The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Could anyone explain what Sartre is getting at when he says that man, "in choosing for himself he chooses for all men." I don't understand how it could be said that my choice is a dictum, so to speak; that what I do necessarily affirms the superiority or desirability of it. Am I taking him too literally? I can see how my choice might be a tacit distinction of its inherent superiority, but doesn't that seem a little arrogant? Doesn't what Sartre is saying make it impossible just to let other people alone in their freedom--why does my freedom have to impose anything on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.103.253 (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the same as John Donne's idea: No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – after saying the bell tolls for you if you think it does? Seeing it as a dictum is one point of view, another is the ripple effect; not necessarily a hierarchical thing – and contrarily, everyone is his/her own centre at the same time. They are choosing even while you are choosing and being chosen for. You could also say then, that people may be in their freedom (whatever that is), but not alone in it. Julia Rossi (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read it this way: If god exists, then by choosing something, he thereby grants it value. If god existed, and he was a communist, or married, then communism or marriage would be the best thing. That's where they derive their value. But, since god doesn't exist, the only value that a choice has derives from being chosen by me. I realize, then, my deep responsibility every time I choose, and that in choosing for myself, I'm imparting the only value a thing has. I'm thereby giving it value, not just for myself, but also for the thing (in the same way that god would be making the thing valuable, if he existed). Since I'm putting value in the thing, I should remember the effects that my choices and actions have on others, every time I choose.
That's my reading, anyway, and I would certainly also appreciate hearing others' thoughts on the matter. I asked a similar question once, but clio told me to go read Being and Nothingness. Hardly helpful. Llamabr (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the opposite - suppose we 'choose for others' - ie an attempt to define others - this belittles their freedom if we believe that the thing most in touch with a things destiny is the thing itself.
So with a sense of finality I could say that by choosing for ourselfs/choosing ourselfs we allow others to do the same - giving them the freedom to their own destiny.. No idea if this was what satre meant.87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sartre was certainly not trying to restrict the freedom on others to define themselves through their choices. I wouldn't read him as saying that when I choose, others better do as I do. Rather, we all feel this responsibility when choosing. So, it's not a freedom limiting philosophy, but rather one that challenges each of us to confront our total and complete freedom. Or, as I say, that's my reading. Llamabr (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it echoes Kants categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Obviously Sartre doesn't dig on the whole universal law deal, but "in choosing for all men" I believe he means the choices we make should be the kind of choices that we think would be right--under those circumstances--for anyone to make, and not to treat ourselves as exceptions. We must hold ourselves to the same standard that we hold others, and so the choices that we make should be the same choices we would hope others to make in our shoes. --Shaggorama (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zimbabwe
Why is Zimbabwe in such a media spotlight right now? I realize that there's all this hubbub over the election of Mugabe and such but it's not like this is the first thing to ever be controversial in Africa or Zimbabwe. Is there some key component that I'm just missing? Something that has just lit up the media the way something else in some other African country couldn't? Dismas|(talk)08:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The country has been heading downhill fast for probably near a decade now. The history has Mr. Mugabe, a Communist, performing recollectivizations. This involved taking land from many of the white farmers, mostly meeting them out to cronies in his own party (and even when not, giving it to people who couldn't work the land). This caused massive food shortages in a country that used to be at the front of Africa, literally starving thousands, and displaced millions. Inflation has quite literally hit numbers in the range of 10,000,000% per year. It was naturally quite unpopular.
To boot, Mr. Mugabe and his party was in power via strong armed tactics, including falsifying elections, beating up and killing opponents, arresting journalists who dissented, creating arbitrary laws, etc. The situation has been around for a while, but it has slowly gained momentum as more of the Western press has covered it.
The thing that's really brought this into the mainstream was a recent election, where Mr. Mugabe had the lack of wisdom to actually post the poll results from each voting location, convinced he would win. He didn't, and he lost so badly that even a runoff probably wasn't necessary, but the government fudged the figures a little until it was. The government has frequently arrested and beat up the opposition leader with no justification, and killed his followers.
In short, a) the abuse is in an election, which got the press's attention because it was a fraud which absolutely no one could deny, b) it's been going on for a while, and gained some momentum, and c) the abuse and poverty in the country has gotten considerably worse.
As for why this particular country is being noticed: in fact, it's being noticed much less than it would if it were in other parts of the world, by my analysis. However, Africa is changing, and it's not as easy to get away with obvious dictatorship as it used to be, especially when it so thoroughly destroys one of the best economies in the region. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree in part with your analysis, Spartan. Certainly Mugabe is an absolutely terrible leader, but that is not why Zimbabwe is so prominently in the news. Compare for example the case of Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt; virtually all the criticisms of Mugabe apply to Mubarak - economic mismanagement, corruption, strong armed tactics, throwing political opponents in jail, arbitrary laws etc. Yet when Mubarak staged fake elections a few years back and jailed Ayman Nour for having the audacity to run against him, the outrage in the West was not at all comparable to what we see now (even though, in general, the Western press is far more interested in the Middle East than in sub-saharan Africa). The reason is that Mubarak is our ally, while Mugabe attempts to defy Western influence. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two other reasons for the prominence of Zimbabwe in the news are that 1) the country started out in such a promising direction when it gained majority rule in 1980, and 2) Zimbabwe was something of a model for South Africa when South Africa achieved majority rule under the ANC in 1994, and Zimbabwe's ruler, Mugabe, still seems to enjoy the support of South Africa's ruler, Mbeki. When Zimbabwe achieved majority rule, its ruling party adopted a policy of racial reconciliation and tolerance for the white minority and, to some extent, for the political opposition. Zimbabwe's economy was thriving, and it seemed to be a beacon of hope for the rest of Africa, particularly South Africa. However, as the years have gone by, the ruling party has abandoned this tolerance, ruined the country's economy, and become increasingly ruthless in its efforts to monopolize power. The country is in the news because of its horrific and tragic fall from grace. Few other countries have gone so quickly from being a shining model to being an utter hellhole. To a lesser extent, the country may be in the news because it was a model for South Africa, which seems to have followed in its footsteps. Also, its troubles are spilling over into South Africa because so many Zimbabweans have become refugees in South Africa, and the growth in their numbers helped to spark the recent riots there. Furthermore, South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for Zimbabwe's Mugabe is an ominous sign for the future of South Africa, the latest beacon of hope for the continent. Marco polo (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@194.171.56.13: while the "ally" factor certainly plays a large part, one must not forget that Mubarek might have cheated, but the level of the crime was significantly less. The economic downturn in Zimbabwe has been spectacular, while anything in Egypt cannot even compare. And, of course, Mubarek has mostly refrained from killing his opponents, at least that we know of. I think you will fine newspapers worldwide will mostly agree with this analysis: even the newspapers in SA are harshly critical of Mugabe. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary on BBC Radio 4 yesterday put it down largely to an imbalance in revolutionary credentials. Mugabe had - and has - an unrivalled status as a freedom fighter against colonial oppression amongst African leaders, and the commentator speculated that this dissuaded Mbeki from open criticism, because that might lead to a backlash which would undermine his own position. One quote (if I recall it correctly) was "Mugabe went to jail for 10 years. Mbeki went to... Sussex University." --Karenjc23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diversity and discrimination
Imagine that you have a team of say young people and want to hire an extra person. You know that if you hire an older employee, he will probably not fit and you want everyone to feel ok in your company. Is the preference for a young employee in such situation a form of discrimination? The example could also be adapted to other categories. GoingOnTracks (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The United States has a concept of bona fide occupational qualifications, which can be used to make hiring selections that would otherwise be discriminatory, and other countries often have similar concepts. It's difficult to see how requiring an employee to be sufficiently hip would qualify as such, though age can be a permissible BFOQ. — Lomn13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disqualifying a person because he or she is too old to "fit" with the team is no different from disqualifying a person because his or her racial background would not "fit." While members of the team are free to exclude the older person from drinking excursions after work (which the older person probably wouldn't want to attend anyway), there is no reason why they can't interact in a professional way with the older person at work. If the team would nonetheless be uncomfortable with the older person at work, then it is a matter of simple prejudice, not much different from racial prejudice, which in the United States is illegal as a basis for hiring decisions. Marco polo (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This question and answers makes me think about an additional question: does disqualifying a candidate just based in gut feeling a legitimate criterion? Any candidate is either black or white or male or old or young or married or single ... But suppose that the employer don't care about this things and trust his own guts. Does the law contemplate such cases? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're running a business or running for political office you can disqualify a candidate based on whatever you want. Just don't tell anybody you didn't like his tattoo. Mac Davis (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to being completely subjective, a gut feeling can't (legally) qualify as a valid reason for anything, employment included. A disqualification based on gut feeling is therefore not due to prejudice or discrimination of the person itself and its characteristics, but due to a subjective sentiment, which is basically just like saying you fired someone because you didn't like them, for no apparent (valid) reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishtar Dark (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. What didn't you like about Ishtar's explanation? I understood it as: a gut feeling won't be an acceptable argument if the ex-employee tried to take legal action against you and it applies to anyone. Did you perhaps miss the "not"? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it's also worth pointing out it cuts both ways. Not liking a man because he's a man is the same as not liking a woman because she's a woman. Not liking a white man because he's white is the same as not liking a black man because he's black. Not liking an old person because he or she is old, is the same as not liking a young person because he or she is young. All of these are examples of prejudice or discrimination. (People often seem to miss this in arguments since they suggest minorities or women are protected classes but discrimination for race/gender applies whatever the race or gender). Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that firing someone without reason is the same as not hiring someone without reason. You don't have to provide any explanation about why you didn't do anything, just why you did something. As Mac Davis pointed above: go on with your gut feeling is OK, just don't tell why you met this decision, since it can be always construed as discriminatory since it could be a characteristic of a protected class. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are hiring people for your small business you'll probably get away with it. Just hiring people you come fine along with is perhaps a legit way of making things work. However, if you are a HR manager for a corporation, what sense does it make not hiring people that you don't like? Possibly others will like this people and they can be useful for the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
June 26
Tomari and Shuri
Together with the martial arts styles of Tomari and Shuri it formed the basis for Okinawa-te, which in turn is the origin of today's karate-do.
I'm reading it that particular styles of martial arts were associated with & hence known by the name of particular towns; and more recently a mix of three specific styles formed Okinawa-te. --Tagishsimon(talk)00:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many Indo-Canadians in Great Britian?
Hi. There are some Indo-Canadians who are living and working in United Kingdom. Does anyone know how many Canadian citizens of South Asian/Indian descent who are currently living in Britian? An information link will be great. Thanks. Sonic99 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find this published anywhere. In principle it could be calculated from the 2001 Census, but you would have to put in a query to the Office for National Statistics and say why you needed the information. And even then it would only be true for 2001. The best way to do an estimate is to find out how many Canadian citizens are living in the UK, then find out from Canadian statistics what proportion of Canadians are of South Asian descent. This would assume that Canadians of all ethnic backgrounds are equally likely to come to the UK to work, which may not be a valid assumption, but it might yield a good enough estimate for whatever purpose you are interested in. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the ethnicity categories don't but nationality was asked. Anyway it is not in the published tables and the OP is going to have difficulty making more than a very rough estimate. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about the Disney film / story of Pinocchio in which two of the main characters are named Pinocchio and Geppetto. (spelling?) Do those words have any literal meaning in Italian (or any language)? Or are they some sort of "play-on-words" in Italian (or any language)? They seem like they are either real words or play-on-words, as they are rather odd character names. Does anyone know? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The The Adventures of Pinocchio page says: "Pinocchio is from Latin pīnus, "pine" (Italian pino), and the diminutive suffix -uculum (Italian -occhio)." That page also discounts the theory given on the Pinocchio page, that the name means "pine eye". The Adventures of Pinocchio page also says ""Geppetto" is a nickname for Giuseppe." Pfly (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised this morning that I was able to watch video of the verdict being handed down in the Entwistle murder case. Then I remembered that the OJ Simpson murder trial was also broadcast on TV. In the UK, TV cameras (and photography and audio recording, for that matter) are not allowed in courtrooms. What are the rules in the USA, and elsewhere, regarding the recording of criminal trials? Does it vary from state to state and by the type of court? --Richardrjtalk email09:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it varies. Each state has its own rules. Even within a state that allows cameras, each judge can allow/disallow them in his court in any given trial. The general trend is to open the courts more freely and provide more public, open access and more transparency ... and thus, the trend is more toward allowing the cameras in. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm not at all convinced, however, that allowing cameras into courtrooms brings more access and transparency. Courtrooms already have public galleries and journalists are allowed to report freely on cases (unless reporting restrictions are imposed for some legal reason). I have the feeling that broadcasting courtroom proceedings brings in an uncomfortable element of "justice as entertainment", maybe even trivialization. Is there a Wikipedia article on this subject? I can't find one. --Richardrjtalk email11:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow you. (1) Wouldn't allowing more (or all) of the public (i.e., millions of people into a limited size courtroom with only xx seats) via camera be the very definition of greater public access and greater transparency? And (2) A reporter comes with inherent bias and human error ... not only in what he reports, but also in what he chooses to report. A camera "tells no lies" and simply offers the facts, without any attached bias. No? Whether the viewing public views this as entertainment is a whole separate issue. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
A camera "tells no lies" = the very definition of naive. You should perhaps acquaint yourself with the dark art of the television editorial process. If you anticipate that television will have a nil or solely positive effect on the participants at the trial, I think you'll be sorely disappointed. --Tagishsimon(talk)13:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having searched, I think there is not an article along the lines of Impact of television on the judicial processorTelevision and the judicial process. It's certainly an area tha5t has been studied academically and by governments and judiciaries, so there's no lack of source material. IIRC, Scotland was considering the matter only very recently - last month or two. Ah: "TV cameras have been allowed in Scottish courts under strict supervision since 1992." according to [1]. --Tagishsimon(talk)11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Under Scots law, it is up to the sherrif or judge in question to decide if cameras are allowable. They have almost never agreed to their inclusion.--NeoNerd22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed black/white Arab
Hi there, I know this question had been asked before but I want to know the question. Why black people and white people have mulatto children while their Arab counterpart doesn't have mulatto children? Does it have to do with Religion or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.30 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, "mulatto" is a defined term which refers only to the offspring of one white and one black parent, and then to succeeding generations. The word "mulatto" indicates the child is of a specific mixed-race parentage. (I understand that "race" here is an awkward concept. If someone has a more explicit term that will help the questioner, please feel free to use it here.) There are mixed-race childern, one of whose parents is Arabic, undoubtedly. (I know one personally whose father is a Palestinian and whose mother is Italian.) I just don't know what term there is for this specific mix. I suspect you can safely assume that there are children from almost any mix somewhere in the world. While a strong religious background, where the religion only admits members of a single "race", might keep some people from breeding outside their religious group, even that is no insurance. And certainly that fact that while many Arabs are Muslims, not all of them are, and not all Muslims are Arabs. What limitations exist are more likely to be ones of opportunity than of religion. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of US Census designations notwithstanding (and here [2]is a link for that information), I am not sure that is true worldwide. If the questioner is talking about the US, it may be the answer to the question. "Mulatto" is not a designation in the Census either, which confuses the issue. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Mulatto" has a quaint ring to it. I was once informed by a man from New Orleans that he was "octoroon"! I told him that I knew the term from old books but had never heard it spoken. (Privately I also thought he'd never pass for black in New York!) --Wetman (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only white-people town in US
I know this question may sound challenging but out of curiosity, is there a place in US where it is dominated inhabited by white people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.30 (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of small towns in certain parts of the country that are all, or nearly all, white. For example,Summerhill, PA, which I drive through every morning, lists 1 Asian person and the rest white, in the census count. If I kept looking up other nearby towns, I could probably find one that's 100% white. If you require larger towns, then of course it will be harder to find somewhere that's completely white. (I hope, of course, that this isn't part of your "where should I move" selection process...) -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading a section about this in The Largest U.S. Cities Named After a Foodand Other Mind-Boggling Geography Lists from Around the World by Brandt Maxwell, that listed cities with a 20,000+ population with the most whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. I don't have the book, but I remember that it's in Chapter 6. SpencerT♦C20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are small towns in the southern U.S. which drove all Negros out in the early 20th century, and which to the present day have no Black residents. Edison (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are doubtless some towns which once had the "sundown sign" publicly displayed, and which had a history of lynching or other racial violence toward those who did not comply, and which today have no sign and no Blacks in residence, since no one has tested the waters. Edison (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2000 US census [4] seems to contain data for every town, including small hamlets. Is someone clever enough with databases to do a search of it and find the largest US cities with a majority of white people and no African Americans? I would include in this towns with white people, people self reported "mixed race," Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, etc. I found some such with over 2,000 population, and 99.8% white, and no reported African Americans. but there are likely to be larger. In "sundown towns" there would not even be black maids living overnight. Edison (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the defense harmed by allowing testimony by anonymous witnesses? Are measures in place to stop innocent people being convicted? --89.240.243.45 (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This matter was recently the subject of a ruling by the Law Lords in England; see here. From the report: "The Law Lords said no conviction should be based 'solely or to a decisive extent upon the statements and testimony of anonymous witnesses' - and defendants had the right to confront their accusers. This had been a principle of English law since the abolition of the medieval star chamber, a secret court, and the infamous trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, said the Lords." --Richardrjtalk email16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to provide an example of "how is the defense harmed", lack of knowledge of the accuser diminishes the opportunity to investigate possible motivates the accuser might have to perjure themselves, and which could be used to cast doubt on their testimony. --Tagishsimon(talk)21:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, anonymous evidence is trash, more often than not. It's no surprise at all that the British police want to be able to rely on it, nor that Harriet Harman has suggested changing the law to enable them to do so. The comment attributed to her, "We must ensure it is not such an ordeal for victims and witnesses that they dare not step forward", is all too typical of New Labour's approach to such matters. In exceptional circumstances, there might be a case for hearing from an anonymous witness, and we shouldn't perhaps rule out the possibility altogether, but we might ask ourselves what the police and Harriet Harman would say to the suggestion that the defence should be allowed to use anonymous evidence. Anyone with any experience of such matters knows that in almost all criminal trials (and in almost all civil litigation, too) someone is lying. Usually, it isn't the police, but they rarely present the whole truth. Give them anonymity for their witnesses, and they would be in clover. Xn419:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Columbus's Fourth voyage
According to the Fourth voyage of the Christopher Columbus article it points out Columbus and his men were stranded on Jamaica in 1503. It goes on to say that Columbus, in a desperate effort to induce the natives to continue provisioning him and his hungry men, successfully intimidated the natives by correctly predicting a lunar eclipse for February 29, 1504, using the Ephemeris of the German astronomer Regiomontanus. However, this website points out that it was the tables of Abraham Zacuto. This article says it was Zacuto's son that was with Columbus that advised Columbus to use the tables in the moment of need. Which is correct? --Dougtalk21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll only be able to get to the bottom of this if there are good contemporary sources. I see our article cites Regiomontanus from Samuel Eliot Morison's Christopher Columbus, Mariner (1955), pp. 184-92. Morison was a respected scholar, and on the face of it he's more likely to be right than a web site devoted to Zacuto, but if I were you I should take a look at Christopher Columbus, Mariner, and see what's there. Xn418:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point on a website devoted to Zacuto. I have come across this also from Famous First Facts in their item 2287 on page 109 as they say Columbus had in his possession an almanac, written by the Spanish Jewish astronomer Abraham Zacuto, that contained astronomical tables from which he was able to calculate the time of the eclipse.
Yes, Morison is a respected scholar. Your advice is the correct thing to do to follow up on this. Thanks! --Dougtalk21:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to M.Hirsch Goldberg's book "The Jewish Connection" (Shapolsky: New York, 1986) p.90: "Columbus used Zacuto's accurate prediction of a moon eclipse to frighten the local populace into supplying critically needed food. Columbus's copy of Zacuto's tables, with notes by the explorer himself, is preserved today in Seville." Some details of Zacuto's life as brought in Hirsch's book: Abraham ben Samuel Zacuto was born in 1450 and died about 1525. He was a Jewish astronomer and Rabbinical scholar who compiled tables used as navigational guides by Columbus, Vasco de Gama and others. He was also a professor af astronomy at the universities of Salamanca and Saragossa and wrote an important work on the stars that was translated into Spanish and Latim. When Spain expelled its Jews, Zacuto travelled to Portugal, where he became the Royal Astronomer. Later he had to flee to Tunis where he wrote a history of the Jews entitled Sefer Hayuchasin. Simonschaim (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings giant minds! If I find a work of poetry in its entirety in Wikisource or Gutenberg (e.g. The Waste Land) can I assume that the work is in the public domain? What are the restrictions on using works in the public domain? Thank you! Sappysap (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can, unless specified. There are no legal restrictions to public domain works, you can basically do whatever to them. I think restrictions may apply for countries outside the US though. bibliomaniac1522:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Wikisource & Gutenberg both work under US law; what is PD in the US may not be PD in all jurisdications (although in most cases it is). There is nothing, from a copyright perspective, preventing you doing anything you wish with the text.
But there are also moral rights attached to the textual works of others, in addition to any question of copyrighted versus public domain. Such rights are not entirely extinguished at death. You should not mistake PD text for text that can be plagiarised and passed off as your own. You should ideally cite its source when using it. There's a current debate on this aspect of the use of PD text at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism, for the reason that wikipedia policy in this area is being drafted at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If interested, reading those pages might be as good source of opinion. --Tagishsimon(talk)22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Highest paid are executives, CEOs, and politicians (all very lawyer-related). They are not in demand though. Strippers are in demand and can pay a lot if you work in the proper area. -- kainaw™01:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians? Honestly? The most successful professional sportsmen are also among the highest paid, as are actors and musicians. Doctors and those high-up in the medical profession are well paid, as are judges too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, nurses are very in demand. Second, 194.221, the original poster asked by careers so I suspect actors/actresses would not be near the top given the huge variance in their income. Another in-demand career involves extremely mathematically inclined people in the financial services industry (so running models for investments like stocks and such).--droptone (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would help to have some parameters. Would you consider a $100 million bonus to an investment banker or hedge fund manager to be a sufficient answer, or should it only be people with jobs that most of us might aspire to? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last time it happened to one of the (current) major political parties was 1976 - but as this blog (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/06/henley_analysis.html) points out that was neither labour, nor was it at a time when the Liberals were doing very well. I suspect you'll hear about it via that Guardian-blog during the day if you keep checking it, but otherwise i'm not sure. But it's a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newsnight just said that if anyone knows the last time it happened "could they please let us know". Bearing in mind they will have had a team of researchers who had all day to find out, I presume this means it's never happened before. Perhaps when the Labour party had just been founded? Willy turner (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Labour Movement had some pretty disastrous showings at elections. However, they were the movement which preceded the actual Labour Party, so I doubt that they've ever done this badly.--NeoNerd22:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question's about the Labour Party. Going back to its early years (let's say from 1900 to 1920) it didn't fight every constituency, nor even every by-election. Indeed, to see five candidates at a by-election before the Second World War would have been unusual. Xn400:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the question is about the party, but if the party have never done that badly before 2008, then it wouldn't be stretching things to provide an example of when the movement did do worse.89.240.131.227 (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Korean War deaths
What estimates are there of total Korean deaths during the Korean War (the article does not appear to be helpful AFAICT, listing only "millions" as the number of civilian deaths)? This site appears to give a rundown of several estimates, are there any others, and how does the reliability of the various sources compare? How does this compare to the population of Korea before the war? --58.28.72.2 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I saw this question with at least one answer attached to it, perhaps on the entertainment desk. The short answer was No, since it uses a different scale. Several Times (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find stats on poverty/homelessness in Boston. Has it been declining or rising? And how does it rank against other US cities? Please link sources. Thank you. 71.174.16.91 (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Sola[reply]
Maybe 10 to 12 years ago a book was written by a female American Indian that
described how she died, but came back to life, and how beautiful the experience was. My wife is going batty trying to remembere the name of this true story. Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.135.130 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The true story of someone dying and coming back to life? Forgive my skepticism, but are you sure it is not a work of fiction? PlasticupT/C18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to be helpful - a lot of people would put tales of reincarnation in the Fiction section of their bookstore. If you are looking for an excuse to proselytize I am not going to enable you. PlasticupT/C19:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an atheist. I just thought it was ironic that the Indian's story ran parallel with that of Christ and you suggested it was fiction. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of people consider the Bible to be fictitious, but it has attained a special status in our societies that keeps it out of the Fiction section. Surely you have noticed that the Bible is considered to be an exception to many many rules. This unidentifiable tale of reincarnation has clearly not attained such a special status. PlasticupT/C19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not criticizing his beliefs, I am simply suggesting that the owner of a bookstore might file it under fiction. That it is fiction is probably a matter of fact, but no matter what the truth is he is free to believe whatever he wants. PlasticupT/C21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does the story Roweena Teena and Tot and the Runaway Turkey end?
I am trying to find out the storyline from a favorite childhood book, Roweena Teena and Tot and the Runaway Turkey, written by Fannie Blumberg in 1936. I would love to find a copy to buy at a reasonable price as well. 71.170.2.44 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)JaneDianne[reply]
The story line is as follows: The 3 girls go to visit their grandparents and are there for Thanksgiving. They ask to invite a neighbor boy name Rastus to eat with them but their grandmother says no. She is angry at Rastus because his goat had gotten into her garden and eaten up all of the lettuce and red cabbage. The turkey the grandparents have been raising for the dinner escapes one night during a bad storm that blows the pen's gate open. The 3 girls and their grandfather look and find the turkey in a tree but can't climb the tree to get him. They then ask Rastus to help them catch the turkey. The turkey flies out of the tree and starts to run. They all run after the turkey but Rastus is the only one who can catch up to the turkey and capture him. In gratitude for his capture of the turkey, Grandmammy forgives him for the goat incident and invites him for Thanksgiving. The last lines of the story are as follows:"So the next day when Grandmammy and Grandpappy Green and the three little girls sat down to their good Thanksgiving dinner Rastus was there. Because Rastus was there Rowena and Teena beamed with delight. But Tot clapped her little brown hands. Then she pointed to the big roasted turkey which Grandpappy was just going to carve and said, 'Turkey-Turkey-Turkey, I'm glad you ran away because now Rastus can help us eat you up!'"
Barrack Obama
Did Barrack Obama ever have the Engish name Harry and it was later changed to Barrack Hussein?
As AM says, he went by "Barry" for a while, but it is certainly not the case that he gave himself the middle name "Hussein". I get the impression he's wanted to be prez his whole life, so he probably would have chosen something more like "Jefferson". --Sean19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that anybody who is trying to get you to decide the next leader of the country based on their name is deliberately trying to avoid rational argument with you, and is hoping that you'll go along with the most basest of prejudices, avoiding all real issues. It is no different than someone saying "Don't vote for McCain because he has an Irish name, and thus he probably will do whatever the Pope says." Total nonsense, and a purposeful attempt to hoodwink you. Be suspicious—have a GOOD reason for picking your candidate, whoever you pick. This stuff is important. --74.223.170.187 (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People can't be blamed for the names that were given to them, but on the other hand, Gary Hart raised suspicions among some over the fact that he changed his name from "Hartpence" at age 25-26... AnonMoos (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that raise suspicions? He just did it because he didn't like the sound of his surname. And fair enough. If I had a surname like "Hartpence", I'd probably be tempted to change it too. --Richardrjtalk email06:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a number of people who thought Gary Hart was shallow and slick, his changing his name and then sort of trying to conceal it confirmed their views of him... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the moment Gary Hart entered the public arena, his birth name was publicised and I'm not aware he ever tried to conceal it (but then, why would anyone ever introduce themselves by saying "Hi, I'm Gary Hart, but I was born Gary Hartpence"?). He fell by the wayside for other reasons. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That Vishnu temple
Know that famous and giant temple to the Hindu god Vishnu with those golden rocket-ship like towers on it? The one that is now a buddaisst (o disrespect,just don't know how to spell it) shrine? I can't find the article on it.
Also, I don't know the answer to your second question, but googling for "Vaikuntha planet" seems to turn up some promising links. --Allen (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if they are found to have commited a murder, with full knowledge of the act and consequences. Life imprisonment is in fact the only sentence available to the judge in cases of murder. This odes not specify how long it is untill parole is offered, however. In cases of children, they could be paroled afer only 8-10 years. However, a life sentence could really mean life, as it did for Dr Harold Shipman, before he killed himself.--NeoNerd22:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking to start listening to classical music, but there's such a wide variety of types and endless amounts of compositions. Can anyone recommend a good, accessible starting point? I don't want to be driven away by an arrangement that is just to complex or not appealing to a newcomer. I have heard that George Lloyd's Symphony No. 5 is a good place to start, but I was wondering what everyone else thought.
Thanks!
Mike MAP91 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just put on classicfm, as per Richardrj's advice, and listened to 30 minutes of classicfm's political correspondent talking about Wendy Alexander. Is there a channel that plays just music, without DJ's, without news, without weather, without talking -- just music? Llamabr (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would reccomend Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. I started here, and I loved it. You'll recognise a good deal of it, which is a help and I personally think that it's one of the greatest pieces of music ever written. :)--NeoNerd22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, partial overlap with Krator's comment above) Well, as long as we're promoting personal favorites, I'll put in a word for Beethoven's Razumovsky Quartets. Seriously, though, you may find works like string quartets, works for solo instruments (Bach's keyboard works, Mozart's piano sonatas, etc.), and the like, less "complex" in that what's going on musically is easier for the untutored ear to pick up. In my younger days, I owned a multialbum set that surveyed the history of Western music from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century; perhaps your local library has something of the sort. Pick out something that appeals to you and start exploring the composer or period from there. Deor (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beethoven's Third, Fifth and Sixth symphonies. A compilation of Mozart pieces, especially the operas. Bach's Brandenburg Concertos and the Cello Suites. Vivaldi's Four Seasons and other works by Vivaldi. Elgar's Cello Concerto. Works by Ralph Vaughan Williams. Verdi's Requiem. A compilation of works by Saint-Saens. Handel's Water Music and Music for the Royal Fireworks. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deor's idea of a historical survey is a good one. You have about 400 years of musical development to get to know, and if you think of it as a single style you'll just be confused and overwhelemed (as your question suggests). Read a bit about the main historical periods of Baroque, Classical, Romantic and (for want of a better word) Modern, and the composers that worked in each. They are very broad categories, but they're useful as a starting point. On another dimension, consider music by "instrumentation" - instrumental music (e.g. solo piano), chamber (e.g. string quartets), orchestral (e.g. symphonies), vocal, operatic, etc. In both dimensions you'll probably find you enjoy some more than others. That's fine: you don't have to like all of it all at once. Many people find that their musical taste changes as they grow older, or as circumstances change. There's a lot of great stuff there to discover - enjoy the journey! AndrewWTaylor (talk)
Thanks for all the help everyone! I will read about the various periods, and go from there. I'll probably start with a sample of various types, as well as some solo piano pieces. From what I've heard so far, I think I like the solos (piano most) as well as the orchestral work. I do play Alto Sax in my school band, so I guess that trained my ears somewhat. I'll start off the way everyone suggested: with a broad sample. However, I will also pick a few solo works to start with, and then move onto some symphonies per your suggestions. Thanks again! Mike MAP91 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With symphonies, I'd recommend not going straight to the pinnacle of Beethoven's 9th, but whetting your appetite with things like Mozart's 40th in G minor, Prokofiev's "Classical" Symphony (No. 1), Mendelssohn's "Scottish" and "Italian" symphonies, Beethoven's "Pastoral" Symphony (No. 6), or even his 5th in C minor (da-da-da-DAAAH). -- JackofOz (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the question. And considering that nobody else has responded, I don't feel alone. What sort of right of way would you think that there would be a need for in a creek or stream for someone who is walking? No commercial transport or large private craft would be navigating something as small as a creek or stream, so what point would there be in establishing right of way laws for them specifically? Dismas|(talk)02:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say for sure, but my guess is for those states, probably. On the other hand, in Montana what you suggest is actually legal but that's because Montana is special. This is sort of heresay, but about a year ago I was passing through Montana and a local told me that the state declared all waterways plus 10' of bank on either side to be public land. Therefore, if you have a fishing license, you can wander around any stretch of creek or river in the state provided you didn't have to traverse privately owned land to get there. It's my understanding that this practice is not common in the US, although it's not necessarily unique either. Obviously I'm not intimately familiar with MO, OH or KY state law, so don't take my word for it. --Shaggorama (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say for sure either but a call to the Fish & Wildlife department of each state should be able to tell you. In Wisconsin, I know that you can't (or couldn't as of ~15 years ago) own water. If your land completely surrounded a lake or pond, you had to allow access by the public since the water was public property. The public had to be allowed to get to the water. I worked for a Scout camp where the camp surrounded a lake. We regularly had local fishermen going up there. They knew it was a Scout camp and stayed out of our way when leading hikes and such and we stayed out of their way while they fished. Dismas|(talk)10:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added information (Usually always erased) on the Amerindian ancestry of Argentines. (regarding 56% having some/mostly Amerindian ancestry). A source has been provided, yet deletion continues and the threat of requesting lock-down from editing this article has been implied. The source is a study done by the『Servicio de Huellas Digitales Genéticas y Cátedra de Genética y Biología Molecular de la Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica de la Universidad de Buenos Aires』In Spanish: http://coleccion.educ.ar/coleccion/CD9/contenidos/sobre/pon3/index.html... and yet the information has been deleted non-stop. Help requested! Thank You. Cali567 (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, the British Royal Family costs the public money, but it was my understanding that they actually paid the UK government more money through their property holdings (or whatever) than they received? Is this article therefore misleading or am I mistaken? ----SeansPotato Business10:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the questions were raised several years ago by MP Alan Williams, a Labour member of the public accounts committee, the finances of the royay family have come under public scrutiny. As a result, the royal family now pay tax. The Civil List article, suggests that the List costs about £37m per year but the treasury receives about £185m in tax from the Crown Estate. I'm not sure the BBC's article is misleading though - the tax receipts from the Crown Estate would still be received even if the Civil List were to be abolished. Also, under a pound a year is good value for the economic boost received from the million tourists who visit the UK and expect to see some royal pomp while spending their money here. Astronaut (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Pevear and Volokhonsky are the best Russian to English novel translators I know. In this case, among other things, theirs is the first translation to leave all the French untranslated (except in footnotes). The different uses of French and Russian by the characters is rather important in the novel. Algebraist14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes me wonder: I have War and Peace, translated by Constance Garnett, sitting on my shelf at home, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Is this translation any good, or should I purchase the above version because mine is rubbish? Thanks for the answer. GreatManTheory (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Garnett version was for decades considered the standard translation. That it's generally held in not quite so high esteem these days doesn't necessarily mean that it's rubbish. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a librarian, I can vouch for the popularity/readability of the Pevear/Volokhonsky translations. When my book group read Anna Karenina last year, those who read P/V's translation loved the book, while the others complained about what a slog it was. Catrionak (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The final cavalry charge by British Empire forces occurred on 21 March 1942 when a 60 strong patrol of the Burma Frontier Force encountered Japanese infantry near Toungoo airfield in central Burma. The Sikh sowars of the Frontier Force cavalry, led by Captain Arthur Sandeman, charged in the old style with sabres and most were killed.
I haven't found an article devoted to it. There's a short description of the event - calling it "the final horse cavalry charge in British history" - in Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History (London, 2004, ed. Spencer Tucker and Priscilla Mary Roberts) on page 309. Xn423:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could happen. :) It's just that there is a specific mention of a motorized cavalry at one point in the article, so it isn't clear when in the battle we stop talking about horsemen and start talking about mechanized soldiers. Corvus cornixtalk23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my query about this text, which I find ambiguous as written, on the article's talk page. Would appreciate an answer here or there, please, ideally with an accompanying edit (unless the confusion is mine alone...). -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to expand the article on blockades (as well as writing a Dutch version of it), but I have some problems trying to find out when paper blockades were abolished. Some sources mention it happened at the Congress of Paris (1856), but the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica mentions it happened "by international agreement in 1812". However I can't find which this international agreement this would be. It doesn't seem to be the Treaty of Ghent since the US only asked England to stop their paper blockade. - Dammit (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 1856 Paris Declaration established that a blockade "must be sufficient to prevent access and egress to the ports of the enemy" in order to be legal. The U.S. did not sign the declaration, and it became an issue in 1861 when the Union navy was yet too small to cover all the southern ports.—eric18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Croke Park states that "Since 1884 the site has been used primarily by the GAA to host Gaelic games, most notably the annual finals of the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship and Senior Hurling Championship." Neither this article nor the official webpage does explicitly state the year of the first match, the teams or any score and two other links are dead. There is a contact, The G.A.A. Museum St. Joseph's Avenue , Croke Park , Dublin 3 , Ireland , Email: gaamuseum@crokepark.ie, which may be useful to you. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abolition of flogging was begun in February 1860 by the Duke of Cambridge. As Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, he issued an order under which all men were to be classified into two classes. In the first, they would not be liable to corporal punishment except in cases of "aggravated mutinous conduct in time of war". Men were to begin their service in the first class, but for certain offences they were to be moved into the second class, in which they would be liable to be flogged. One year's uninterrupted good conduct would put a man back into the first class. As Algebraist has said, flogging was abolished completely in the British Army in 1881, and at the same time a new way of dealing with minor offences was introduced called Field Punishment Number One. This provided for offenders to be chained to a fixed point for up to two hours a day and could be ordered as a daily punishment lasting for up to three months. Xn400:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find a date for the last flogging, but it seems to have remained fairly common even with the reforms, so it's a pretty safe bet that it was in 1881 (or perhaps 1880, if abolition was at the start of the year). Algebraist00:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a place on this earth that men never stepped on?
His website doesn't say anything, other than, "Barack Obama believes we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated."[5]. Which doesn't say a whole lot though it does indicate an interest (which, of course, is only part of the issue—without Congress' interest, nothing will happen, and copyright reform that is not in the interest of Big Media is not, and will probably never be, very popular in Congress, among either party). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean on the level of WWE, say, then no. It's all staged on that level, since it makes better television. Smaller wrestling groups, or UCF groups might put on genuine matches. However, in most cases, pro wrestling is fake. Watch olympic wrestling to see the real thing.--NeoNerd13:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it your question was sparked by recent news articles in the washington post and washington times. If not, you might find em interesting: [6][7]. It's my understanding that no, there aren't any laws preventing minors from carrying airsoft equipment although I think you have to be 18 to purchase it. If not, I'm sure most stores will at least refuse to sell it to them without a parent present. But don't take my word for it: a distributor would probably be able to tell you definitively. -Shaggorama (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When Canada is more conservative than the US
When was the last time Canada's government was more conservative than that of the United States at the same time? Will the Harper-Obama overlap be unprecedented in this respect? NeonMerlin03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not big on Canadian politics. Were the Progressive Conservatives really conservatives? If so, the last time the Canadians were more conservative was in 1993. Clinton was in charge in the US while Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell were PMs. But, of course, I don't know either of their policies and am only going by their party to determine their political ideology. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's tough to compare the conservativeness or progressiveness of governments in different countries. If you get Stephen Harper and George W. Bush together, they might share similar philosophies about the role of government and free enterprise. But publicly, Harper supports policies to the "left" of even the Democrats in the U.S. For example, Harper officially supports Canada's single-payer health-care system, in which private insurance for "medically necessary" treatments is basically illegal. Only the most left-wing members of Congress in the U.S. would agree with him. Certainly, the Canadian political center has been to the left of the American one since the election of Pierre Trudeau in 1968. It's hard to see Joe Clark as more conservative than Jimmy Carter or Kim Campbell more conservative than Bill Clinton. You could consider Diefenbaker and Kennedy, although Kennedy was actually somewhat conservative in the traditional sense of the word in his short time in the White House. Certainly, FDR was far to the left economically of R.B. Bennett when he was elected, although Bennett belatedly embraced government intervention in the mid-'30s. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I follow Canadian politics somewhat, and I don't think that it's clear that Harper's policies are more conservative than those advocated by Obama. (Mandatory single-payer health care is a good case in point.) Marco polo (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice
Can anyone think of a famous example in literature of someone settling for their second choice of love? Like, they couldn't win the heart of the one they truly love, so they settle for who's right there, someone who loves them greatly, even though the former is only settling for a less desired person. 96.233.60.132 (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to protagonists only? I'm sure there are several examples in fiction of peripheral characters settling for second best. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only example that springs readily to mind is Green Dolphin County, by Elizabeth Goudge, that was made into the movie Green Dolphin Street (1947). Marguerite and William love each other, but Marguerite’s sister Marianne also loves William. He has a habit of confusing their names, to both their displeasures. He has to get away from the law in (?)France and flees to New Zealand. Drunk one night, he writes to ask for his love (Marguerite) to join him, but again confuses the names and asks for Marianne by mistake. When she turns up in NZ, he realises his mistake. But she’s all he’s got, so they make do. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'll have to check out "Green Dolphin County"; sounds interesting. And I had forgotten about Jacob and Leah. They're not quite what I had in mind, but thanks! Actually, (Ithink) I was thinking more along the lines of a Shakespearian love triangle, almost akin to the "Lovers" plot in "A Midsummer Night's Dream"; got any ideas? 96.233.60.132 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pride and Prejudice's Mr Collins wanted Elizabeth Bennett, but had to settle for her friend Charlotte. I wouldn't call it love though. I don't think Mr Collins wanted to love anyone other than Lady Catherine de Burgh. Steewi (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many examples of at least temporarily settling for whoever is there at the moment. That even goes back to those wild and crazy Old Testament stories, such as Lot settling for his daughters when he couldn't have his wife (and then claiming that they made him have sex with them). Is this question specifically referring to marrying and spending a whole life with the second choice? -- kainaw™00:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another good example from Austen is Mr Elton, who loves Emma but has to settle for someone less appealing. Your mention of Shakespeare prompts me to wonder if Orsino in Twelfth Night is an example of what you're looking for. But it's not a simple one: does he settle for Viola when he accepts Olivia is no longer available? Or does he already love Cesario (Viola's male persona) and is delighted to discover that "he" is actually female and single? Similarly problematic is Bertram at the end of All's Well That Ends Well: are any of his emotions really "love"? AndyJones (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardy's Far from the Madding Crowd fits this to some extent, although not perfectly. Oak, a simple yet good-hearted farmer, originally appears to be the 'second choice' to two other possibilities, one dashing and exciting and the other older and financially secure. By the end Oak turns out to be by far the best option of the three. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of Human Bondage is about precisely this topic. Most of the book is about the protagonist's obsession with a woman who treats him awfully. <SPOILER ALERT:> He eventually gives her up and in the end he is happy to marry someone else even though she inspires little passion in him. --D. Monack | talk09:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reichspropagandaleitung. Reich propaganda leadership, direction. The Nazi Party’s Central Propaganda Office, a subunit of the Propaganda Ministry. See Reichsminister(ium) für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda. Michael, R., & Doerr, K. (2002). Nazi-Deutsch/Nazi-German an English lexicon of the language of the Third Reich.OCLC52723886
Perhaps most important for the success of the party's electoral efforts, however, was Hitler's creation of the Reich Propaganda Directorate ( Reichspropagandaleitung--RPL [in list of abbreviations as Propaganda Directorate of the NSDAP]) in early 1931. Goebbels had been directing Nazi propaganda since the previous year, but in 1931 his staff was expanded and his responsibility for National Socialist propaganda activities throughout the entire Reich formalized in the RPL. The RPL provided the Gauleiters with secret monthly reports on national political developments, propaganda techniques, and an outline of Nazi propaganda for the coming month. Beginning in April 1931, the RPL also distributed a monthly publication, Unser Wille und Weg (Our Will and Way), a journal for local Nazi functionaries that explained the party's position on key political and economic issues... Childers, T. (1983). The Nazi voter: the social foundations of fascism in Germany, 1919-1933. p. 194. OCLC9576027
Gods incarnating as a human of the opposite gender
In Greek mythology there are many instances of a god incarnating as a human of the god's own gender. Are there any instances of them incarnating as humans of the opposite gender? If not, how about gods in Roman or other mythologies? -noosphere17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Odyssey, Athena comes to earth in the form of a fisherman or something to talk to Telemachus. I don't think "incarnating" is the right word though. Greek gods already have flesh before they come down. Wrad (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purely Latin anecdote of Pomona and Vertumnus. The episode of Zeus and Callisto, where Zeus takes the guise of Artemis. Male artists and patrons of the 16th-18th centuries found the undercurrents of transvestitism and lesbianism as titillating as you do. --Wetman (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some aver that God is a woman (and possibly black), but She is said to have been incarnated as Jesus Christ, a male. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiresias, at least in Ovid's telling of the tale of Narcissus, was famously the only person to have lived as both man and woman, and so was called in by Zeus and Hera to adjudicate their dispute over which sex obtained the most pleasure from the physical acts of love. Which suggests that any incarnation of Zeus as Artemis was more for decoration than functionality. :) - Nunh-huh07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cairo Geniza travel journals?
I have S.D. Goitein's A Mediterranean Society (Vol. I) and Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders. These books mention several series of letters that enable readers to chart the careers of certain merchants from the 10th-13th centuries. However, I don't remember reading anything about actual travel journals being found within the Cairo Geniza. Were such journals ever found in the Geniza? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I´m trying to help a friend translate a concept for a psychoanalysis peice he's writing. After a long attempt at trying to get a general understanding of the term and realizing that it must exist in english but that I just couldn´t put my finger on it, I started asking him etymological questions. The concept is "Arquitectura animica," and it was first used by Freud. Animica comes from animus which pertains to the soul or the soul's faculties. The idea (as best as I understand it) relates to concepts, assumptions about the world and manners of interpreting the world that are hard-wired into an individual´s psyche by their parent cultural and upbringing. I suggested "paradigm" and "ideology," but my friend didn't bite. If anyone can give a better translation, preferably (if possible) the phrase in common use by freudian translators into english, it would be much appreciated. --Shaggorama (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find out exactly where this is used in a Portuguese translation of Freud, then it should be easy to find what the term used in a good English translation is. Strawless (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our morals, ethics, etc. Illusion?
If we were tought from birth that killing each other is okay, and there is no stealing, just take and keep what you're strong eneough to hold onto, and if everyone did just that, would we not be stating that this is our God given morals? That it's the right thing to do?--THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, since it would be considered "natural behavior". Hard to tell. But it's nice to note that it has been suggested that our code of ethics evolved naturally. See evolutionary ethics. — Kieff | Talk02:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who argue that anyway[8], against co-operation and for competition. People like God-put-me-here Robert Mugabe commonly use "God" to justify their behaviour or will to predominate, but I'd guess it gets lonely at the top of the heap with fear for your friend. Btw, do you mean to have a username all in caps for any particular reason? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that morality and ethics are social norms rather than anything to do with nature - yes. Look across 'the wild' and you'll find plenty of animals fight to the death over mates, over food, over placement in the group. So yes we would consider it perfectly normal if we had never culturally decided it wasn't acceptable in general society. The more interseting question would be...would society ever have developed as much as it has in that world? Collabaration and the rule of law are doubtlessly huge factors in why we've developed so much. Without the security of a state that claims to protect you would you ever invest huge amounts in something that might be taken away from you by another? Is the incentive to work hard and toil still there when anybody is free to take the proceeds of your work? I suspect in the above universe while our ethics and morals wouldn't be offended (since they would be constructed in a world where that was the norm) our lives would be hugely different and (I believe) hugely less developed than they are today. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that some form of the golden rule seems to exist in most religions, I think it could be argued that there is some natural basis for morality (check out tit for tat. Not to deny that cultural variance exists, but, in my view, biology does impose some restraints on where culture may go. Random Nonsense (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are social animals and not a bunch of free roaming loners in the wilderness. As social animals we need a social contract (embodied in religion / law / politics, ie. morals and ethics). If parts of it have been conveniently hardwired in the course of evolution is a moot point.
There can be no developed culture on the basis you specify as every culture is team work over many generations, requiring a smoothly operating frictionless society, requiring the absence of fear, requiring a trust in a secure future. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Given that morality and ethics are social norms rather than anything to do with nature": that is of course the point of view of the person who wrote it. There are certainly other points if view, including the one that there are rules of behaviour imposed by God which are immutable. It's interesting that of all the societies in the world there has never been one that took the attitude suggested by the question asker. That might indicate that such a society is unfeasible, but it might also indicate a level of inbuilt morality. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Friedlander
Can any user please let me have further information about a Dr. Friedlander who was a physician and taught at King's College Hospital Medical School - University of London in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should be more specific about the range of my question. Is there really a fundamental difference between the two civilizations, when it comes to the issue of equality between genders? I mean, the feminism movement is the product of the West, of course, but it appears to me that gender-based discriminations exist everywhere. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, there is no single "Asian civilization". There are Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and various Southeast Asian and Southwest Asian civilizations, each of which underwent enormous cultural change over time. For that matter, it may not be very useful to speak of a single Western civilization. Within modern Western civilization, there are big differences between the United States and Europe and among individual European countries. Also, where does Western civilization end. Should we include Russia? It is very different from the rest of Western civilization. If not, then what about Greece, which like Russia is an heir to the civilization of the Byzantine Empire, and traditionally the place of origin of Western civilization. As for gender discrimination, that does seem to be virtually a geographic and historical constant, but different civilizations have varied in their treatment of women across history. For example, women in 9th-century China or 11th-century Japan probably had more freedom and power than their counterparts in Europe, even if the reverse is true today, at least in Japan. So it is impossible to generalize about Western versus "Asian" civilization, even on the question of gender relations. Marco polo (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point. The traditional religious beliefs in Asia tend to be polytheistic, unlike the Judeo-Christian monotheism. But then, polytheistic religions did exist in pre-Christian Europe... --BorgQueen (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the foundations of western civilisation (greece and rome) where polytheistic (Pre ~0 BC)
There's also the difference between latin/arabic scripts (alphabetical) and non-indian asian scripts eg chinese which are pictogramslogograms.. That's a big difference many people will notice.87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was the original title of Dr. King's address at the March on Washington?
What was the original title of Dr. King's address at the March on Washington?
As far as the "original title" is concerned, some nice person in DC could take a peek at it in the Library of Congress, where it is often on prominent display. He copyrighted it about a month after giving the speech, and submitted the manuscript. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The Bounced Check" is correct. The main theme of the speech is how blacks support the U.S. government time and time again only to receive in turn an insufficient funds check from the federal government. The "I Have a Dream" is only a small portion of the speech. In terms of propaganda, the I Have a Dream quotes are very eloquent and present a soon to be determined time when racial harmony reigns. The main speech is not complimentary to the U.S. Civil rights leaders comment about the misapprehensions concerning the speech among the general public.01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)75Janice (talk)75Janice75Janice (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
July 1
Can "Reform Sunni Islam" exist and can I create it?
Can "Reform Sunni Islam" exist and can I create it? I'm a Sunni Muslim that want to be like the non-Muslims. It like Reform Judaism. I'm creating a new sect of Islam that observes the ethical laws of Islam and does does moderation. For example, we accept playing music and not eating halal but eating halal will be rewarded. Read the blog: Reform Sunni Islam. I'm kind of a critic of fundamentalist Islam so I create a new sect to make Islam better. Can I create "Reform Sunni Islam"? Jet (talk)06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Jaringan Islam Liberal in Indonesia, but the English-language part of their website www.islamlib.com seems to be down. You might be interested in the writings of Ziauddin Sardar. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the "Reform Sunni Islam" sect of Islam (Sunni Islam) exist and can I create the sect?
I'm a Sunni Muslim that want to be like the non-Muslims. We Muslims live in a hard society. It like Reform Judaism but it's Islam. I'm creating a new sect of Islam that observes the ethical laws of Islam and does does moderation. For example, we accept playing music and not eating halal but eating halal will be rewarded. The Muslim women will not required to wear hijab. The Friday prayer will not be obligatory. Read the blog: Reform Sunni Islam. I'm kind of a critic of fundamentalist Islam so I create a new sect to make Islam better. We will not use Sharia but teach ethical laws. The women can be imams. Can I create "Reform Sunni Islam" sect of Islam? Jet (talk)20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in interpreting your question as:
How many people have to follow a Sunni "spinoff" for it to become known as a sect?,
No doubt your aim is honourable and time will show its success (or failure). Like a great man mentioned above, you have a dream. But, until this dream finds thousands of believers who follow you, Wikipedia is the wrong venue to publish it.
I do not wish to sound condescending, but as you are rather young, I feel you first need to find a well founded position in your personal beliefs. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about Direct Investment Plans[9], where you can buy directly from the company? Hmmm...we don't seem to have an article about this. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the license of the artwork for Faith No More's Album of the Year technically be public domain, since the cover is a photo of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (who died 71 years ago) with the only modification being the words "album of the year" in a basic typeface in the lower right corner, or is there some other factor that I've missed out? — Balthazar(T|C)00:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant date is the death of the photographer, not the subject of the photograph, so this image may still fall under copyright. --D. Monack | talk09:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a little more detail on painting.it looks like an 18th or 19th century painting. young boy has a red suit with knickers and white lace collar and sleeves.his legs are crossed and his head is leaning on his left hand.the object hes sitting on looks like a crown carved out of rock.also he has flowers by his right knee.i just got this picture and not knowing who painted it is driving me nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.105.205 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many unknown artists.... But you might have more luck if you can upload a photo either here to the ref desk or to a photo sharing site.--Shantavira|feed me13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watchtower library serves as a kind of archive. I have noticed it available for free download but I am pretty sure that isn't legal. Also, the library is intended for use by witnesses. It contains the watchtower issues from 1980 to the present day (depending on which version you get) and the new world translation bible, and two volumes of the insight to the scriptures book. If in doubt pop down to your local kingdom hall, all material is free of charge. --Cameron*09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Older literature is hard to acquire. My family was active in the Witnesses since its founding with pastor Russell. My father ihheirited a treasure trove of very old Watchtowers and other publications in them. The Society is said to destroy such literature. I pored over my greatuncles' books as a child and teenager. The Society constantly revises its prophecies and beliefs b/c their predictions don't come true. Other religions may do the same. I do not know. When my father died, the collection was donated to the local Kingdom Hall. A few years later I heard that religious scholars were very interested in the works. I planned to donate to my alma mater, Columbia, b/c I did not want them going to some disreputable group just tearing the Witnesses down. No one could locate my collection. If you are interested, a lot of the early books have pyramid theology and use local train schedules. Christmas was an occasion to give people Witness books. Happy hunting. I would try major universities that research American religious history.75Janice (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bcom 2003 Mumbai University syllabus
Where can I find the Mumbai University BCom syllabus for 2003? 05:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Characters troubled by visions of the future
I have a scenario in mind and I'm wondering if it has ever been portrayed in literature or film. In this scenario, a character is troubled by visions of nasty things happening to others in the future, and tries to do what he/she can to stop them from happening. Kind of like Minority Report, I guess, although without the law enforcement angle. If anyone can think of a film or novel in which such a scenario occurs, I'd be interested to hear about it. Please note, though, I'm primarily interested in highbrow literary fiction and art film, not hokey genre material. Many thanks. --Richardrjtalk email07:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Iliad, specifically the story of Cassandra is the archetypical case of trying to prevent prophecy. She saw the fall of Troy in visions, but was not believed. See Cassandra (metaphor) for different examples in literature, film and reality.
This is a pretty classic concept, really. You may want to check out articles on Precognition, Premonition, Vision (spirituality) and Precognitive dreams, and especially Category:Fictional characters with precognition, which will probably give you a pretty good idea of how common the idea is in fiction... well, actually, now that I look at the list more closely, the category is pretty heavily populated by comic book characters, which is a pretty clear case of systemic bias, but the concept has certainly popped up in all sorts of movies and books as well. (Another recent Dick adaptation, Next, dealt with precognition as well.) It's also a plot device in countless video games. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it, edit conflict but anyway, I guess the terms are premonitionorprecognition, even second sight (cassandra etc) or flash forward (eg tv series Lost) or even prolepsis,and I guess there are several examples in run of the mill horror movies, tv programmes etc but trying to think of good quality examples... Not quite on the mark(er) but I never miss the opportunity to mention the brilliant and poetic La Jetée. What is the nature of present and past anyway? And are they separate from memory and perception? Not all cultures have the same orientation in time as we do in the west: the Maori word for the past means front, whats in front of you, because it can be seen. The word for the future, muri, means behind, because its unseen. Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five", Martin Amis' novel "Times Arrow" play with the flow of time, so does Brian Aldiss novel "An Age" (pub as "Cryptozoic" in US) but they aren't really what you are after. Try "He can look ahead. See what's coming. He can - prethink. Let's call it that. He can see into the future. Probably he doesn't perceive it as the future." "No," Anita said thoughtfully. "It would seem like the present. He has a broader present. But his present lies ahead, not back. Our present is related to the past Only the past is certain, to us. To him, the future is certain. And he probably doesn't remember the past, any more than any animal remembers what happened." The Golden Man, by Philip K. Dick. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If say a Jew were to eat a pork flavored product which didn't have any pork in it, merely pork flavourings; for example, smoky bacon crisps, would they be breaking kosher law? I can't see how if there's no trace of pork and merely e-numbers --Thanks, Hadseys10:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All these E numbers come from somewhere, and that somewhere can be non-kosher. So it depends. It seems that artificial flavourings are subject to kosher certification: Here. Fribbler (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing which is not kosher in the product, there is no reason why not to eat it. In fact the Talmud (Hullin 109b) states that if one wants to eat something with the taste of pork, one can eat the brain of the shibutta fish which has such a taste. Simonschaim (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the wikipedia article about the Falkland Islands the Falkland Islands Defence Force is mentioned as being fully funded by the Islands government and totally made up of volunteers from the Island. Does this mean they are a separate force from the British military presence on the island? And if so, are they being commanded by the Islands government, the governor or the British military Commander? Any help on these questions would be much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange Comic
Could someone inform me as to what comic this section is from? It's bamboozling me. Appreciated.
If I am a resident in Israel, am I allowed to carry a gun, like concealed carry? I couldn't find an article here about it. SpencerT♦C19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that's the area of the national park. The elevation changes can make them seem larger than they actually are. SpencerT♦C23:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to our articles, there was originally a united Province of Carolina, but it was divided in the early 18th century, presumably for ease of administration. Dakota Territory was admitted to the union as two separate states for reasons of distance and perhaps to give the Republicans two extra seats in the Senate. West Virginia split from Virginia during the Civil War over the secession issue. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"X" has to do what's best for "x." I've heard it a number of times, and it makes little sense. I thought about asking in Languages, but decided over here was better, because it just doesn't sound normal.
I'm not saying these people suffer some mental disorder - though I guess it culd be the sign of one? But, there must be some psychological reason. Delusions of grandeur maybe, where the person thinks he's so important that he needs to say some things as though he's writing a press release? Or, is it simply trying to show false modesty. Perhaps they think, "If I say 'I' all the time, people will think I'm selfish, nd there's no 'I' in team. So, I'll go by my actual name when I talk."209.244.187.155 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
