Humanities desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18

What happened to the buildings?

The top two photos in Potemkin Stairs show a modern view and a c. 1900 view of the stairs: while only trees are visible in the modern picture, the older one shows buildings. What happened to the buildings? I suppose the trees could be hiding them, but it doesn't look like it. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it to me...if you click on the images to enlarge them, you can see the tops of the buildings behind the trees. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the buildings are still there. I've been there and seen them. The building on the left now houses a hotel called Dezha Vyu, named after the title of a Polish-Soviet film (Deja vu by Juliusz Machulski) set in Odessa. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credit and supply elasticity

For credit, what will be the main determinant of supply? Flowing on, will supply be inelastic or elastic?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.32.126 (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the overall macroeconomic supply of credit then I would argue as follows. Subject to reserve ratios, capital requirements and other regulations, banks will lend out as much as they can. So if you're happy with the real money supply being inelastic then (given a constant money supply and no change in regulation) the supply of credit should be inelastic also (banks can't lend money they don't have). In that case, the determinants of credit supply would be money supply and regulation (e.g. a decrease in the reserve ratio implies an increase in credit supply). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Integration of foreigners

Is it easier to a foreigner to integrate in a city with a high percentage of foreigners (like London or New York) or in a city with a low percentage of foreigners? GoingOnTracks (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably difficult to answer this general question, as there are a lot of individual variables (foreigner's language skills, cultural and ethnic proximity, income, social situation, self-sufficiency, ...) and locational variables (how integrated is the exisiting population of foreigners, specifically and in general, how adept is the local culture at integrating foreigners).

High percentage of foreigners can indicate an existing network which might facilitate integration. It can also be indicative of pre-existing prejudice, strife, and seperation of cultures. In certain cities you will find organized communities of foreigners who can lead functional lives without the need to "mingle" with the "mainstream" culture or learn its language. Small population of foreigners can put more pressure on the individual to integrate (which could be seen as facilitating), but also a different, more ignorant kind of prejudice of course. I don't think there's an absolute answer to your question, and you probably need to look at specific examples one by one. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we stick to integration in Western cities, it might be interesting to compare a list of cities by percentage of foreign population and compare them with a list of factors such as economic and educational perspective, language fluency etc among immigrants, and adaptation of immigrant culture as well as the sprouting of xenophobic political parties among the mainstream dominant culture. And so forth. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general answer to your general question is: nobody knows. If you are a member of a tiny minority like Roma in Italy you probably will be discriminated. On the other hand a huge minority like the Irish in London don't suffer any discrimination at all (besides some jokes). Not even the Nazis had a general rule to treat all foreigners alike. 217.168.4.241 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note even within a city, it's going to vary from place to place, and from person to person (beyond ethnicity I mean). For example, in the US an Arab university academic is probably going to find it a lot easier to fit in then say an Arab truck driver (sorry it was the best example I could think of). A boistirous in your face American female living in a conservative country is probably going to have a lot more trouble fitting in then a quiet American couple Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember an LA Times article profiling children of a couple living in South LA compared to Kentucky. The Kentucky family was better able to learn English and prospered. mirror article Lotsofissues 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that masturbation was illegal in the Nazi Germany??

Hi, I am a 15 year old male teen and I have read very much about the Third Reich. One of those things was about the illegality of the masturbation because it's "against the reproduction". So, my question is What was the punishment to people practised masturbation and the important question... How did they persecute this people (masturbation is totally personal and private life) when surely most of them, most of us and most of people around the world practise it?... Thanks a lot and greetings from Argentina to all. 201.254.92.175 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any legally codified general Verbot of masturbation during the Third Reich. The National Political Institutes of Education ("Napola") certainly prohibited masturbation as part of their cadet program, but this educational stance wasn't and perhaps isn't unique to Nazi Germany. The "Jungmannen" (cadets) were intended to be disciplined toward a "pure" concept of sexuality, derived from "the pure and clean sexual life of pagan forefathers". This program also probihited homosexuality, obscene conversations and jokes, and prescribed nude bathing and "worship" of the other gender.

I found a quote from a speech held for the Jugendweihe at the "Napola" boarding school in Plön in 1943 (my translation): "Who assaults his own body (sorry I don't know how to translate "sich an etwas vergreifen" ) abuses powers meant for procreation and will become a limp, weak-willed fellow" ("Wer sich an seinem eigenen Körper vergreift, mißbraucht Kräfte, die zur Fortpflanzung bestimmt sind, wird ein schlapper, willensschwacher Kerl."). [1] In "Napola" schools this was enforced by strict supervision and collective punishment leading to constant peer pressure and social control. I don't know whether this answers your question, but Nazi education programs may be where it's coming from. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and prescribed nude bathing and "worship" of the other gender. Amusing typo... :) Proscribed would be more likely. Steewi (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh, sadly the distance of "rtyui" between "e" and "o" points to sloppy English rather than a typo, but thank you for assuming good vocabulary and making me smile. ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AGF, CIVIL and all that. I couldn't just leave it there, though. It was too good an opportunity. Steewi (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a serious subject but I keep getting visions of Gestapo officers banging on a door & shouting kommen mit deinen Händen und Ihre Hosen unten (come out with your hands up and your trousers down)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.107.169 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting fires lit

I was wondering about how people got fire in the past, (Most importantly in the middle-ages)

Today we have lighters and matches, making it easy. And before they used sticks and maybe even flint-stones.

1) but I'm interested in knowing what certain methods belonged to what timelines, When they started using flints, and when they started using sticks and even other methods not mentioned here, then i hope to learn of it. I realize of course that techinques and methods probably varied from region to region a little.

2) And when/how early did matches come into the picture? Were they invented only a 100 years ago, 200 years, or earlier?

3) Most important to me is learning of the methods used in Middle age - Europe and especially how they handled making camp-fires and such in minus degrees, in really really cold environments, and maybe even when snow and ice covered the ground, making it hard to find stones or dry sticks.

This is a question not easy to find answers to, i don't really know where to start other than trying to see what knowledge of this you fellow Wikipedians may possess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.188.157 (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be amused to know that modern matches are actually relative high tech, dating from the 19th century. They seem simple, but they require a certain level of knowledge of chemistry in order to work safely and reliably. --66.180.186.198 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the tinderbox article, and particularly the external link to Oxford University. 134.96.105.72 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that medieval folk who had to make fire from scratch, when separated from their fellows, usually used a tinderbox or another sort of flint-and-steel method. Dwellers in towns and villages, and even not-too-isolated farmsteads, might just pop over to a neighbor's (or to the local blacksmith's or baker's) to borrow some glowing coals with which to kindle a fire. Deor (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on making fire with some history. With practice, flint and firesteel are not difficult to use. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on the tinder box is sparse and uninformative. [2] has a historical account of firemaking.In prehistoric times flint and pyrites might be used, and flint and steel from the Iron age onward [3]. Some nonindustrialized societies used a bow drill to spin a stich and achieve sufficient heat to ignite wood shavings. This is far harder to achieve than with flint and steel. Information on the use of the tinderbox in the 18th century is found at [4]. The tinder was fabric which had been previously scorched to carbonize it.[5] The spark from flint and steel would ignite a very small fire due to the heated bit of steel burning as it flew through the air onto the tinder, the glow of which could ignite a wood splint, after which the tinder would be extinguished with a metal weight for further use. It took skill and about a half hour to start a fire. In the early 19th century a rotating metal wheel (like on a Zippo lighter) was used to create the sparks with superior results, and the wood splint might have been dipped in sulfer (sort of a primitive nonstriking match) for better results. The sulfer tipped matches were the results of household manufacture and were sold by "matchgirls. [6] A book from 1881 [7]notes that back in 1834 an editor had predicted [8] that despite the advent of lucifers, the tinder box would likely continue to be common in the household, but that in fact, by 1884, it was only seen in museums. A book from 1889 describes such a tinderbox [9] and says that the wear patterns on the flint are like those on ancient prehistoric flints in the collection. Here is a description of a tinderbox from a museum collection in 1899 [10].(signing it albeit a bit late) Edison (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you, Edison? can any of this go in the article?Julia Rossi (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all can, correctly attributed (ref desk submissions are submitted under GFDL as is everything else). I've lifted it into tinderbox and edited it a little. Neıl 龱 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, Neil -- thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British medals

Tom Bardsley did some good stuff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7406351.stm

The copper he saved says he should get a medal.

What medal(s) could he get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.193.138 (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Cross or the Queen's Gallantry Medal perhaps (purely speculative, but you asked for possibilities) :). PeterSymonds (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I standing here instead of...there?

I am standing here. Right here. Sometimes it spooks me. It's like- it couldn't have happened any other way. I could say to myself; "I shoulda stood there". But it's too late. I am now here. My fate sealed forever.

If this sounds too overdramatic, think about it. You can't undo anything! Fate has it all planned out for us. Free will, my ass. You can't think a thought you didn't think!. Your mind made you sit (or stand) in front of your computer. Right now. And there's nothing you can do about it.Sam Science (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Determinism and/or predestination and/or fatalism. Strawless (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the possibility that in parallel universes you are standing in different places. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal math

Nicholas Mikel fires three shots at a bunch of fellow soldiers, then two more at a single man. He was charged with 42 counts of premeditated attempted murder and another four of attempted murder. How in the world could they have arrived at those figures? Were these magic bullets? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, and I'm not familiar with the case, but perhaps the 'bunch' contained 42 (or maybe 46) people, all of whom he could reasonably be judged to have been attempting to kill? Algebraist 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what really had me scratching my head was the four attempted murder charges. I could see fourteen guys and three bullets, or 42 targets, leading to 42 charges, but four? And unpremeditated? What, did he suddenly go spontaneous in the middle of his shooting spree? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I think this clears it up. It appears he shot at four soldiers who chased him after the initial shooting. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little girl married with an old man

Hi, I am a 16 year old guy interested in Islam since many years ago. I have read the history of a poor little girl (8) in Yemen married with a pervert. She asked for help at a court and I don't know what happened with her... My question is. Is it legal in those country ??... Is a poor little girl forced to marry with a pervert? thanks and greetings !! 190.49.110.10 (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Yemen, a Yemeni supreme court lawyer's opinion is in the article you linked:

“no girl or boy can get married before the age of 15." However, this item was amended in 1998 so parents could make a contract of marriage between their children even if they are under the age of 15. But the husband cannot be intimate with her until she is ready or mature,”

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen is not a particularly rich country (in fact it is one of the poorest countries in the Arab world), and in those societies it is common for very poor people to offer daughters for marriage in order to receive a mahr (payment by the husband to the woman's family). Most people there do not approve of these sorts of marriages, but the extreme poverty leaves some desperate families with no other options.--Goon Noot (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. We see. No other options, then, apart from continuing poverty for the family and a childhood free of marital rape for the eight-year-old daughter. How many responsible parents would pass up the chance of some useful hard cash, given a desperately tough choice like that? Xn4 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Censorship

What are some good arguements both in favor and against censorship? I mean, most people assume that censorship is wrong, but why is it? What are some good reasons to support either view? The Freedom of Speech article lists reasons against, but nothing for. I've searched around elsewhere, but I can't really find anything in the "statement, premise, conclusion" format commonly used in philisophical discussions. 216.178.50.73 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even the greatest proponents of free speech offer limits to it. Take two examples of people who are generally seen as amongst the greatest defenders of free speech: J.S. Mill and Spinoza.

The example that J.S. Mill uses in his on liberty is a person who stands in front of a house of a corn dealer with a group of protesters calling out that corn dealers steal from the poor. I.e. inciting violence is a ground for censorship. Another example that is often discussed in connection with this is shout "fire" at a crowded theater and thereby causing a panicking stampede in which people could get killed. Again if an act of speech directly causes damage to others, it should be banned.

Spinoza, another famous proponent of free speech also limits it to speech which is not seditious, i.e. which does not undermine the sovereignty of the state or incites rebellion.

So even the most liberal philosophers offer grounds for censorship. C mon (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be stressed, though, that there's a difference between censoring someone's speech and punishing someone for the consequences of their speech. For example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater may not be a crime, but doing so will probably get you in trouble if someone gets injured because you did so. That's not really a censorship issue. Similarly, the same could be said of the corn dealer example. In neither case are we really talking about censorship; I believe that in most countries, inciting people to violence or endangering others with irresponsible behavior are crimes all by themselves. Which is not to say that they aren't good examples of how freedom of speech is limited -- they are! -- but that's not the same thing as censorship, which is what the original poster was asking about. Or am I splitting hairs here? Perhaps I am, but it seems to me that there's a pretty big conceptual difference here. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about libel and slander? Wrad (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's not censorship. No one is going to prevent you libeling or slandering someone -- they'll just punish you if you do so. Different thing. (On the other hand, I suppose a restraining order could be issued against someone, forbidding them from publishing material or making comments about certain topics in order to make sure they can't engage in libel or slander -- and that would be censorship.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a celebrity who was under court order not to talk to minors or something. Wrad (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That would be a restraining order. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But even in this case, it's still ultimately a case of no one is actually stoppind you doing it. The restraining order is simply a predetermined decision that it will be illegal for you to say something. It doesn't physically stop you from saying something. It's not as if the restraining order grasps you throat when you start to say whatever your not supposed to say... But even without a restraining order, libel is illegal, the only thing is you go to court to prove it was libel, but the laws were already there making it illegal for you to libel someone. It's usually helpful to prove harm particularly when it comes to damages. But even without proving harm, libel is usually still libel, in some countries even a crimimanl offence. It's not just the consequences of what you said that is the problem, but what you said itself that is the problem. The same as with a restraining order. The same with inciting violence. If I tell people to go an kill or Arabs/Jews/Americans/Chinese/lesbians/whatevers, often this will be illegal, regardless of whether by speech actually affected anyone. P.S. I've used the term 'illegal' losely here, obviously in many countries it's not actually illegal for you to libel someone since if there's no criminal libel, it's simply a civil case but hopefully the meaning is clear. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that a restraining order doesn't physically stop you from doing it, of course, but that doesn't mean it's not a form of censorship. The purpose of censorship is not to make something completely impossible, but to hinder and discourage people in getting that message out. I discuss this in more (possibly too much!) detail below. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference can sometimes be more theoretical then practical. For example, in many cases inciting violence or other speech considered reckless may result in a punishment, even if it does not actually result in violence or anything bad. Similarly in some countries a variety of offenses why e.g. inciting racial hatred, advocating a change in government, etc which many will regard as censorship are illegal in so much as you will be punished after the fact. If the government has sufficient contol over the media, it can be very difficult for someone to actually say something which will be illegal (and they may use a variety of means to stifle people who may say such things but these are often quasi-legal) but beyond the difference in government control, from a purely philosophical standpoint there is no real difference between restrictions on libel, inciting violence, or advocating an overthrow of a government. Based on their local laws, most media will impose censorship on their content, for example most will not print anything libellous or that incites violence. Similarly if it's illegal to advocate a change in government. The key thing of course there is simply no way anyone can physically stop someone from saying something (that sort of mind control is still in it's infacy) all you can do is to monitor and try and work out who is going to say something you don't like and find a way to stop them (which probably all governments do to some degree, some a lot more then others), punish those who do say something illegal sufficiently to try and scare them, and anyone else, from repeating the action; and control the media in such a way that people find it difficult to say whatever they want to say to more then a tiny audience. Fox News could for example show an explicit pornographic sex scene on their news if they wanted to, they would just get into deep shit if they did. I think what Captain Disdain is trying to say is that the decision by Fox News editors, not to show a scene would be the act of censorship (presuming it was made for legal or ethical concerns and not because a pornographic sex scene didn't actually fit into the news). But then so could the deciision by Fox News editors not to show a news clip where someone makes a libellous comment. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a part of it, sure. But when we talk about censorship, it's true that it's almost impossible to keep someone from saying something -- and yet again, it's not that impossible. I'll come back to that in a second, but first I should say that to a great extent, censorship is a consensual process: you already know that someone in authority doesn't want you to say something or express certain views, so you don't do it. That's not the same thing as being afraid of offending an individual, for example; you already know for a fact (or, at least, very strongly suspect) that if you go ahead and say your piece anyway, you may lose your job, or someone will come along and close down your business, smash your printing press, put a bullet in your kneecap or in your head, or otherwise inconvenience you. As a rule, censorship isn't about saying a specific thing ("Captain Disdain is stupid," for example), but about discussing certain aspects of a thing in public, especially in a critical tone ("only good things may be said about Captain Disdain," for example). The nature of censorship isn't so much that people get in trouble for saying some things, but that they don't want to say some things, even though they'd really like to.

As for the impossibility of actively preventing people from saying things you don't want them to say, the internet has, of course, made that a lot more difficult. This doesn't keep some authorities -- China, I'm looking in your direction -- from doing it anyway, with various degrees of success. That said, though, it's not impossible to employ government agents to look for subversive material in printing houses, newspaper offices and other locations. Just the knowledge of a possibly imminent spot check will scare most people into cooperating, particularly if the punishments are significant and if there's an organized system of snitching out your friends and neighbors. This easily has the effect of creating a government-sponsored culture of censorship, where people constantly watch what they say and do. It doesn't keep someone from saying what they want to say, if they really want to say it, but it makes it less likely for people to stick their necks out and also ensures that other people don't feel comfortable listening to them, because they want to avoid getting in trouble. These are somewhat extreme examples, of course, but I don't think it's that hard to find comparable events from everyday life. Indeed, I think censorship is largely a cultural, or at least an institutional phenomenon, which is often -- even in societies where freedom of speech is prevalent -- located somewhere between unwritten rules and accepted practices, as well as as a degree of authoritarianism. A lot of censorship comes in the form of social pressure. (And not all of it is bad, either -- if someone is about to tell a tasteless concentration camp joke without knowing that there are Holocaust survivors present, to pick an admittedly exaggerated but illustrative example, a bit of censorship is probably a good idea.)

Compared to that, the publishing of a libelous article is a completely different situation -- particularly because what makes it libelous is that it's not true! There's a difference between getting in trouble for telling lies or misrepresenting something and the same thing happening for saying things that the powers that be don't like, for starters. Also, such an event is an individual case, rather than something that goes against established practice or challenges the status quo, for example. Again, conceptually, there's a huge difference.

Finally, one more criterion for identifying censorship, as opposed to just a consequence of your actions (even if the end result -- that is to say, the punishment -- is exactly the same): if there are existing laws against what you're doing and you get in trouble, as decreed by those laws, it may not be censorship (provided, of course, that the laws don't exist for the specific purpose of censorship). If you get in trouble because a third party decides to get involved or there is some other deviation from standard operating practice (the government steps in, the publisher decides to shelve the article because of inappropriate content, an advertiser exerts influence, etc.), then there's a good chance it is censorship. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cpt. Disdain is correct: there is a difference between banning speech before it occurs and punishing some one afterwards. It might be more difficult to think of philosophers who advocate the latter. C mon (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'fire in a crowded theatre' quotation is from a celebrated judgment by Oliver Wendell Holmes (in Schenck v. United States). Probably a good place to start. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HIDDEN HISTORY: Where is there evidence of black Americans in the Philippines, Guam and/or Wake Island between 1940-1945?

I'm curious. I've read numerous historical accounts of the Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation of the Philippines, Guam and Wake Island. One thing I've found interesting is the absence of references and/or photos of black Americans either stationed in these places prior to the invasion, or what happened to them during captivity. With the vast presence of US Navy ships and installations in these three locations, black men most likely were there, even if only in small numbers. It is known that black men served in the US Navy, and were restricted to being stewards (cooking/serving food). Furthermore, every large ship and most medium-sized ships had stewards. Shore-based Naval units also had stewards, and that presupposes that black men may have been stationed on land in these three locations. In the case of the US Army, black men served as stevedores (quartermaster/supply/dock workers), muleskinners, and in some instances, in segregated infantry or artillery units. With the extended tours of duty, some soldiers, sailors and Marines had their families with them overseas. I've never been able to uncover whether or not black men were allowed to take advantage of this opportunity, but if they were, there may have been some black wives and children there also. The presence of American civilians was very strong; seafarers, contractors, businessmen, adventurers, expatriates, retirees etc. Black people may or may not have been part of that civilian group.

One non-fiction book had a paragraph or two about a black Australian POW held with his unit by the Japanese, and I've seen the picture of an older black man who helped take care of white children where they held at Santo Tomas in the Philippines.

Can anyone out there assit me in uncovering first-hands accounts, eyewitness accounts, pictures, anything that addresses this? Magnet For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider contacting Ambeth Ocampo, I think he focuses on the Japanese occupation of the Philippines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lentice; I really appreciate it. I've just opened the link (page?) you provided, and I read everything it had to say, but I don't know how to contact him. Is Ambeth Ocampo on wikipedia? Magnet For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the information the article provides about his activities, you may want to try contacting him through one of the following: The Philippine Daily Inquirer, Dept. of History, School of Social Sciences, Ateneo de Manial University or the University of the Philippines, Diliman. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry but I can't provide you his contact details. However, I can give you his contacts as National Historical Institute chairman. Note that I don't contact him anymore nor use these numbers so you're on your own here.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Pub laws

What is the minimum age that you need to be to enter a pub? I am 16 years old and live in Brighton, UK, and would like to watch the Champions League Final this Wednesday with a friend. We don't want to consume alcohol or sit at the bar, just watch the game, is this legal? Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.167.100 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no law as to what age you need to be to enter a pub (this is why you regularly see kids and babies in pubs) but it is up to the licensee to permit access under the Licensing act. Generally, in my experience, most will allow entry as long as you don't attempt to purchase anything alcoholic but others will insist on you being accompanied by an adult. You may find family pub chains like Wetherspoons will be a safer bet but be aware that there may be bouncers working on Wednesday night who could turn you away. Note also that since 2003 you can be fined 1000 pounds if you're under-18 and do decide to try and purchase beer in pub. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not go into the pub at a quiet time and ask to speak to the landlord?That way you would know first hand what would happen.If you are polite and reasonable, you should find he will at least listen to your request .hotclaws 08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Marylin

Hello,

In the entry on SIDE (one of Argentina's intelligence services), their is an un-sourced entry titled "Operation Marylin." The information in that entry is quite interesting and I would like to use in in a book I am writing, but I must have a definitive source. Can you help me identify the original source of this submission?

Many thanks

Chris Simmons USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.75.240 (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section was added by User:Sanmarcos. That user hasn't been active lately, but by a staggering coincidence, he was asked the source last year, and replied 'see References, Los sospechosos de siempre: Historia del espionaje en la Argentina, Jorge Boimvaser. It's a book, it is in there somewhere.' Algebraist 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]