find any statistics on that. Being "white" is too vague, as being a member of any other so called race. Me for example, I am from Eastern Europe, but I do not consider my self as being "white", while I know people having darker coloured skin, who define themselves as "white". I don't believe that there possibly be a global statistics on the matter, because diffrent people consider bieng "white" a diffrent variation of the skin colour. I mean that all possible statistics such as the one you are looking for cannot be objective or/and will be ethnocentric.--82.146.27.71 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We do have stats on whites in the US: . The population of 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) can be multiplied by the 81.7% figure for the white percentage of the total population (note that this includes Hispanics) to get a white population around 244 million. The global population of "white people", including Hispanics, is a bit harder to estimate. It would include most people in Europe, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, and a few people in other countries. I'd guesstimate it at a bit under 2 billion people. So, we get a percentage around maybe 12.5% or 1 in 8. This is a "back of the envelope" calculation, though, so could be off by as much as a factor of 2, depending on your assumptions, methods of measurement, etc. StuRat 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Human population seems to be estimated at 6.5 billion. The math doesn't add up... 惑乱 分からん 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Snopes estimated the white population at roughly 27%\, which puts the total at 1,775,000,000, although they accept that the question is vague. Laïka 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it you meant to add another 3 zeroes to the total number of "whites" in the world. That site estimates about 30% of the world is "white", so, when multiplied by the above 6.5 billion estimate for total world pop, this gives us 1.95 billion, or a little less than 2 billion, just as I'd said. StuRat 18:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, Thanks! The 30% figure at the top of the page is from a viral email; they calculate further down the page that 30% is slightly high. Laïka 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tudor Rose

I am a primary school teacher and a nine year old girl in my class has asked why the Tudor Rose is sometimes depicted as being red on the outside, white on the inside and sometimes depicted as being white on the outside and red on the inside. I do not know the answer, nor do I know which is correct. Can you help us? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.51.13 (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Hey there - according to our article on Tudor rose:

"In so doing he created the Tudor rose, conjoining the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. In heraldry, the rose is depicted as white on red if placed on a field of a metal (gold or silver), or red on white if placed on a field of a colour, due to the rule of tincture." --Mnemeson 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

San Miguelino de los Mercados

what is the s San Miguelino de los Mercados? --Scarlett Kiteway 12:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the context? --Wetman 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Boccacio's "Concerning the Falls of Illustrious Men"

In The Monk's Prologue and Tale lists the 17 seventeen short stories on the theme of tragedy based on Giovanni Boccaccio's Concerning the Falls of Illustrious Men. Is Boccaccio's list identically the same list (but just in Latin) or is it a shorter list? Which are on Boccaccio's list then if it is shorter? --Doug 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Chaucer's work was not a translation he just pynched the idea. John Lydgate's Fall of Princes is closer to Boccaccio's work but Lydgate loosely translated Laurent de Premierfait who had in turn loosely translated Boccaccio. I haven't found much detail on Boccaccio's Illustrious Men online but there is a dead tree version in english, translated and abridged by Louis Brewer Hall. New York, 1965. From stray references I think Darius and Mark Antony are in Boccaccio but not Chaucer. meltBanana 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion/Suz Andreasen

Hi - I apologize if I am not in the right area to ask this question. I am Phd student at Bard who is attempting to write and edit a number of articles on well known jewellery and functional art designers from 1800 - present. I began by writing an article on the notable designer Suz Andreasen and have been getting conflicting signals from the editors. I think now I am getting somewhere but the current revision got nominated for deletion however there is a discussion going on which is good. I am trying to get folks in the arts of humanities to take a look at it in relation to the current listings you have in the Jewellery Designers Section which is where this candidate should be located. Can anyone help direct me? Thanks, Archie Martin Archiemartin 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 17:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi

I wish to find out more about Jewish people who survived WWII, while remaining in Germany or Poland, I already know about Shoah and the two men who escaped from Chelmno Camp. But any others would be greatly appreciated.81.144.161.223 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The film The Pianist is (in my view) one of the most amazing WWII survival films. This is about a young pianist struggling to survive in Poland during occupation. Anne Frank's diary is probably the most famous from the war period and is more than worthy of a read. There is a category called Category:Holocaust literature which would maybe be a good area to start. There is also a tv-series (I forget the name) that if I recall is set in a German village/town and shows how german families survived throughout the war (it is supposed to be excellent but I have never tracked any of it down on tv/online). ny156uk 17:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Solomon Perel. His story was made into the movie Europa, Europa. BTW, Anne Frank did not survive the War. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (Very good point, sorry forgot about that!!) NY15UK

I see we also have a List of Holocaust survivors. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the people on the above list are, of course, Jewish. But there are a number of very good accounts, both by Jews and Gentiles, of the struggle for survival. I would specifically recommend the work of Primo Levi, If This is a Man, Elie Wiesal's The Night and Wieslaw Kielar's Anus Mundi: Five Years in Auschwitz But in my estimation arguably the most stunning treatment of all are the stories of Tadeusz Borowski, This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen. Casting the net still wider, you might also be interested The Last of the Just, a literary tour de force by Andre Schwarz-Bart, though the subject is courage, rather than survival. There is also Jiři Weil's, Life with a Star, set in the then Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, rather than Poland or Germany. Clio the Muse 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another worthwhile work is Still Alive by Ruth Kluger. Carom 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend Maus, a graphic novel in which the Jews are portrayed as mice and the Germans as cats, written by the son of a concentration camp survivor. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rap sheet

What does the "rap" in rap sheet mean?4.244.195.135 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The basic meaning "blow" (e.g. "a rap on the knuckles") has developed into the sense "rebuke; adverse criticism." The OED's first citation in this sense is 1777 ("The post master general..has lately had a rap, which I hope will have a good effect"), and here the connection to "blow" is still felt (approximately, "someone slapped the postmaster with some good criticism"). Within this sense, we get the more specific meaning "criminal accusation"; here the OED's first citation is 1903 ("What makes you look so glum?"... "Turned out of police court this morning."... "What was the rap, Mike?"). A "rap sheet" is a catalog of criminal charges. Wareh 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Poem

I remember reading some time ago a set of poems (or maybe it was a single epic poem) that depicted the story of human pre-history. It was not from a religious point of view. Does anyone have any idea what this poem might have been and who wrote it. Sorry I can’t remember more about this. S.dedalus 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not certain it's right, the Epic of Gilgamesh comes immediately to mind. Wolfgangus 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility might be the Edda, although it covers more than the time period you mentioned. Carom 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture Warrior

How best is the attitude of the west towards the Muslim community? Recently there were reports of Muslims being harassed at the airports...French tourists are treated with utmost care and respect in almost every middle-eastern country and Asia particularly. The small discrimation of an american overseas sparks huge outcries in the western soil that people take it to the extent of dragging the issue to the legal system in the US..

Why are there such drastic disparaties in treatments? 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)