Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 16

Woman and money

Do woman care more about the financial situation of their partner than men do? 217.168.0.112 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose they do. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it too. However, it is no surprise at all, since most men don't care at all about the financial situation of woman. Anyway, in our modern times woman are able to structure their life independently of men - what means that they earn their own money and don't have to think about the income of their partners if they don't want to. 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltnVinegar (talk • contribs)

Lots of men work to support their wife and children so that they will be in a good financial situation. In these situations, I'd say the "care" is mutual. (Always that problem with lumping the sexes in a group and making general statements!) Wrad (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's surely to do with men, all over the world, having the lion's share of the income. Most women understand poverty and dependency better than men do, though perhaps in the developed world this is at last becoming less true than in all past ages. Xn4 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course, I meant only the part of the world where I am. Woman in some countries have to fight against considerable social discrimination.SaltnVinegar (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they are more concerned about money, so much as security. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself! The second question I invariably ask a man is 'How much do you earn?' I am not prepared to reveal the first! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally asking private questions like this is just considered ill-breeding, specially direct questions. SaltnVinegar (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try not to be so literal-minded. Normally having a sense of humour is a sign of intelligence. Ha-ha! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my fault. SaltnVinegar (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? My grade school teachers seemed to think my sense of humor was a sign of me latter failing high school. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, primary school teachers-what can one expect?. No imagination, no insight and definitely no understanding of the finer minds! I can still hear those words echo down the years, "Young lady, your mother shall be told of your impertinence." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot let that description go entirely unchallenged, Clio. I know and have known some exceptional primary-school teachers, full of imagination and enthusiasm, and always appreciative of "finer minds". I am sorry you did not have that experience. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did, and still retain fond memories of one much-loved individual in particular. I did not really intend my remarks to be taken too seriously, though my quotation is an exact recollection! I was never the easiest of pupils, Bielle, I freely confess! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions as to Clio's first question:

'Did you know that I enjoy eating beaver sausages?' --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

'is that an original pristine copy of A Modest Proposal in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me and perhaps debate the works of Joyce over a nice chablis and a plate of trotters. Nanonic (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yummy! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Meat on Fridays

Is it a sin to eat meat on Fridays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In what religion? Wrad (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And what meat? SaltnVinegar (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think it's pretty clear we're talking about Roman Catholicism and animal flesh other than fish - as far as I know it's the only religion which restricts meat ingestion (vs complete fasting) on Fridays (if I'm wrong on this I'd love to hear more about the others which others seem to have in mind). With regard to this restriction, the Code of Canon Law revised in 1983 says this: "Canon 1251: Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday." However, most Episcopal Conferences (i.e., the local bishops) have determined that an act of penance other than abstinence from meat can substitute - so the answer to your question is that for Catholics, some form of penance on Fridays is required, that this form of penance can take the form of abstention from meat, and can take other forms based on the determination of the local bishops. - Nunh-huh 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Abstinence would include smoking tobacco and that other stuff. --Wetman (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are all kinds of abstinence, and the canon above is not discussing tobacco or "stuff". - Nunh-huh 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My Polish father-in-law tells me that the reason that the beaver became extinct in Poland was because it was classed by the Church in medieval times as a fish and so was eaten to extinction. Knowing the Poles, they probably made them into sausages. The Poles, in my experience at least, and just like everyone else, are not too keen on abstaining from other stuff. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Capybera too. APL (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What - do you eat them or have other stuff with them? --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the 1993 book Case Closed Gerald Posner interviewed Dr. Pepper Jenkins, a doctor who had treated John F. Kennedy in Dallas. Dr. Jenkins told Posner the doctors were stuck with fish lunches as the Catholic church had given JFK permission to eat meat on Nov 22. Neither man went into detail as to why this permission was obtained or why the event mattered. If you have access to a good bookstore or library, the story is on p. 286 in the first paragraph.- Thanks, Hoshie 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The fasting rules are different if you're ill, very young, elderly, a manual labourer, pregnant, etc. So all these things are subject to variation. Skittle (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition of 'fish' in the Middle Ages was highly elastic, including not just beaver but such culinary delights as whale, porpoise and barnacle geese, yes, geese! Medieval cuisine has some information on this. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of a church can't tell an otter or a rodent from fish? (Rhetorical question/not starting a debate here.) Julia Rossi (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (I just noticed the title of the next question. That's that, then.)

Musk rat is a traditional "fish" still sometimes served during Lent here in the Detroit area. Never had it myself but I am sure it "tastes like chicken". Rmhermen (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the theory that if it's under the water, it must be a fish. It rather puts me in mind of learned disquisition in Monty Python and the Holy Grail on determining who's a witch and who's a duck. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that these rules were never supposed to be anything to do with scientific taxonomy, just abstainance and fasting. After all, we'll happily talk about eating our vegetables when they include tomatoes, cucumber, etc, and about eating fruit when not all of it contains seeds. That these definitions do not match scientific definitions doesn't matter, because they are not intended to. They are culinary. They no more thought the otter was a fish than you think the tomato is not a fruit, and yet I don't see you putting it in a fruit salad :) Or you can just continue to think 'stupid people, I'm so smart...' 130.88.140.116 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Practitioners of Magic

I was writing a paper for school about the history of magic and it's various beliefs up until the modern times. Although the paper is completed, I still haven't been able to find why there are so many titles for a practitioner of magic (Witch, Wizard, Sorcerer, Magician, Shaman, etch). I've search the web quite thoroughly (for more than a week now) and was still unable to come up with any information pertaining to the historical significants, only the basic definitions. So my question is: why are there so many titles and what is the difference between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.124.231 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Take different languages and different cultural beliefs and you get the word list; add demonising by the powers of the time, and you get negative or positive reputations/meanings. Maybe you've been there already, but I've made links to our articles of the terms in your question that you might like to click through. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you included Miracle, or is yours a parochial school? --Wetman (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You might find answers by consulting a very good ictionary, such as a complete version of the Oxford English Dictionary, which will provide the etymology of the word (i.e. where it came from; from which language, when). e.g

• Witch - from old English Wicca, dating from c890 AD
• Wizard - from Middle English wysar, connoting wise, 1440
• Sorcerer - from Old French sorcier - one who sorts, from the 1300s
• Magician - Middle French magicien 1370-80, and/or from magix, which goes back through the French to Latin and Greek
• Shaman - I'll just quote - a. G. schamane, Russian sha{sm}man, a. Tungusian samân (Castren Tung. Sprachl.). Cf. F. chaman. 1698.

So, as stated above, different language origins, and different original meanings. You could make an interesting enough table ot such terms, showing date from, language of root word, definition, &c, but, as I say, only with access to a complete enough dictionary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman's suggestion should more properly have been "miracle worker". Others include witch doctor, warlock, mystic, mage, magus, voodoo, conjuror, invocator, enchanter, thaumaturge, lamia, sortileger, kahuna, etc. Quite a long list indeed. Rmhermen (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Check Witch (etymology) as well. Wrad (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

homestead exemption

my grandfather wants to put two more homes on his 5 acres but i will be living in one and my uncle in the other we will pay all bills our selves so basically 3 homes on 5 acres. My question is does this cause him to l0se his exemption and is that even allowed or do we have to sepperate the land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.210.152 (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume this has something to do with a Homestead exemption in the US? Does that article help? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It may require a change in zoning to establish a subdivision. Where my parents live 5 acres is the minimum for a house on a rural-zoned lot. Smaller than that requires setting up a subdivision and petitioning the zoning board for a variance (and publishing a notice in the newspaper, etc.) Rmhermen (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous quotes

Who said 'In victory we must prepare for defeat' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrie buck (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the firewalking Anthony Robbins that's for sure. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

King Pyrrus? This is not, I think, an observation anyone would wish to be remembered for! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds vaguely like Lincoln or Churchill to me. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

english boarding schools for girls

did any of you english chicks here go to boarding school and was it anything like st trinains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo McGoogle III (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no. But "anything like St Trinians" is awfully vague you know. If you are really interested, take a look at boarding school and list of boarding schools. Those in the UK all have jolly good websites. By the way, I am now a hen.--Mrs Wibble-Wobble (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hugo, dear, I am neither a 'chick' nor a 'hen', but I did attend a very good boarding school in England. I rather suspect that you have this St Trinian’s rather than that St Trinian’s in mind. Was my school anything like the movie? No, it was far worse! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio knows more than most of us about the peregrinations of the Wycombe Abbey girls to London, Oxford, and all points east and west, and what they get up to there. When I was an innocent young fresher, they were said to be very advanced... goodness knows how shocked we should be if we knew the whole truth now. Xn4 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the stories one could tell, Xn4! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lohr and the Greek Resistance

I was looking for information on the German response to the growth of the Greek Resistance movement in World War 2, specifically the response of Alexander Lohr, the Commander of the South East area, but there is not much, either in his biography page or the more general articles on the Axis in Greece and the Greek resistance. How, then, did Lohr react, and what were the consequences? How did the resistance war change German attitudes towards the Greeks? Thank you for giving this your time. Vasilis Tsironikis (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Löhr, commander of Army Group E from 1943 onwards, was in many ways quite a tragic figure. A soldier of the old school, and Russian Orthodox by birth, he was far from being a committed Nazi. He had in fact, served in the army of the Habsburg Empire during the First World War, as did many of his senior officers, and thus brought to his command many of the old imperial prejudices many older Austrians felt towards the Balkan peoples. Though tied by the stupid and ultimately self-defeating counter-terrorism guidelines issued to the German Army, he implemented them without a great deal of latitude or imagination. His task in Greece, Vasilis, was to eliminate the andartes, and that is what he attempted to do with all thoroughness. I suppose it did not help matters much that most of his troops, Wehrmacht and SS, had been brutalised by service on the Eastern Front. Indeed, one formation, the 117 Jaeger Division, was specifically told that eine gewisse Brutalität ( a certain brutality) was absolutely necessary. The usual measures were adopted against the insurgents, including hostage-taking, wholesale executions and casual atrocities. The consequences of this were exactly the same as elsewhere in Europe; the resistance movement grew steadily in both strength and confidence.

On your wider question, the guerilla war changed the preconceptions with which the Germans had first arrived in Greece. Philhellenism gave way to notions of the wild 'Balkan fanatic', with the Greeks being seen as little different from the Serbs. As a consequence the Greeks slipped steadily down the racial ladder in the Nazi scheme of things, with the connection between the ancient peoples and 'this land of neo-Greeks' being openly doubted. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The deaf in the ancient world

How were the deaf perceived in the ancient world? Your page on the History of the deaf is no help at all because it's only about sign language.217.43.9.32 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[1] [2] I found these quite a good source on the subject (You need Powerpoint for the second). PeterSymonds | talk 09:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The general assessment was not terribly positive, with most doubtless sharing the sentiments expressed by Aristotle in De Sensu-"Language is the cause of the education which we receive...blind people are more intelligent than deaf and mute." St Augustine of Hippo was later to add to this assessment by saying that "This impairment prevents faith...a man born deaf is incapable of learning to read which would lead him to the faith." For St Paul to be deaf meant to be stupid. It was partly owing to these attitudes that deaf people were not allowed to own property under Roman law.

But there were exceptions to this common prejudice. Ferdinand Berthier, founder of the first social organisation for the deaf, pointed out that among both the ancient Egyptians and Persians deafness was regarded as a sign of the favour of heaven. In Plato's Cratylus Socrates says that "If we had neither voice nor tongue, and yet wished to manifest things to one another, should we not, like those who are present mute, endeavour to signify our meanings by our hands." So, not stupid after all. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You might wish to contact the department of government and history at Gallaudet University, the world's only university for deaf people. Contact details on the website. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hell is an empty desk

Can anyone please tell me who said this first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardieparrot (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly know who said anything first? It's not as though it's a profound insight or anything.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you said it first, at least according to Google. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was meant in the context that we go around always complaining about how much we've got to do and how little time....., and that we actually like this status quo. The most hellish scenario would be having nothing to do=an empty desk. So slightly profound, imo! I just don't know and just can't find out any more, who said it.

Sorry, I cannot find it either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor me. Sartre may be the early starter of Hell is... sayings, though. Can be found in No Exit. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off-kilter here; could it be a reference back to Dante's Inferno? In one of the circles of Hell I believe that there is a group of people doomed to labour without ever receiving any praise or condemnation, or any feedback at all; just unceasing labour, accepted ungratefully. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Smersh

In a James Bond book, "Live and let die", an organisation is mentioned who name sounds foreign, an I think is something to do with communism. The name rhymes with sm-er-sh, pronounced according to the general trends of British English enunciation. What is the name of the organisation? --145.29.23.38 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

SMERSH (James Bond) :D Wikipedia has an article on everything. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have read that article, 145.29, you will now know that SMERSH-Death to Spies-was a real organisation, once headed by the notorious Viktor Abakumov. It only had a short three-year existence, from 1943 to 1946, though it clearly left an abiding impression on the mind of Ian Fleming. Anyone who comes away from a reading of From Russia with Love without pleasant and cosy feelings towards General Franco's Fascists clearly has not understood the latent message! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Page on Norwest Venture Partners

Hi Dear Wiki Volunteers: I have found very good material on several VC firms on the Wikipedia. May I request that a page on Norwest Venture Partners be done as well ? If this is not the right forum, or not an appropriate request, please discard the question :). Thanks for all your efforts, Regards, Anil 59.163.46.162 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You can request that at Wikipedia:Requested articles, --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Schlecht und Reu

I was in a choir many years ago that sung, among other things, a German song that I think was called 'Schlecht und Reu' or at least featured that phrase prominently, and translated as 'Woe and Rue'. It may have been part of a greater work. I'm unable to find anything via Google and thus throw it to the Humanities wolves. Ring any bells for anyone? After managing to identify a coin as a Pakistani Rupee yesterday using Wikipedia (in an epic but inspired search full of mini ironies that almost make me want to write a short story) I had hoped I could do the same with this, but have failed. The tune was along the lines of:

Schle-	echt	und	Reu-	eu
C	B	A	A	G#
minim	crochet	crochet	crochet (leant on)	crochet

Obviously I don't know the key, this is just the intervals (I hope). Thanks for any help. Skittle (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's "Buß und Reu" from Bach's St Matthew Passion. (schlecht is an adjective meaning bad. Buß' (or Buße) means penitence in this context) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I wonder where I got 'Schlecht' from? That fits perfectly, as we did the St Matthew Passion with that choir. Thanks so much. To iTunes, ho! Skittle (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking on Youtube, to confirm, while it's familiar it doesn't contain the musical phrase I'm thinking of. Various things online suggest this movement involves the chorus as well, although the excerpts I find on Youtube do not, and these could potentially contain something closer to the phrase I recall. (I'm realistic enough to assume it won't match perfectly, as I have a tendency to 'clean' gaps in music I half-remember) Could you shed any light on this? Skittle (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while I'm still interesting in knowing if the chorus is involved in this movement, I think I've found the bit I probably 'cleaned' :) Skittle (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti Human Trafficking/Anti Slavery Groups in S. America

Does anyone know of any South American anti human-trafficking/anti slavery groups I could contact to potentially work at/volunteer this summer? I have been searching extensively and am coming up empty-handed. --Yoyoceramic (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked the UN GIFT partner list? Or the International Organization for Migration? Also, the Coalition Against Trafficking of Women works in Mexico. And GAATW has member groups in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Suriname and the Caribbean – click the link for the contact email address. Good for you, I hope you find what you are looking for. WikiJedits (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Caesar's gold

Did Caesar in any way attempt to use the profits he had gained from the war in Gaul to influence political opinion in Rome in his favour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.162.148 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Duh-Yes. Check out Suetonius for some good information about Caesar (Gaius Julius Caesar) and his lavish spending to improve his standing in the public opinion of Romans. Also see Michael Grant's book "The History Of Rome". Plundering provinces & then bribing people at home to get gain were common practices in the Roman world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He used the money, 86.153, to buy friends among the city magistrates. When the question of depriving Caesar of his command was raised in March 50BC by Marcellus, his political enemy, he was not supported by his colleagues. Caesar's position was made even more secure by the intervention of Curio the Younger, the Tribune, who argued that, for the sake of fairness, and for safety of the Republic, consideration would also have to be given to Pompey's command in Spain. There was, of course, no legal basis for this, because Pompey's office had been renewed in 52BC and still had several years to run. But it served as an effective reminder just how much power he had accumulated. It placed Caesar on the same level as Pompey, a more senior figure, linking their fates in the Roman mind. It also served as a subtle reminder to Pompey that it was in his best interests to preserve his alliance with Caesar. The whole tactic was highly effective. Caesar's enemies were neutralised for some time, with Curio continuing to black any moves against him in the Senate. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

diplomatic immunity

does diplomatic immunity violates the rights of a person? is diplomatic immunity an injustice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.29 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific, keeping in mind that we do not offer legal advice. Diplomatic immunity is practically a necessity, to prevent one nation using another's diplomats as effective hostages by arresting them for some (possibly imagined) violation of local law. -- Kesh (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you are speaking philosphically, 192.30, it might well be considered unjust where a diplomat does commit a crime, sometimes even a serious one (murder, rape) in another country, and appears to be merely sent home as persona non grata. What recourse does a victim have? None really, and that may not be just. Some countries will enact their own punishment and others have, though I can't immediately find an example, permitted the host nation to try their national under the host's laws. Kesh is right, however; there would be too much potential for abuse if such immunity were not permitted. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has a section on abuses and I like: In fiction and reality[3] followed by a nice table on US conditions as they apply. Then there's International law information, best prepped by getting the Straightdope[4]. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

List of magna opera (magnum opusses)

magnum opus does not have list of magna opera, with authors and their works, e.g.

• Darwin - The Origin of Species
• God - The Bible
• Marx - Das Kapital
• etc

why not? I am not a dog (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would guess either because it's such a subjective topic, or because the purpose of the article is to descripe the topic, not to provide such a list. One option, of course, is to add or at least start such a list by yourself and see what happens. Or there could well be a list of important books somewhere else around. Actually, I know there is, I read it a few days ago, I just forget what the article was called. 172.188.37.102 (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

172.188... perhaps you were thinking of Western canon which links to the main canons: Harvard Classics, Great Books of the Western World. I'm a personal fan of Harold Bloom's Western Canon but, as you say, it is all subjective and down to individual's or groups of individual's choices. Melvyn Bragg's book Twelve Books That Changed the World is also worth a read on this issue. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Americans get Harold Bloom and we get the pommaded boulevardier and pretend intellectual Barg. Just look at his embarrassingly parochial and politically correct list: all English, bar one Scot; all male, bar one woman. 'The Rules of Association Football'? God give me strength! Bad luck Americans, Ancient Greeks, and Romans! Hard cheese, Orientals and Europeans! When the history of the debasement of British public and intellectual life comes to be written, Barg will stand for everything that's cheap and tawdry; a fitting codicil to the Blair years.

PS: There used to be an old WP policy, now more-or-less abandoned, of not having lists. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, now 'politically correct' covers things that are mostly lists of English men? Surely that's politically incorrect? Skittle (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly no lists within articles anyway. The other seems to be a category. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche and learning to love

I'm working my way through Nietzsche's "The Gay Science" (no jokes, please) and there is a passage-one among many I have to confess-that I do not fully understand. It begins with "One must learn to love" and touches on music before proceeding to a more general assessment of the nature of love. It concludes "Love, too, has to be learned". What does he mean exactly? Please, I'm not looking for speculations but some insight as to how this statement fits more generally into his thinking. Thanks. Mark of Cornwall (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For those of you with a copy to hand the reference of this section is Book Four (Santus Januarius), part 334. (I have the Vintage edition translated by Kaufmann). Nietzsche is here comparing love to music - first it must be recognised as an original entity, then it must be tolerated and its 'oddity' accepted and only then are we used to it, almost dependent on it. It's a beautiful passage, only when we recognise love and its strangeness does it transform into something beautiful and endearing. Love, for Nietzsche, is a process of learning which must be worked at to be rewarded. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is beautiful. It is also part of his general critique of knowledge, a tribute to the great Spinoza, who said that the act of knowing is an act of laughing, an act of mourning and an act of cursing. Nietzsche took this one stage further, saying that the act of knowing was an act of love. Love here has to be understood in a transcendent sense, a seeking after the unknown, the true Science of Joy, with knowledge itself as desire. It's Zarathustra's ecstasy in the bedding of the night. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

nina gladnitz

biographical information please. specifically if it is possible to view her film Zeit des Schweigens und der Dunkelheit (Time of Silence and Darkness)? is there any transcripts of the court case when Leni Riefenstahl attempted stopping Gladnitz' film from being shown because of Gladnitz' accusations in the film regarding Leni Riefenstahl's disregard for gypsy extras used in her film Tiefland. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.33.57 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nina Gladitz (no "n") is mentioned in our article Tiefland:

"In 1982 Nina Gladitz produced a documentary Zeit des Schweigens und der Dunkelheit (Time of Darkness and Silence) and examined the use of these Sinti in the making of Tiefland. Riefenstahl sued Gladitz subsequently for defamation and while it was shown that she visited camps and selected Sinti for extras, Gladitz’ claim that Riefenstahl knew that they would be sent to Auschwitz had to be stricken from the documentary. Gladitz, however, refused to do so, and thus her film has not been shown anymore.

"The issue surfaced again in 2002, when Riefenstahl was one hundred years old. She was taken to court by a Roma group for denial of the extermination of the gypsies. But because of her age and illness the trial did not proceed."

I doubt there would be any court or trial documents related to the second attempt as it would appear that there was no trial. A German speaker might be more successful googling for the various names. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

George Eliot

How do you account for the downs and ups in George Eliot's posthemus reputation?Val El Rie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Eliot's reputation declined after her death mainly due to the publication of her biography written by her husband in 1885. This autobiography, inelegantly written, portrayed her as a humourless and boring woman (he omitted much, including her relationship with John Chapman). As a result Eliot's books became little read. Leslie Stephen helped improve her literary standing in his article for the Dictionary of National Biography. His daughter, Virginia Woolf, agreed with him and wrote an article for the Times Literary Supplement where she remarked that Middlemarch was remarkable in that it was 'written for grown-up people' unlike, in Woolf's opinion, most Victorian literature! In 1948 F. R. Leavis praised Eliot's writings, which sparked an interest which continues today. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, Lord Foppington, if there are not other considerations here, going beyond Cross's tiresome biography? George Eliot's fiction might be said to be the high water of a certain kind of Victorian sensibility. At the time of her death things were moving on, the rot setting-in, so to speak, with new ways of seeing. The certain world of Adam Bede, Daniel Deronda and Middlemarch was giving way to that of Thomas Hardy and Oscar Wilde, pointing ever beyond, to the worlds of D H Lawrence and Virginia Woolf. It's true that Leavis rescued her from complete neglect, but only as a new occupant of an entirely bogus Pantheon. It's really not until the 1970s that people began to see her with fresh eyes, as part of a vital, and living, tradition. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

British Embassy in Israel

Why is the embassy in Tel Aviv, rather than the capital, Jerusalem? It's bizarre - aren't embassies always in the capital/seat of government? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

When Israel was established in 1948, its territory did not then include Jerusalem (see the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine). After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War established the de facto Israeli control of Jerusalem, most countries opted to retain embassies in Tel Aviv in deference to the territorial dispute. — Lomn 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Israel within the 1949 armistice boundaries did in fact include West Jerusalem, where the Knesset and most Israeli government ministries (other than the defense ministry) are located.... AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article on East Jerusalem details more of the area's controversy. — Lomn 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Embassies are not always in a country's capital. Our article on Tel Aviv#After Israeli independence states: 'Because of the international dispute over the status of Jerusalem, most foreign embassies stayed in or near Tel Aviv. In the early 1980s, 13 more returned there as part of the UN's punitive measures responding to Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law. Today, all but two of the international embassies to Israel are in Tel Aviv or the surrounding district.' and this site: [5] confirms this. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Including the U.S. embassy, for that matter. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An explanation on the British position is at [6]. It basically does not recognise that Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not all embassies are located in a nations' capital, for instance, nations like Bolivia and the Netherlands have more than one capitals. On the other hand, I would suggest that the reason diplomats chose to focus themselves out of Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem is because, objectively, the former is many, many times nicer. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are all kinds of oddities in the world of diplomacy, and one of them is the situation regarding Israel's capital. Arab countries flip out whenever Jerusalem is mentioned as Israel's capital, even though Israel's possession of West Jerusalem is not seriously disputed. While it's true that West Jerusalem was not part of the proposed Jewish state approved by the UN in 1947, neither was Jaffa, which is now an undisputed part of Tel-Aviv! Secondly, even if one refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, there is no reason to recognize Tel-Aviv, which has no more of a claim to being Israel's capital than does Haifa, Beer-Sheba or Lod. In some parts of the world, maps of the Middle East still show Tel-Aviv as Israel's capital, which makes no sense -- if you're not going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city, you might as well not recognize any city at all. Might as well put the embassy in Eilat and spend your days on the beach. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What you mean is, it makes no logical sense. But international diplomacy rarely has anything to do with making logical sense; it's all about forging mutually acceptable compromises.

For another "nonsensical" example, go to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/countrylisting.html. Scroll down to the bottom of the page. Now, what is Taiwan doing down in that separate section underneath Zambia and Zimbabwe? Why isn't it up in the T's instead, as would make sense? Is this some kind of editing error? No, it is not some kind of editing error. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not always the capital. The capital of the UK is generally given as london, but I'm quite sure there aren't many embassies there, most of them seem to be in or around westminster.HS7 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm.. Westminster is IN London.Snorgle (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratification and signing of treaties

After reading several protocols in the European Convention on Human Rights, I was wondering about the difference between signing and ratification (e.g. Russia signed the total abolition of the death penalty, but did not ratify it). Apologies if this has already been covered! Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

When a country is said to have signed a treaty, this means that its negotiators, perhaps with the approval of its head of government, have agreed to a version of the treaty. However, this initial agreement may not be binding until or unless the country ratifies the treaty. Typically, ratification involves approval by a given country's parliament or other legislative body according to that country's constitution. Marco polo (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, that clarifies things a fair bit! :) Thank you, CycloneNimrod (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, with Council of Europe conventions it does happen that a member state signs such an instrument but twenty years later hasn't ratified it, so isn't a party to it. Xn4 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To add to Marco Polo's answer, treaty making, culminating in Ratification, the act by which a state proclaims its intent to be legally bound by the treaty is or can be a three stage process, especially in a non-parliamentary democracy, e.g. the USA. For treaty to become US law, (1) the US president signs a treaty, (2) then the Senate votes on it - this is advice and consent, not ratification, although it is frequently called ratification, and then (3) the president proclaims or ratifies the treaty. It can and has failed at any of these stages - the president in #3 can be different from the one in #1.John Z (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Existentialism and Fascism

How did the French existentialists perceive fascism? F Hebert (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Camus didn't agree he was an existentialist, so perhaps this comes down largely to Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir and their followers. Beauvoir, as a feminist, saw very clearly the sexism in Fascism. Sartre was politically engaged as a Communist, both during the Second World War (he belonged to a Resistance group called 'Socialism and Freedom') and in the bitter aftermath of the war in France, and Fascism wasn't merely his great political enemy but also the enemy which made him an activist and the fighter he was. Alas, as a political figure Sartre was dangerous. He famously defended the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli athletes, claiming that for the oppressed poor there is no weapon but terrorism. Xn4 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sartre's understanding of politics was not just dangerous, it was dangerously incoherent! He simply could never make up his mind over which direction he wished to travel. I think he saw in politics a way of seeking confirmation of himself, a classic example of existential bad-faith! On Fascism itself we have the words that de Beauvoir gave to a resistance leader "...if Fascism were to triumph, that's just what would happen. There would be no more human beings..." In other words there can be no human beings in the total absence of freedom, understanding humanity as a fluid rather than a static concept. But this statement is just as valid in relation to Communism, not as it existed as a theory, in the minds of the likes of de Beauvoir and Sartre, but as a living practice. On Fascism there is also the observation in Existentialism is a Humanism that if the doctrine prevailed "Fascism will then be the human realty, so much the worse for us." It didn't seem to stop the master publishing in occupied France, though! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Penises and Presidents

Which president is documented as having the largest penis? Is the penis size of a president or any other head of state ever been documented?

See Dick Cheney. :-) . I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been any sort of formal chart of presidential penis sizes, as of now. Try looking it up on Google. Ilikefood (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your question reminds me of Feynman's parable of the Emperor of China's nose. -- BenRG (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a five foot eleven inch Dick in the White House from 1969 to 1974 [7]. Edison (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But surely all you American guys have huge penises?! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good one, Edison. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

James Madison looked like he had the biggest. But you had to stand him on the dresser and close one eye and peer at him from across the room through a toiletpaper roll...--Wetman (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio it's not necessarily about size but who has the biggest that is important. Richard Avery (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Richard, you've lost me. Is the difference between bigness and size some kind of male thing? Perhaps it's best if you don't answer that! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Stock Market

What is a good website for a person wanting to begin in the stock market? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Howstuffworks.com probably has an article on the stock market. Ilikefood (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The possibility that you end up in the wrong place with someone trying to sell you something bad is quite large. I would always, regardless of whether you want to buy any products from them, go to your current bank's office first. User:Krator (t c) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Morningstar was quite helpful to me when I began investing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are thinking of investing real money in the stock market, then I think that you should consider investing a few dollars/pounds in an introductory guide to stock investing that offers more information for the beginner than any website is likely to offer. I have been impressed by Stock Investing for Dummies, published by the For Dummies imprint, which should be available at nearly any bookstore, online or on the ground. It explains the basics and offers tips for avoiding beginners' errors. Marco polo (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just don't go to the bank that Ken Done is suing for (whoops) allegedly losing his millions through start-up speculation. Which bank? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you can learn from people. Investment clubs typically meet monthly, and may have active discussion boards as well. See for example Motley Fool. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)