Humanities desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 23 >

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 22

Pantheism

I have two questions to ask you:

1. What kind of pantheism is the New Age, classical pantheism or naturalistic pantheism?

2. Is Buddhism a classical pantheistic religion?

3. What kind of pantheism is cosmic humanism, classical pantheism or naturalistic pantheism?

4. Are George Lucas and Bob Brown pantheists? If so, then what kind of pantheists are they?

60.242.166.182 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could this possibly be the Spanish Inquisition? Our weapons are...etc. etc. Sorry for the levity, 60.242. I do not have the answers to your four questions, but others might! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure George Lucas actually believes in the Force. He was certainly influenced by pantheist thought when thinking up the Force, but I don't think he's that engrossed in his own universe. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define "New Age" for me and I may be able to help you with that one,hotclaws 08:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean most New Age religions in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 10:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can answer no.2. Buddhism is non-theistic (so according to some definitions it is also not a religion). See Buddhism.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Age spirituality is such a pick and mix affair that you will find people who believe in just about anything. SaundersW (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what about New Age philosophy in general? What about cosmic humanism? Are they classical or naturalistic pantheist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for specific answers to very vague belief systems. "New Age" is a popular term for any number of faiths/philosophies that popped up in the latter half of the Twentieth century. Cosmic humanism is a new one on me, so I haven't a clue. Maybe it would help if you'd narrow down what exactly you're trying to find out? -- Kesh (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aeneid

According to Frederick Ahl, The Aeneid has the most exciting battles to be found in classical epic. Do the battles in the Dryden translation live up to the excitement of the original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.190.135 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the Dryden translation and tell us? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book II has the Trojan War scenes Aeneas narrates to Dido. Here's an on-line translation, sailing close-hauled to the Latin, which you might contrast with Dryden, who will sound a bit oratorical and indirect to your ears. --Wetman (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, of course, much of the excitement of the original (which was meant to be heard aloud) comes from the sound effects (alliteration, onomatopoeia, metre etc.) which will be different in English, however literally the words are translated. D aniel (‽) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I wish I'd read George Steiner, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation, so that I could mention it at this point and suggest it be read. sigh. --Wetman (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pre bank interesr rates

i am trying to find out the bank of south australias interest rates for the years 1978-1990 inclucive.previously know as state bank of south australia or bank s.a prior and after it went bankrupt. i believe the rates got over 20% so i hope someone out there can help me.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.142.93 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism

I have two questions to ask you about Judaism:

1. According to Judaism, is being a Jew the only way to go to Heaven? Is it possible to go to Heaven without being a Jew?

2. According to Judaism, do all people either go to Heaven or go to Hell after they die? Are there any people who will neither go to Heaven nor go to Hell after they die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 10:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish eschatology#The afterlife and olam haba (the "world to come") might be useful. Algebraist 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page -- [1] -- is also great. It says that yes, Gentiles can get into Olam Ha-Ba; that there is not thought to be a permanent "hell;" and that sources differ on what happens to the truly wicked after their stay in Gehinnom, which is kind of like purgatory. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism does not have the same concept of Hell as modern Christianity. There is Gehenna, which is similar to the Catholic Purgatory, a place where those deemed sinful in the eyes of God go to be cleansed. All others proceed to the afterlife, what Christians would term Heaven. My layman's understanding is that all souls go to the afterlife, but the Jews hold a special place in God's service for their loyalty and faithfulness. -- Kesh (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God, Logic, and Omnipotence

According to Christianity, God is all-powerful, almighty, and omnipotent. That means that there is nothing God cannot or is unable to do. There have been some disagreements about what this means, about whether this only means God can do anything physically impossible or that this means that he can also do anything logically impossible, like making one plus one equal three, as well as anything physically impossible. Some people say this only means God can do anything physically impossible. Other people say that this means that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible.

I don’t understand. How do we know? How can we know? How could we know? How do we know if the omnipotence of God only means he can do anything physically impossible or that it means that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible?

The Bible says that God is all-powerful, almighty, and omnipotent. But by this does the Bible only mean that he can do anything physically impossible or does it mean that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible? How do we know if by this the Bible only means that he can do anything physically impossible or that it means that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible? The Bible may say something, but that thing can be and may be interpreted and defined differently, in different ways. Should we interpret and define what the Bible says about God and omnipotence as only meaning that God can do anything physically impossible or as meaning that he can also do anything logically impossible as well as anything physically impossible? How should we interpret the Bible in this case?

I’ve read the articles in Wikipedia on omnipotence and omnipotence paradox, but I still don’t understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.166.182 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How you should interpret the Bible is up to your faith. Dismas|^(talk) 10:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could we even dare to say what god is capable of? Arguably, no human being was ever able to know this, as it would require one to know god by his own point of view. The claim that god is omnipotent has no foundation on anything but the definition of god itself, if you really think about it, and the term omnipotence already carries too many logical problems on itself, that adds up to the concept of god. The bible was also written by people thousands of year ago, for whom the simplest things of today would be considered miracles or impossibilities. It makes you wonder how far their definition of what was possible went.

In short, the term is ambiguous, and we can never know what it means in the context of the bible since it isn't very clear, and that's all the information you have available to judge. There are other faiths that will give the same attributes to god, and those might be more explicit, but it's not the same context so you might not be interested. — Kieff | Talk 10:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that it doesn't matter about God here. What you're asking could be said of the word "omnipotence" in general—is it even coherent? Not really, in strict philosophical terms. Does that have implications for theology? Only if you think the vague statements in the Bible about God's abilities are meant to be 1. rigorous philosophy, and 2. actually imply that they ascribe a very strict form of omnipotence to God. Personally I think it's a misreading of the Bible to assume it is meant to be describing God in rigorous terms (in the same way I think it is a misreading to think the Bible should be taken as an authority on scientific matters), and I think it's a categorical error to apply concepts like a rigorous, analytical concept of omnipotence to the deity described in the Bible. To me it seems like asking whether or not Hercules would have been a Republican or a Democrat, whether Odyssey was meant to be a rigorous description of maritime travel, etc. But I'm obviously not a literalist, here, nor actually a believer. But I've never thought the omnipotence paradox amounted to anything more than a misunderstanding, an anachronism. If I were religious, though, I'd probably argue that to understand God in such blunt terms misunderstands him completely—God is an entity outside of the realm of natural events, natural concepts, natural knowledge. Something as simple as strict logic should be easy enough for the creator of the universe to shrug off. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A previous question along similar lines was referred to Stephen J Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria. My preferred source would be the educational philosopher Paul H Hirst, who divided knowledge into 8 forms, each of which had its own concepts, its own ways of relating those concepts with each other, and its own test against experience. For example, the test of mathematics/logic is tautology (are we, essentially, demonstrating that 1=1?), while that of science is the crucial experiment (what is the test that we could employ to show this to be false?). Other forms are aesthetics, ethics, history and religion. It is not possible to use the concepts and arguments of one form of knowledge to discuss matters from another form. Logic simply does not apply where matters of faith are concerned. No amount of reasoning will reveal how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. SaundersW (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing devoted a whole book to the subject of why you can't explain or understand the nature of God, because attempting to do so makes failure unavoidable: a sort of spiritual version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The quote on its Wikipedia entry sums it up in one: "If you do not overcome this need to understand, it will undermine your quest. It will replace the darkness which you have pierced to reach God with clear images of something which, however good, however beautiful, however Godlike, is not God." Not a lot of point wondering, then. Anyhow, who defines what is a logical impossibiity? I'm no mathematician, but was once assured by a graduate student friend that there are branches of maths in which 2 plus 2 definitely equals 5, so 1 + 1 may well equal 3, somewhere, somehow. -- Ka renjc 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and as I mentioned in response to a similar question on the Misc desk, quantum mechanics is all about the fact that things that make sense in one realm (the human, macroscopic realm) may not make any sense in another (the quantum one). The macroscopic realm requires that every event have a cause; that's not the case in the quantum one. The macroscopic realm keeps something from being two contradictory things at the same time; not so with the quantum. By analogy it would not be hard to guess that God, a being posited as being outside of space and time, would not be bound to the same logics or requirements of those beings within space and time. Again, it's all metaphysics—none of this is very rigorous, because the concept of God is not very rigorous. Just as God is not an area of serious scientific inquiry, it seems to me that it is not an area of serious philosophical inquiry either, because the terms are so ill-defined and intangible. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the concept of God being able to do what is logically impossible, as well as what is physically impossible, a bit exaggerating and exaggerated? I mean, it is one thing to say that there is a god who is the ruler and creator of the universe and that he has supernatural powers, but it is another thong to say that that god can do what is impossible logically as well as physically. I find what some religions and religious believers, such as some Christians, say about god and how great and powerful he is to be a bit exaggerating and exaggerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late – no wonder the hum desk and misc desk are starting to look alike. This poster seems to be on a mission. It doesn't help when they're also crossposting and getting lots of attention. From the posts there —

"I can't say if the desk would lose or benefit by these questions not happening, but see the poster's talk pages here: User talk:60.242.166.182, User talk:Bowei Huang and here[2]. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Short term over long term

People often state, and it is commonly accepted, that people favour short term gains and long term losses over short term losses with long term gains, even if the long term gain far outweighs the short term gain. Cna anyone offer any relevant pages or citations that I can include this in a suitably referenced paper. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.151.57 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to make a sweeping judgment for all people. You can find a lot of references for specific groups of people by using specific examples. For example, there is currently a lot of news about people who were more than happy to take a mortgage at a short-term very low interest rate while knowing that the interest rate would be unreasonable high in the long term. There are regular news articles about people who do other similarly dumb things, such as taking out a title loan on a vehicle. In the short term they get a few hundred dollars. In the long term, they lose their vehicle and have to pay thousands to get a new one. How about gambling in general? In the short term, you may win a little bit here and a little bit there. You will lose a lot over the long term. By choosing specific examples, locating references is rather easy. -- kainaw ™ 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The counter-examples are things like deciding to continue studying rather than going straight into employment, investing in a pension, where you lose the use of the money in the short term for long term advantage, having children, where the long-term pleasure comes at the expense of broken nights and a home smelling of bodily fluids in the short term. SaundersW (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an economics perspective, see Time preference. --D. Monack | talk 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Commune of 1871 and the Law of Hostages

Were the Commune's actions here modeled on the Great Terror of the first Revolution or was it a new departure in the use of threat and reprisal as a political weapon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.105.225 (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of Hostages, a response to stories that the Versailles Army of Adolphe Thiers was executing captured Communards, was actually modeled on the 1793 Law of Suspects, 81.152, rather than the similarly named act passed by the Directory in 1799. The difference, I suppose, is that the Law of Suspects was passed in a time of national emergency, whereas the Law of Hostages was intended as an act of terror and intimidation, aimed against those who took a different political position from the Communards. The text of the act justifies the measures taken as follows;

...that the government of Versailles tramples under foot the rights of humanity as those of war; that it is guilty of horrors that have not even sullied the invaders of French territory...All persons accused of complicity with the government of Versailles shall be decreed accused and imprisoned...the jury will pronounce judgement within twenty-four hours; all the accused detained by the verdict of the jury shall be the hostages of the people of Paris; for every execution of a prisoner of war or a partisan of the legal government of the Commune will be followed by the execution of three times the number of hostages.

This decree became law on 6 April, 1871. Although passed by the Council of the Commune no action was taken for some weeks. But there were those like Raoul Rigault and other extremists, who took their inspiration from the likes of Gracchus Babeuf and Auguste Blanqui, who saw in the Law a way of advancing their own political and ideological ends. And high among their objectives was the destruction of the French Catholic Church. The Committee of General Security, a body set up by Rigault, and packed with his associates, duly ordered the arrest of Georges Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, and other clerics.

The whole thing was complete error of judgement; for not only was Darboy far from being the kind of cleric so hated by the left (he had attacked the doctrine of Papal Infallibility) but his arrest played right into the hands of the Versailles press, which argued that the fight was simply against common criminals.

Darboy and the others were eventually shot, an act of political terrorism that served as a model for those who later attempted to walk in the path of the Commune. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortgage crisis and help from the government

Why should the government (of the US or UK) help people who were stupid enough to take a 100% mortgage with variable interest over 50 years? Wouldn´t it be healthier for the economy to let these people fall? It is just a normal economical darwinian process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be "healthier for the economy" because the true picture is not as simple as you paint it. Firstly, if people become homeless, they don't just neatly disappear - they become more and more dependent on state benefits, so social security costs rise and the economy suffers. Secondly, if lack of liquidity forces banks to repossess houses in negative equity then the banks start losing money, which erodes confidence in the financial sector, which is also very bad for the economy. Part of the any government's job is to manage their country's economy. There may be arguments over whether they are taking the right actions or doing things at the right time, but a democratic government that just let its country's economy go into free-fall would not be in power for very long. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it is the banks that are stupid, lending to those who clearly had no hope in hell of paying it back. There was a time when you could only borrow money from the bank if you had sufficient fluidity to pay it back on demand. --Artjo (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf is right, when people lose confidence in the economy, they spend less, which means manufacturers produce less, which means firing people, which means these people have less money to spend. It's a vicious cycle. This type of economy is doomed to impression. However, based on similiar beliefs that a economy is doing well, people would spend money, and the economy would do well. So, economists aren't helping with their grisly perdictions. Although it's notable that speculations could also cause some problems. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever was stupid - the lenders or the borrowers, I think people would trust the economy much more if they knew that only the right people will be punished. If the government is helping, everyone is helping, and everyone is paying for the mistakes of a minority. I was not arguing for letting the country economy go into a free-fall, but letting a part of the economy crash against the wall they were running to since a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the housing market was a big part of the economy. Simply letting it collapse will kill off more banks, investors will pull out more money, and things start to spiral downward. Not to mention the people who just lost their homes and possibly livelihood because banks revised those loans into unrealistic rates. Letting the economy crash hurts everyone. -- Kesh (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Body and soul

Is my body a part of me or is it just a tool of my soul to be in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See our article Mind-body dichotomy. I don't think it's possible to entertain a metaphysical notion that hasn't been thought out (read "done to death") by some troupe of philosophers somewhere. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea with no right answer. Believe as you will. Conventional thinking would say that being is predicated on having a body but plenty of theologians, philosophers, and mystics have suggested otherwise. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, of course. If you find it a pleasing idea by all means squeeze all the juice out of it you can get. You'll likely have forgotten about the whole notion in a week. Vranak (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There would seem, 80.58, to be three elements in your existential equation, not two: you ('my' 'me'), your body and your soul! You might want to read Descartes' Error and remember always that "I am, therefore I am". Clio the Muse (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or "I think, therefore I think I am." Edison (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a racist but...

Did you notice that many racists - and only racists - begin their arguments with this sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not being funny or anything, but...

Not wanting to hurt your feelings, but...

No offence, right, but...

I'm not being mean, but...

I'm not sexist, but...

Don't take this the wrong way, but... (my favourite, as it places all the blame on the listener)

It's a general phenomenon where people try to add disclaimers to their speech before saying something blatantly offensive. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a parallel with this in internet chat rooms where a rule of thumb exists - anyone that has to end a sentence with the letters 'jk' or the statement 'just kidding' rarely is and just added it to try and seem less bigoted or annoying. 62.136.16.36 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, no. If you had left out the "and only racists" bit, I would have said yes.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. These sayings are quite common in everyday speech, and it would be unfair and incorrect to say they're only said by racists. PeterSymonds | talk 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean, not wanting to hurt your feelings, but those sayings are pretty common. Don't take this the wrong way! :) Wrad (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of my best friends are..." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<insert group here, i.e. "...American, British, Australian, Black, Hispanic, Republican, Mormon, Catholic, Atheist, Disabled, Extra-terrestrials, ice-cream lovers..."> Wrad (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a rational, well-reasoned argument that began with "You people...". --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Friends, Romans, countrymen..." -- Ironmandius (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Now, don't take this personally, but....." Edison (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know about you, but ..." is another way of saying "I don't give a damn what you think but you're going to have to sit and listen to what I think". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Alf Garnett, perhaps. He didn't use these expressions. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this was on the daily show monday or tuesday night. "uh, no disrespect, but your mama is so fat that....". Gzuckier (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

judiciary

what is the role of judiciary in sustenance of democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.127.244 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for US specific info, the Judicial branch is part of the checks and balances afforded by the constitution. The original intent was for the Judicial branch to interpret the laws (enacted by the Legislative branch and enforced by the Executive branch), and judge their constitutionality. This is supposed to serve as a check to the excesses of the Legislative branch in enacting unjust laws, or the Executive branch in enforcing laws unfairly. How well it works in practice is personal opinion. You may also want to read Separation of powers under the United States Constitution and Judicial independence. Others may be able to comment on the role of the judiciary outside of the US. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar Riots

Is it really true that when the Gregorian calendar was introduced to Britain in 1752 people rioted becuase they thought they had lost ten days of their lives? Myra McCartney (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the so-called "Calendar riots" were a myth, and only appeared, at the earliest, in 1755. People were reputed to cry "Give us the eleven days back!" but this probably never happened. It did cause a problem though, as people were worried that it would be used to cheat taxpayers. It was seen as Popish (Britain at the time still fiercely anti-Catholic) and foreign, and a disruption to British tradition. This site explains quite a bit of context: [3]. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a fiction, Myra, one that has been repeated time and again. It even makes an appearance in the relevant edition of the Oxford History of England. Encyclopedia Britannica once put these alleged riots down to the 'vulgar and ignorant prejudice of the mob'. It's one of these stories that everyone seems to know about but nobody can quite pinpoint. The whole thing is a wonderful example of the circularity that one tends to find in certain forms of historical reportage: textbooks cited textbooks which cited other textbooks, and so on and so on! In other words, it was an event quite without witness. All such references are reducible to two sources only: to Lord Chesterfield and to William Hogarth.

It was Chesterfield who was behind the Calendar Reform Act of 1751. In one of his letters to his son he writes, "Every numerous assembly is a mob, let the individuals who compose it be what they will. Mere sense is never to be talked to a mob; their passions, their sentiments, their senses and their seeming interests alone are to be applied to. Understanding have they collectively none." But what he was doing here was boasting of his skill in having the Bill passed through the Lords. The 'mob' in question was his fellow peers!

So, this only leaves Hogarth's 1755 depiction of An Election Entertainment., in which a placard is shown, carrying the slogan 'Give us our eleven days.' According to Ronald Paulson, author of Hogarth, His Life, Art and Times, this shows that "...the Oxfordshire people...are specifically rioting, as historically the London crowd did, to preserve the 'Eleven Days' the government stole from them in September 1752 by changing the calendar."

And thus it was that the 'calendar riot' was born. The only problem is that the election campaign depicted was one which concluded in 1754, after a very lengthy contest between Court Whigs and Jacobite Tories. Literally every issue between the two factions was brought up, including the question of calendar reform. The Tories attacked the Whigs for every deviation, including their alleged favoritism towards foreign Jews and the 'Popish' calendar. Hogarth's placard, in his usual rumbustious fashion, is no more than part of a satire on the character of the debate. It was not an observation of actual crowd behaviour. The whole thing, as one author has rightly said, was simply a 'magnificent myth.' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now up to one of us to recast the relevant article Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 based on the foregoing and quoting Clio's sources. I have made Calendar riots a redirect. --05:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done; no inline references, however. Gwinva (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altered artifacts

Is there an archaeological or antiquarian term for artifacts that have been altered by later generations? For example, a religious artifact that is modified or reappropriated when a new religion is introduced.--Pharos (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palimpsest.--Wetman (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How wrong can you get?

I'm looking for good examples by politicians or people in public life of statements about events that turned out not just wrong but wildely wrong. Thanks. 86.157.195.125 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Churchill had a few good things to say about Hitler in the early days of his (Hitler's) reign. Dismas|^(talk) 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he did, he quickly lost them. He was opposing Hitler when most others wanted agreement with him. It was only in 1939 that people realised that war was inevitable (some still were suspicious of Hitler in the early days, most notably the King, George V). PeterSymonds | talk 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see by the following responses that my memory didn't serve me well this time. Dismas|^(talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Churchill warned against German re-armament but he was laughed off the public stage. The Chamberlain government assumed that Appeasement was the right way to go, because they didn't believe Hitler wanted war. I suppose the Munich Agreement can be looked on as an event that turned out to be so wrong. PeterSymonds | talk 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain announcing his appeasement of Hitler had achieved "peace in our time" was long ridiculed, although some now have a higher estimation of him for reasons I don't quite understand. Edison (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This site, discussing the revisionist views on Churchill during the pre-war years is quite interesting.[4] Views change with time; revisionists ask, was Chamberlain so wrong? Was Churchill so right? PeterSymonds | talk 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, as I have said before, if you want to see a defence of Chamberlain and Appeasement you only have to raise it as a separate question, and I will do my best to oblige! It was an understandable and wholly rational diplomatic strategy. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of mass destruction? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related is List of erroneous newspaper headlines, which is pretty funny. Recury (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a book, I Wish I'd Never Said That, which is filled with exactly what you're looking for. Skimming through its politics section, I find that President Grover Cleveland said in 1905 that "Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote" - in 1919 women were granted the right to vote, and in 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt assured mothers and fathers that their "boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars" - in 1941 the attack on Pearl Harbour propelled the USA into conflict. D aniel (‽) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, WWII can't exactly be called a foreign war. --Carnildo (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Open mouth, insert foot" could be the motto of several men who lost U.S. presidential contests after saying things they and their handlers would rather have left unsaid. George W. Romney was considered a strong candidate for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination, until he explained his shift to opposition to the Vietnam War by saying "When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." No one wanted a candidate whose brain was easily washed. His presidential campaign floundered. In a 1976 U.S. presidential election debate. President Gerald Ford said "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford Administration." and that he did not "believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union". Both statements were astonishing at the time, in the face of strong Soviet control of several satellite countries in Eastern Europe. Political obseervers thought that debate was the turning point and the reason for Carter's narrow victory [5]. Ford lost the election by a small margin. Gary Hart was the frontrunner for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. The politics of personal destruction were not then as vicious as later, and reporters could look the other way at some human frailties, but when there were rumors Hart was having an extramarital affair, he said to reporters "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored." Reporters tailed him and staked out his townhouse and observed an attractive young woman leaving during the night, leading to an exposé of his activities with an attractive young woman who was not his wife. He dropped out of the race a week later. George H. W. Bush got elected President in 1988 after declaring "Read my lips: no new taxes." Then in 1990 he signed into law tax increases. The pledge was used against him in his losing 1992 presidential campaign. Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" before the existance of DNA in certain stains on a certain blue dress forced him to admit improprieties with Monica Lewinsky. In each case there were attempts at spin doctoring afterward: Bush supporters said it was the fault of the Democrats in Congress that taxes were raised, despite his assurance that no one could get him to sign a tax increase, and Clinton supporters noted that a majority of college age Americans in a survey did not consider fellatio to be "sexual relations," a term which they reserved for coitus. So the handlers of a presidential candidate wait with bated breath when the candidate departs from the memorized "stump speech" or responds to a question other than one offered up by a supporter for which there is a carefully rehearsed answer. Edison (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few choice excerpts from The Guinness Book of Regrettable Quotations:

We rule by love and not by the bayonet - Josef Goebbels, 1936
I would have made a good pope - Richard Nixon, 1980
When the President does it, that means it is not illegal - Nixon again, in an interview with David Frost, 19 May 1977
An eccentric, dreamy, half-educated recluse in an out-of-the-way New England village (or anywhere else) cannot with impunity set at defiance the laws of gravitation and grammar. Oblivion lingers in the immediate neighbourhood - Thomas Bailey Aldrich, writing in The Atlantic Monthly, January 1892, of Emily Dickinson
I'm sorry, Mr Kipling, but you just don't know how to use the English language - the editor of the San Francisco Examiner, 1889
Deprived of beauty, of harmony, and of clarity and melody - Johann Scheibe, writing about Johann Sebastian Bach, 1737
If that was music, I no longer understand anything about the subject - Hans von Bulow on hearing Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2, c.1890
Mozart died too late rather than too soon - Glenn Gould, supposedly said in 1984, but Gould died in 1982
Rock 'n' roll is phoney and false, and sung, written and played for the most part by cretinous goons - Frank Sinatra, 1958
The Beatles are not merely awful, I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are godawful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as "anti-popes" - William F Buckley, 1964
I tell you flatly, he can't last - Jackie Gleason on Elvis Presley, 1956
Who the hell wants to hear actors talk? - Harry M. Warner, c. 1927
The part's too small - Ed Wynn, rejecting the title role in The Wizard of Oz
I think there's a world market for about five computers - Thomas J Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1947
In all likelihood, world inflation is over - Managing Director of the IMF, 1957
The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States - the Chicago Times opinion of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
ALL SAVED FROM TITANIC AFTER COLLISION: RESCUE BY CARPATHIA AND PARISIAN; LINER IS BEING TOWED TO HALIFAX AFTER SMASHING INTO ICEBERG - the New York Evening Sun, 15 April 1912
The mental constitution of the negro is ... normally good-natured and cheerful, but subject to sudden fits of emotion and passion during which he is capable of performing acts of singular atrocity, impressionable, vain, but often exhibiting in the capacity of servant a dog-like fidelity which has stood the supreme test. ... After puberty, sexual matters take first place in the negro's life and thoughts - Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten - St Thomas Aquinas
Clio will really love this one, coming as it does from one of her heroes - When a woman becomes a scholar there is usually something wrong with her sexual organs - Friedrich Nietzsche, 1888
Direct thought is not an attribute of femininity - Thomas Alva Edison, in an article "The Woman of the Future", in Good Housekeeping, October 1912
The power of tobacco to sustain the system, to keep up nutrition, to maintain and increase the weight, to brace against severe exertion, and to replace ordinary food, is a matter of daily and hourly demonstration - George Black, The Doctor at Home, 1898
Masturbation is certainly the most dangerous sexual vice that a society can be afflicted with in the long run - D H Lawrence, in Pornography and Obscenity, 1930
NIZAM OF HYDERABAD IS DEAD - The Times, 23 February 1964
NIZAM OF HYDERABAD SLIGHTLY BETTER - The Times, 24 February 1964
-- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, I don't think there will be a woman Prime Minister in my lifetime. Margaret Thatcher, 1973. [6] Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They become ever more active, Jack!

OK, then, 86.157, here below is a real classic.

My people and I, Josef Vissarionovich, firmly remember your wise prediction: Hitler will not attack in 1941!

It was addressed to Stalin by Lavrenti Beria, his head of security, on 21 June 1941. The following day, at 3.15 in the morning, Operation Barbarossa was launched. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nixin quote is odd in this list: both genuinely Nixonian and truly papal. He had Pius XII in mind, of course. --Wetman (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one has pointed out "Dewey defeats Truman": — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truman was so widely expected to lose the 1948 election that the Chicago Tribune ran this incorrect headline — Truman was so widely expected to lose the 1948 election that the *Chicago Tribune* ran this incorrect headline

Then there's the one who said bottled water would never take off. But the predictions of marketplace success and failure are another category. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything went wrong in Nixon's "I would have made a good pope" (1980), it was surely that he lacked the sure-footedness to stay several moves ahead of the lynch mob. Xn4 08:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters you hate

Further to an interesting thread I read here recently concerning male characters in literature you could fall in love with I would be intersted to know the reverse-which character in literature do you actively dislike or even hate? 86.157.195.125 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Jane Eyre, her aunt (Sarah Reed) and cousins. Also, Mr Brocklehurst and Blanche Ingram. Just an example from one novel. PeterSymonds | talk 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice. Mr Fairlie in The Woman in White. Tartuffe. Mr Casaubon in Middlemarch. Heathcliff. Scarlett O'Hara. Bridget Jones. Oh, and Rebecca, even though she's already dead. She and Mrs Danvers deserved each other. Ka renjc 19:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Price, Winston Smith. Both simply awful. --90.198.200.119 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every single character in Wuthering Heights, which was probably why I didn't get on with it. So many of the characters in Mansfield Park, although that was more enjoyable as I was egging Fanny on to JUST GROW A BACKBONE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. But I suppose it was more realistic :/ Louis de Bernières for the ending of Captain Corelli's Mandolin *sob* Skittle (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo, and I suppose Juliet, because they are idiots and seemed to be just like me and everyone else I knew in high school when we read it. (I also hate the idea that it's a great love story, argh!) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk) [reply]

Kitty from Pride and Prejudice. Achilles from Orson Scott Card's Shadow series. Wrad (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I hate any characters in literature though there are a lot that I find quite tiresome, particularly the feckless Harold Skimpole in Charles Dickens's Bleak House, and just about everyone in George Bernard Shaw's overrated and bloodless plays.

But the one character who had the most negative impact on me was Uncle Tom. I used to wonder what black Americans meant when they used the term in such a disparaging way towards certain members of their community; I used to wonder, that is, until I opened the pages of Uncle Tom's Cabin! Yes, I know that Harriet Beecher Stowe intended him as a 'noble hero.' Yes, I know that he demonstrates a certain form of Christian resignation and acceptance, that would have been wholly understandable to a nineteenth century readership. Yes, I know that it was a message for the times. But when I reached such a stage of irritation with him, when I began to feel that he needed a 'damned good whipping' to rouse him from his dog-like torpor, then I simply knew I had to stop reading. To be put in the frame of mind of a slave owner in the Old South was far from being a comfortable experience! Clio the Muse (talk)

Clio already knows I'm no fan of Heathcliff, but I'll leave that one there. I hold that just about all characters of Jane Austen's Emma were written to be unlikeable, with the exception of Mr Knightley (who still has his faults). Mr Collins is equally unlikeable, along with his patroness the Lady Catherine de Bourg, again written almost purely for their dislikeability. Steewi (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Estella (Great Expectations ), I can't think of any Dickens heroine who is in any way attractive to a contemporary male reader: they're all so bloody wet. And, of course, the genius of Shakespeare was to take characters whom we ought actively to dislike - Brutus, who murders his best friend; Macbeth, who ends his play as a nihilistic mass-murderer - and make them attractive. Perhaps the comic foils Violet Elizabeth Bott with her I'll thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until I'm sick... and I can! ; Fotherington-Thomas (Nigel Molesworth's opinion: Thou art very wet and weedy ); or Madeline Bassett with her gormless the stars are God's daisy chain . --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Major mentions some characters that are clearly meant to be disagreeable. I wonder how many of those mentioned above were actually intended by the authors to be admirable or likeable. My own contribution to this would be Charles Ryder of Brideshead Revisited, who I find loathsome; but maybe Evelyn Waugh wants us to admire him. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Myshkin. Yes, I know beauty, of the soul. He is truly the Idiot.--Tresckow (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Hamlet yet; a great many people hate his whining, procrastination, and how he treats Ophelia. Personally, I've never really liked the characters of Sydney Carton, Lucie, or the knitting Madame Defarge of Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities or Faulkner's Joe Christmas in Light in August for that matter. Oh, and General Woundwort from Watership Down (evil Fascist bunny for those not in the know). Zidel333 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nell. qp10qp (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Clio's mentioned Uncle Tom, but what about Simon Legree? Corvus cornix_talk 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Legree, indeed. Mrs. Yeobright from The Return of the Native, too; oh, I wanted to jump in there and tell her to LET CLYM BE and leave off dogging him. Mr. Bumble is another one I'd like to give a good, solid whacking... And let's not forget Uriah Heep, either. Ugh. --^La Pianísta! 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More from Dickens: Wackford Squeers. And from Les Miserables, the Thénardiers. Corvus cornix_talk 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iago, Aaron the Moor, Tamora from Shakespeare. Wrad (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more off my chest...Zeena from Ethan Frome. Grr. --^La Pianísta! 04:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union and the Munich Crisis

Thank you Clio for your response to my question on the planning for the German western offensive of 1940. Perhaps you can also help with this? The Soviet Union, along with France, had offered guarantees to Czechoslovakia in the event of attack by Germany. Is there any evidence that the Soviets were prepared to honour this promise in the build up to the Munich Crisis of 1938? I need this information for a study on strategy and politics in late 1930s and early 1940s. I am grateful for your able assistance. John Spencer (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, John, there is. Stalin had been so shaken by the victory of Hitler in Germany, and the ensuing destruction of the KPD, the strongest Communist Party in the World outside Russia, that the extreme-left Third Period strategy was abandoned in favour of one that emphasised co-operation with 'bourgeois' liberals and socialists in anti-Fascist Popular Fronts. The corollary of this was a policy of Collective Security, which saw the Soviet Union join the League of Nations.

Given the threat that Hitlerite Germany represented to the Soviet Union, Stalin was wholly sincere in his application of collective security, though he founded it difficult to trust the western Allies, including the French, with whom he had entered into a Treaty of Mutual Assistance in 1935. As early as March 1938, when the Czech crisis started to get underway, the Soviets privately assured Eduard Benes that they would honour their treaty obligations, so long as the French acted in concert. This remained their position over the summer.

This was far more than a cynical gesture on Stalin's part. We now know from sources released since the collapse of the Soviet Union just how serious he was. On September 20, on the threshold of the Munich Agreement itself, he gave fresh assurances to Benes of Soviet military support. Two days after this the Kiev and Belorussia military districts were put on alert, and troops redeployed westwards. On September 28, the day of the Munich Conference itself, the military districts west of the Urals were ordered to end all leave. The following day some 330,000 reservists were called up, and the Czech government offered 700 fighter aircraft. But the most significant revelation of all is that Romania, the only route by which the Red Army could have advanced towards the heart of Europe, given the hostility of the Poles, agreed to allow 100,000 Soviet troops to cross to Czechoslovakia. Maxim Litvinov, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, also said that the Soviets would go to war, even if the British and French did not, only providing that the Czechs themselves offered some resistance.

But, of course, it came to nothing, because Stalin's 'partners' did a deal and the Czechs did not fight. It's difficult to know how best to interpret this data. It's quite possible that Stalin was merely keeping his options open. The mobilisation was of a partial nature, and while the Poles were warned that any move on their part against the Czechs would be considered as unprovoked aggression, no such message was sent to the Germans. But the Munich Conference itself, to which the Soviets were not invited, was the effective end of all further notions of collective security. Stalin was now convinced that Hitler was being urged eastwards by the duplicity of Brittan and France. In the game that followed the Soviets eventually turned the tables in the Pact of August 1939. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Would you agree that the pact with Hitler exposed the limits of Stalin's political and strategic vision, offering but a temporary breathing space? John Spencer (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it important to understand the circumstances of the time, John, also taking into account Stalin's own expectations. Although the Soviets were quite serious about forming a common front with the west against Hitler, Britain and France were altogether less anxious. Even so, the Soviets held the Germans at a distance for some time. Indeed, it wasn't until August, when all prospect of a western alliance was dead, that they began to take German overtures seriously. It's not at all surprising that Stalin began to listen: for Hitler was effectively offering to reverse the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, placing back in the Soviet orbit all of the lands lost at that time, including the western areas of the Ukraine and Belorussia, the Baltic States, Finland and Bessarabia. All of this immeasurably increased Soviet security.

However, I suspect that your objection here may be that these were illusory gains that would have left Stalin isolated on the Continent in the event of a German victory. But Stalin was convinced that a war between Hitler and the west would only be to his advantage, fully expecting it to develop as it had in 1914, with Germany emerging so weakened that it would be years before it was able to consider an attack on Russia. So when France fell in a matter of weeks to the German Blitzkrieg he was genuinely shocked. When news of the surrender came through Khrushchev watched him pacing up and down, cursing like a cab driver, as he puts it, and saying, "How could they allow Hitler to defeat them, to crush them?" He at once took charge of the remaining areas allotted to him under the pact with the Nazis, forcing the Romanians to surrender Bessarabia and incorporating the three Baltic States into the Soviet Union. But Stalin's biggest error was to learn almost nothing from German tactics in Poland and the west. Fully expecting to halt any future offensive on the borders, he ordered the hurried construction of new defence-works, right under the noses of the Germans. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word for the object used in a murder (old legal word)

What's the word, it's an old word, that is used to describe the murder instrument (i.e., the knife used). It's a specific word that refers to the object.

I remember it being used in Oliver Holmes' "The Common Law." I just can't seem to recall it right now, and my copy of "The Common Law" is at school. Estrbrook (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deodand? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, exactly. Thanks. Estrbrook (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

learn something new every day. maybe that's where doodad came from. Gzuckier (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paying Volunteers

Is it possible for a volunteer to recieve payment for their services and still be considered a volunteer? 99.226.39.245 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends upon the way in which the word is used. If you take a volunteer to be a person who performs a service for free, then no. If you consider volunteer as in "volunteered to join the army", then yes. And between the two ... maybe. For example one might get reasonable expenses, or a subsistence wage, as in Voluntary Service Overseas. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would the use of volunteer in this article be inappropriate? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer seems to be overly restrictive in stating that such people are by definition unpaid. None of Miriam Webster Online's definitions even mention the lack of pay. ("Unpaid volunteer" is a pretty common phrase.) In that light, volunteer is quite acceptable as used in FromFoamsToWaves' example. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Horatio Hornblower novels, in the British navy of the late 18th/early 19th century there were "volunteers" on British Navy ships who certainly got paid for their efforts and who aspired to become midshipmen. Tennessee is nicknamed the "Volunteer state." Soldiers from there volunteered in the War of 1812 (some sources say the Mexican War). They got paid. So "volunteer" in modern times means unpaid worker, but in wartime it could mean a patriot who was not drafted or the product of a press-gang. Edison (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is possible to volunteer for a task within paid employment. For example a soldier may volunteer to scout out enemy positions, still being paid his/her normal salary but getting no additional payment within the particular task.

Also, it is fairly common (in the UK at least) for volunteers to be able to claim expenses, so for working in a charity shop you could claim for the bus fair to get to the shop. This is not really payment, as you can only claim for expenditure you would not have made if you had not done the voluntary work. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World leaders

Content removed; was inappropriate. PeterSymonds | talk 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a couple of geographical questions

Hi, can anyone help me please: 1. Do any countries essentially meet at a point, and if so, are they considered to have a common border? I'm thinking of is Azerbaijan and Turkey specifically, which appear to share a point border according to my atlas, but naturally it doesn't give the sort of resolution to get the definitive answer. The wiki article on Azerbaijan says: "The Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan is bordered by ... Turkey to the northwest." This appears to answer the question, but can anyone confirm this specific example, and answer the general case of "point-border countries"?

2. This is a tricky, conjectural one. I've noticed the state boundaries in Europe are often "squiggly", sometimes because they are marked by rivers or mountain ranges, but at other times, apparently, without any geographical basis. On the other hand, African borders seem to be much straighter. Does this have anything to do with Africa's colonial past, such as Western powers "carving up" the continent by agreement (that is, on decolonisation), so they sliced the cake as neatly as they could? Alternatively, might it have something to do with the continent being drier, hence presumably with fewer rivers to serve as squiggly borders? And if I'm right about any of this, does it explain the similar situation in the Middle East, where snaking borders are common enough, but not to the exclusion of quite a number of angular borders (within the Arabian peninsula for example)? Thanks in advance, 203.221.126.94 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borders drawn in the 19th and 20th century, such as most of the Canada–US border, often follow straight lines. That's the case with the borders of African countries, many of which were drawn up in the late 19th century. It's a lot easier to simply say "the 10th parallel" than to try to work out whether each mountain, river and village should go on one side or the other. That's especially true when you're ignoring the people who live in those places, as colonialists were wont to do (and the US and UK did when drawing lines through Indian country). In Africa, the coastal areas, where European settlement first congregated, were considered the most important geography. The interior was just jungle and desert, so not as much time was spent worrying about the shape of the lines stretching into the interior. As you surmise, geography must have played a role as well. The lines through the Sahara are straight because there's not a lot of stuff there to serve as natural barriers. In Southern Africa, rivers like the Congo and Zambezi can and do serve as borders. The Middle East is similar to North Africa. Borders were drawn by colonial powers through desert. The border between Saudi Arabia and Yemen through the "Empty Quarter" wasn't even defined until recently, since there's nothing there but sand. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to question one, is this [7] the point you mean? If so, you can see the answer plainly. Vranak (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx v. much for those answers so far. Please keep them coming though, especially on question 2 and the general concept of "point boundaries" in q 1. Thanks for the google maps link, but it doesn't work for my slow dialup somehow. It downloads, but not fully, or so it seems, because it looks very imprecise. I get a nice clear picture of not very much, and it takes a while to get it. Perhaps someone can give another link, or tell me what I would see at the other link if I was up to date with the digital revolution. ta 203.221.126.88 (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At higher resolution there is no 'point' boundary between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Vranak (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1947 Palestine partition plan would have connected the Arab West Bank to two other Arab areas by points. How this would have functioned in reality became a moot point when the Arabs rejected the partition plan and wound up with less land anyway after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, aka the Israeli War of Independence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On question 1, two countries meeting at a point would involve four total countries meeting at a point. For a U.S. state example, see Four Corners, where four states meet at a point. See also the Quadripoint page, which says there are currently no such points for countries. The closest involves Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. The page List of land border lengths says the border between Botswana and Zambia is 2 km long, not a point, which would mean Zimbabwe and Namibia do not touch. There are certainly subnational "secondary quadripoints", such as the Four Corners. So we could ask, "do Arizona and Colorado share a common border?" I'd guess the answer is a matter of opinion... yes and no. The page on Arizona says that Arizona "borders New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, touches Colorado..." The Utah page puts it this way: "Utah ... is bordered by Idaho in the north, Wyoming in the north and east; by Colorado in the east; at a single point by New Mexico to the southeast...; by Arizona in the south; and by Nevada in the west."

An addition to this -- according to the Four color theorem: "Two regions are called adjacent only if they share a border segment, not just a point." Pfly (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for question 2, I think you have it right. Other regions with ancient borders are mainly "squiggly", like China and Southeast Asia. The Middle East had squiggly borders (or undefined ones "somewhere in the desert") until European nations drew new boundaries after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, if I'm not confused. Pfly (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you all; these are terrific answers. I consider the matter to be mostly resolved, but I won't add the "resolved" tag at the top, because the issue with question 2, about the exact reasons for squiggly borders, is potentially somewhat contentious, and someone may wish to debate the matter. Glad I asked the question. 203.161.95.46 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]