Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 July 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 18 Humanities desk archive July 20 >

Contents 1 President? Dictator! 2 A room with a view (poppies) 3 recent docu:Palestinian rappers on beach full of flags? 4 Holistic living 5 Pirates on film 6 definition of a religious welfare organisation 7 Influential Australians 8 british royal family 9 Which country does not have any movie theaters. 10 Democracy in Saudi Arabia 11 Celtic Marriage 12 Last Jewish Pope 13 rock throwing 14 The source of the soul of life. 15 Conflicts between Aphrodite and Poseidon? 16 Cycling 17 the history of marriage 18 Hudson, New York 19 List of groups referred to as cults 20 Darwin, The Descent of Man 21 Hollanders

[edit] President? Dictator!

Why is it that the media doesn't seem to have the backbone to call a spade a spade when it comes to leaders of foreign dictatorships?

For example, Zimbabwe is clearly a dictatorship. It's "leader", Robert Mugabe has no democratic mandate and is nothing more than a miserable, racist, Dictator (with a capital "D"!)

Why are the media, as well as the rest of us, so humble and accommodating, that we all refer to Mugabe as "The President of Zimbabwe"? He's no "President" by any democratic sense of the word. He's nothing more than the petty, cruel, self-proclaimed leader of Zimbabwe. He's a Dictator, and to refer to him as a "President" is an insult to all democratically elected Presidents around the world.

I realize that the US President, (with a capital "P"!) George W. Bush, is not very popular around the world. Fair enough. Yet he was democraticaly elected by at least a plurality (if not a majority) of US citizens. Like him or hate him, he's the democratically elected "President" of the US, and as such, in accordance with the United States Constitution, will cede power to his successor, at the latest, at precisely noon EST, on January 20, 2009.

There are many democratically elected "Presidents" and "Prime Ministers" around the world that I'm not particular fond of. For example, for me, Jacques Chirac, the President of France, is an ass. Yet he was democraticaly elected and as such I respect his legitimacy. He is the valid, legitimate, democratically elected President of France, and should be respected as such.

On the other hand you have a clown like "President" Bashar-al-Assad of Syria. What is this nonsense? He's no "President"! He's merely the "president-for-life" Dictator son of another "president-for-life" Dictator - "president" Hafez-al-Assad.

When will the media and the rest of us develop the gonads to call it as it is. When refering to clowns like Assad or Mugabe, when will we all just start calling them as they are: "Dictator Mugabe" of Zimbabwe, and "Dictator Assad" of Syria? Loomis 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"President" is not a word which exclusively means "democratically elected" (and a president and a prime minister are two entirely different types of posts). It is a formal political title. See President if you are interested in what it specifically means—it basically means "head of state", usually of a republic (and republics are not all democratic). "Dictator", on the other hand, is not a title. Many editorials do refer to such people as dictators, but when reporting things, as opposed to writing editorials, usually they stick with the formal and more neutral titles. There are enough media sources in the world—and they are often happy to write scathing editorials of all world leaders—that I doubt it has much to do with "gonads" but rather with journalistic convention and style. Please also note that the reference desk is a place for asking questions that you want an answer to—not rhetorical questions that you then use to go on a little rant about. --Fastfission 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's for the same reason that Wikipedia refers to Mugabe as the President of Zimbabwe and not as the Dictator of Zimbabwe. Like it or not, he is recognised world-wide as the President of Zimbabwe. Hitler was recognised as the Fuhrer of Germany. Saddam was recognised as the President of Iraq, even after the US invaded. Respect is shown to the office, not necessarily to any particular holder of the office in a personal sense. Ultimately, it's a personal opinion (ie. POV) as to whether Mugabe is a dictator - albeit, an opinion that most people would share. JackofOz 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the difference between a President and a Prime Minister. No need to condescend. I know what a "President" is. If it's a matter of "journalistic convention and style", then "journalistic convention and style" should change. The role of the media is to present the public with as precise as possible a picture of what's going on in the world. Unfortunately, not all members of the public are as clearly informed about the difference between a "democratically elected" President, and a mere dictator-president. Therefore, to say that, for example: "Today, President Chirac of France met with President Assad of Syria", is not only innacurate, (and extremely insulting to Chirac, a legitimate President), but much more importantly, irresponsible journalism, and worst of all, misleading to readers. These two individuals may both indeed claim to be "presidents" of their respective countries, but to omit the fundamental difference between what it means to be "President" in these two countries is the ultimate in media misrepresentation. My question was not rhetorical. I am sincerely interested in why the media insists on calling these despicable people "Presidents" or "Prime Ministers" when indeed they are no more than Dictators. Why is this sort of distinction considered "so sensitive" that it can only be adressed in the editorial and op-ed pages?

It's not a "soap box" thing, rather, quite the opposite. If the difference was obvious, I'd have no problem. Yet I often hear colleagues, educated colleagues I should add, yet not educated in the social sciences, speaking of (in alphabetical order) "Presidents Assad, Bush, Chirac and Mugabe". Is it not the ultimate responsibility of the press to not mislead the public? Isn't it the responsibility of the press to clarify, rather than to cloud, the REAL state of affairs in the world?

Interestingly, Jack referred to the fact that Hitler was referred, at least up to a certain point, even by my personal all time hero, as "His Excellency, Herr Hitler, Fuhrer of Germany". Could a newspaper of today responsibly refer to Hitler as "His Excellency"? If it did, and I requested an explanation here at the RefDesk for why they referred to such an evil man in such an honorific way, would that be a "rhetorical question that I then use to go go on a little rant about"? No! I would sincerely want an explanation as to why the media would carry itself about in such an awfully misleading and irresponsible fashion to its readers.

I therefore repeat my question in a far simpler, far more NPOV form: Why does the media choose to make no recognizable distinction whatsoever between those world leaders that are democratically elected and those that are not? Loomis 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Democracy is not the be-all-and-end-all of political affairs. Bhutan and Tonga, for example, are not democracies but they are fairly peaceful places as far as I'm aware. A benevolent, benign dictatorship can work well. It just hasn't happened that way in Zimbabwe. As for titles, it is a fact that Mugabe is recognised simply by virtue of holding the office of president. Whatever anyone may think of the way he has gone about his business since he became president doesn't alter that. The fact of that recognition by the world community means that that is the appropriate title for him. To call him "the dictator of Zimbabwe" would be inviting argument from those who happen to agree with his outrageous policies. In any event, what the media may say about any particular person doesn't have to govern what you or anyone thinks of that person. The very fact that you are aware of what he has been doing means the media is doing its job in informing the world of his brutal regime. Don't get too concerned with titles and labels. Actions speak louder. JackofOz 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with JackofOz on this one - your view that "Presidents" and "Prime Ministers" must be democratically elected is erroneous, that was never the case. It's the name of the position they hold, usually described and named in the constitution of the respective country. "Dictator" is a description and is therefore relative, the the same way that "depot" or "benevolent leader" is. Hitler is correctly described as Chancellor and Führer of Germany, that's the name of his position. You would always refer to Ken Lay as the "Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron", instead of "Ken Lay, corrupt businessman" (or "Ken Lay, visionary executive", depending on your POV, of course :) ) - one is his factual title, the other is a judgement. It's the same with words like "dictator". And since you're having a go at the press - the press' job (in an ideal world) is to report the news and leave the commentary to the editorials. This is done for a very good reason, namely humility, as it doesn't scream "my point of view is the RIGHT one" (we're back to the terrorist - freedom fighter problem). It also avoids the trap of painting different politicians with the same brush who are not necessarily comparable. If you were to say "Dictator Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe today met Dictator Joseph Kabila of the DR Congo" (this is only an example, I would not normally describe Joseph Kabila as a dictator), you would probably be insulting one or both of them by comparing them to the other.

In summary, titles don't make politicians (the position Chancellor of Germany was held by both Adolf Hitler and Konrad Adenauer, yet the two are hardly comparable), and it's up to each person to make up their own mind. Don't blame the press for as (in your view) ignorant population, and don't try to make the press push their point of view onto the readers (except through editorials, of course). — QuantumEleven 06:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Democracy doesn't solve everything. Hitler himself was democratically elected, though he changed the system. Chavez is democratically elected. You could probably find other instances of democratically elected leaders turning bad. What I do have trouble with is that you seem to be advocating against neutrality in reporting... --ColourBurst 08:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mugabe was democratically elected, even! (He just hasn't been very democratically re-elected in recent years... the elections before 2000 weren't wonderful examples of democracy at work, but they were acceptable by regional standards. It's only since then it's got to the state it's in today) Shimgray | talk | 08:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To cut a long story short, Mugabe's official title is President. As such, it is used. Oh, and jack, Tonga's not that peacable these days. Unless there are serious changes there, it may not be a monarchy much longer... Grutness...wha? 06:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure about those 2 countries, they were just meant as a way of illustrating my point.  :--) JackofOz 10:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the informed responses, guys. However we now seem to have a problem on our hands. Wikipedia is supposed to be entirely NPOV, right? Why is it then that all you have to do is punch in the word Dictatorships in the little box and you'll get a list of countries, a list, by the way that includes Zimbabwe, but seems to exclude Syria, Bhutan and Tongo (albeit, admittedly, the list appears to be attributed, but even that is not entirely clear...in any case, they chose to present that list and no other). If Wikipedia, the King of NPOV finds it appropriate to make such distinctions, why is it that the media, with far less NPOV pretense (eg. The New York Times is clearly a left-leaning newspaper, while Fox News is clearly right-leaning, despite any protests by either of these organizations) is seemingliy held to a higher standard? Either the wiki article on dictatorships should be edited to be more NPOV, or one must admit that the whole idea of full "NPOV" is an unnattainable fantasy.

In any case, thanks to all for your input. Loomis 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just another self-analyzing question: Fastfission seems to have implied that my question was innapropriate, and more of a "a rhetorical question that [I] then use[d] to go on a little rant about" than a legitimate question. First, I don't see how I was "ranting" as a "rant" is an incoherent senseless emotional outburst. I may be wrong, but I thought that my question was rather calmly presented, well organized, sensible, and not in the slightest bit "rhetorical". I'm here to learn and I've truly learned a lot by the above responses. I'm glad that I asked the question, because I now feel somewhat more informed about a subject that I was previously rather perplexed about. I admit that my "questions" are rarely (actually never) simple one-liners, in fact they tend to be rather lengthy, and filled with all kinds of "starting" POVs to give them context, as well as to "get the ball rolling". But they're not soapbox dances. I don't ask questions merely to push one view, but rather to state mine, and try to better understand opposing ones.

I don't want to sit here and pose controversial questions if it's doing nothing else but irritating the hell out of the rest of you. But aren't the controversial debates the ultimate reason we all come here? I realize that I'm veering somewhat from the "official RefDesk purpose" by not asking specific questions, like, for example "How old is the Earth?" or "What does 'lorem ipsum' mean?", but is that what we're really here for? Those questions would seem easy enough to answer without the RefDesk. To find out the age of the earth, all that's required is to type in History of Earth and you'll get the answer in the first line. As for the latin phrase, we actually have an entire article entitled: lorem ipsum!

Oh well, if you honestly prefer questions like: "What's the best and fastest way to become a millionaire", just tell me. Loomis 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A room with a view (poppies)

in the movie, "a room with a view", was the field in which the "truth beauty" scene occurs orginally filled with lots of red poppies? (this is no longer true in the DVD). Thanks!

[edit] recent docu:Palestinian rappers on beach full of flags?

Hi, recently (I think on Dutch) television there was a short documentary about three Palestinians, who made rap music in Arab. One guy, probably the lead, did most of the talking(his English was quite good). He said that it had been like four years since he had seen the beach/had the chance to see it, and then they went to the beach (I am deducing it was Gaza). The beach was full of Palestinian flags, everywhere you looked you saw one. The interviewer spoke English without a Dutch accent, so maybe the documentary was bought by the Dutch network. So what beach could this have been. Is there an area in Gaza that has recently changed, so that people now rejoice in putting those flags everywhere? Evilbu 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific incident, but it is the southern Gaza strip area of Rafah that was cut off from its beaches by settlements until the evacuation of last year. AnonMoos 09:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I probably have a totally wrong of the daily life of the average Palestinian, but how large can those settlements be? All those years, couldn't he simply have gone a little further? Evilbu 11:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Southern Gaza Strip area of Rafah, where Palestinians live, was cut off from its beaches by Jewish settlements. Since it is unwise for Palestinians to wander into Jewish settlements, or Jews to wander into Palestinians areas without weapons, this meant the beaches were effectively unreachable until the (illegal) settlements were evacuated. Skittle 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Illegal? You're wandering dangerously into POV territory skittle! :) (Like I should talk!) In any case, I suppose it's pretty much settled that for a Jew to live in Gaza is verboten, and against international law as well (whatever the hell that means). After all, the future Palestinian State will obviously be strictly Judenrein. :) Loomis 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holistic living

I tried to find definition or meaning for the term ‘Holistic Living’ as we plan to organize a Symposium on ‘Holistic Living’. I could not find clear meaning or definition in Wockipedia, Google or Yahoo. However, www.vyasa.org try to give the idea that Yoga is Science of Holistic Living. Understanding the Yogic way of life. I try to define Holistic Living’ as follows:

1. Holistic Living may be defined as simple and spiritual living with moderation in food intake, adequate exercise and positive thinking and attitude to life. Yoga is Science of Holistic Living.

OR

1. Holistic Living is an art of living in harmony with Nature and concern to the whole universe.

Prof. B. C. Harinath Director JB Tropical Disease Research Centre & Coordinator, Arogyadham Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences Sevagram (Wardha) – 442 102 Web: www.jbytdrc.org, www.mindandbodyhealth.org

The article Holism might be of interest.-gadfium 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates on film

Has a serious dramatic film ever been made on the subject of pirates? It seems like every film concerning pirates has been a comedy or a tongue-in-cheek adventure. The subject matter seems like it would lend itself to a serious film, but I can't think of one. Bhumiya (said/done) 05:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Category:Pirate_films. --Richardrj 07:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of pirate films is more comprehensive. Oi'll wager not many o'those be comedies.--Shantavira 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but none (of the blue-linked ones, anyway) seem to be really "serious". They all seem like light adventure films. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] definition of a religious welfare organisation

can you please help with a this definition thanks

Not knowing the context, the following is a guess. To start, I assume that by "welfare organization" a charitable organization is meant, whose aim is to provide financial or other aid to people in need. Further, that organization is called "religious", presumably because it is managed by a church or some other religion-based institution, or has faith-based statutes. For example, in France there is something called Secours Catholique ("Catholic Aid"), which is run by the Catholic Church in France. Islamic Aid is a U.K.-based organization. In both cases, there is no requirement that the recipient of the aid profess any particular religion; the stated aims are purely to relieve poverty. However, faith-based aid organizations being accused of using the aid as a vehicle to promote religion, especially in disaster-stricken areas, is fairly common. --Lambiam^Talk 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influential Australians

For our school project, we are researching influential australians...i have some ideas in mind but i was wondering if you would know someone really good for the project... thankyou very much

Start at Category:Australian people, and look through the various subcategories depending on what appeals to you. Category:Lists of Australian people might also be useful.-gadfium 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You might consider owners of the press or TV stations as among the most influential human beings on the planet. One such Australian in particular springs to mind (Rupert Murdoch). Notinasnaid 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Murdoch blotted his copybook by rejecting Australia and taking US citizenship for purely commercial reasons. JackofOz 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerry Packer might be another good choice. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Germaine Greer,truly a world changer--hotclaws**==(81.134.116.29 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Howard Florey saved literally millions of lives by developing penicillin into a practical proposition. Maybe you yourself wouldn't even be here if it were not for him. Bob Menzies said "in terms of world well-being, Florey was the most important man ever born in Australia". JackofOz 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] british royal family

this sentence isnt quite clear that you have written about queen charlotte who is said to have black ancestry and is an ancestor of queen elizabeth. it says although it is not the case that the british royal family is of mixed heritage then it mentions queen charlotte as being mixed. which is it. just because british royal family live in uk doesn't mean they dont have lineage from somewhere else. could you clarify and what is today's consensus on this topic. does the royal family awcknowledge that it is mixed race. thank you very much

The one-drop theory arises curious cases. Although it is not the case, since the British Royal Family lives in the United Kingdom rather, for the despair of a White supremassist British-Israelist, all the British Royal Family would be of African ascenstry, because of Margarida de Castro e Souza, a Portuguese of mixed origins, who was anscestor of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the great-great-great-great grandmother of the current Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II, known at her time for having a "moorish looking".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayvallance (talk • contribs) 06:32, July 19, 2006 (UTC).

Could you tell us which page you are referring to? There are over a million articles in Wikipedia, and we aren't necessarily familiar with all of them. In general, if you have comments on a particular page, you can click the "Discussion" tab above the page to reach a page dedicated to discussion of it. Notinasnaid 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He means Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. AnonMoos 09:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think (s)he is referring to (and quoting from) the article One-drop theory. --Lambiam^Talk 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I agree with Jayvallance that this is a strange sentence. --Lambiam^Talk 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think maybe it's time to teach people to get over these silly and ignorant ways of thinking about ancestry? How far back do you think you have to go before you too have an african ancestor? Likely less than 2 or 3000 years no matter where your more recent ancestors came from or how pale your skin is. See [1]. alteripse 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well when it comes to hereditary royalty one of the main things they have going for them is their ancestry. Another english queen with possibly closer then most african relations is Philippa of Hainault. MeltBanana 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alteripse. "Race" is a fairly bankrupt concept in genetics and anthropology, and then we have people so obsessive over some presumed "purity" of a thing that hardly exists without putting on very high historical blinders that they'd attribute or deny legitimacy to rulers, speakers, etc. on the basis of some presumed connection to a stinkin' continent! The amount of absurdity necessary to harbor all of these nonsensical views at the same time pretty well precludes reason or research being either an antidote or aid. In fact, to even answer such questions is to legitimate their premises, IMO. Geogre 13:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go back far enough, everyone has African ancestry. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which country does not have any movie theaters.

In our college quiz a question was asked ,

Which country does not have any movie theaters. Options: a)Iraq b)Sri-Lanka c)Bhutan

Are you talking legal movie theaters? Licenced movie theaters? And whats the definition of a movie theater? Not a great question. Sri Lanka and Bhutan are both buddhist countries, and I'm sure they wouldn't have a legal sanction against movie theaters. Iraq because of the threat of bombings I guess. I still don't like the question at all. --mboverload@ 10:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be Vatican City. --Mathew5000 10:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the only people I know object to movies are Islamic extremists and various cults. The only place to actually have a law against movie theaters would have to be an Islamic country. --mboverload@ 11:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bhutan I'd say, the place is so incredibly sheltered that once when they installed traffic lights in one juntcion, people thought they were decorations and held festivities under them. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for Bhutan. They just got TV in 1999! Ziggurat 11:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't factor in insulation from the rest of the world. I was thinking legal restrictions. Thanks Phil! --mboverload@ 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bhutan has a movie industry [2] so it would be odd if the country had no movie theatres. See the articles on Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, as well as Travellers and Magicians and Culture of Bhutan#Radio, television, internet, and movies. The fact that it recently got TV makes it more likely (not less) that it has movie theatres. However, Sri Lanka certainly has movie theatres, as does Iraq. I strongly suspect that Bhutan has at least one movie theatre (although it might have opened somewhat recently). On the other hand, Vatican City has a population of only 783 and an area of only 108.7 acres; it may have a screening room of some sort for the Pope's entertainment, but I'd wager it has no full-fledged movie theatre. Also I would not be surprised if some of the world's very poor countries, such as Guinea-Bissau or Malawi, had no movie theatre. --Mathew5000 12:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in any of those aritcles or links is proof of that there is a movie industry, only that a couple of films have been shot on location in bhutan. And that a man of bhutanese origin has made a film. Movies have been shot in lots of places that don't have a movie "industry". Philc _T^E_C^I 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The country listed for a film in the Internet Movie Database is not the location where the film was shot, but the country where the production company is based. --Lambiam^Talk 13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, sorry then. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search [3] confirms that movie theatres exist in Bhutan, as I thought. According to a detailed news article on the subject [4], the first movie theatres in Bhutan opened in the mid-1960s. Today, however, "movie theatres across the country appear to be struggling and look dilapidated and run down." --Mathew5000 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The same holds true for Sri Lanka (first link says the first cinema in Colombo opened in 1903) and Iraq (first link even shows a photo of a movie theater in Baghdad), so I think whoever made up the question in the quiz did not do adequate research - there seems to be no correct option among the 3 presented -- Ferkelparade π 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sealand perhaps? Apart from micronations, I doubt there are any countries without some sort of theater. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The new rulers of Mogadishu appear to be installing a Taliban-like rule in their part of Somalia. Reports say they have banned movies. They don't control the whole country, though. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bhutan, I guess. I think it is rather under-developed, by western standards. It is also the only capital city (Thimphu) not to have traffic lights. There is very little western influence there - if films were a western invention.--martianlostinspace 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess is Tuvalu, but I cannot find any evidence one way or another. -- Lynne Jorgensen 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy in Saudi Arabia

Which international diplomatic efforts (such as from the UN, USA or EU) are being made to bring about democracy in Saudi Arabia, or which particular high-ranking politicians are addressing this issue? I have read the wikipage Saudi Arabia but I can´t find any facts. ==Joel==

This has some useful links related to your question. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First, why would anyone expect the UN to be so pro-democratic? After all, the vast majority of its component states are undemocratic. As for its Security Council, only three of its five permanent members are true democracies, and when added together with its non-permanent members, is usually composed of a majority of non-democratic states as well.

As for the US, look what shit it got into in the eyes of the international community when it actually dared to oust Iraq's brutal dictator and TRY, TRY it's best to turn the country into a democracy! Not only was this action seen by the international community as "against international law", but as it turns out, the Iraqi people, perplexing as it may be to westerners, don't seem to have much interest in being democratic after all. No wonder the US is now thinking twice about even bothering to take diplomatic steps to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia, a country of people who would would only resent such an effort.

Finally, the EU doesn't even have the backbone to stand up for what's right in the first place. It's too busy dealing with it's own internal foibles to have the moral authority to actually be taken seriously with regards to the spread of democracy. Loomis 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

First they have to agree on something and only if something is worthy enough will they do something. Meanwhile too many countries inside the EU don't want to invade other countries to impose democracy down their troaths. Flamarande 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• The last thing people need is democracy in Saudi Arabia. The populace is more Islamist than the royal family. You can expect Osama bin Laden to receive red-carpet treatment thence.--Patchouli 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• But allowing them to gain power may ultimately be the way to defeat them. When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, people realized what total assholes they were, and quickly tired of them (for destroying the ancient Buddhist statues at Bamyan, whipping women on the street for showing any part of their face, banning almost all forms of art and music and even kites, eliminating education for girls, etc.). Before they gained power, they could promise some perfect heaven on Earth would occur once they gained power. But when the reality is there for everyone to see, the lies become quite apparent. StuRat 19:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You surprise me Stu. First you said, very accurately, that it was the US that kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Now you seem to be saying that somehow it was the Afghan people themselves were responsible for their demise. Which is it? Loomis 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As matter of fact he wrote that they grew tired of them. The US bombed the Taliban to help the northern alliance. Flamarande 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I said they were unpopular with the Afghan people, not that the Afghan people removed them. However, they only had about 40,000 fighters, which is rather pathetic for a country that size, especially since most of those were provided by Pakistan, al-Queada, or other countries. Had the Taliban been more popular at home, they might have been capable of fielding a million soldiers, and would have been much harder to evict. A US ground invasion would have been necessary in such a case, during the Afghan War. StuRat 16:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• If it weren't for the U.S., they would still be living under the Taliban theocracy.--Patchouli 13:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I really hate the arrogance of democracy and the blatant double standarts of so-called "democrats" (war-democrats). We can do anything: invade another country, kill thousands of ppl, sell guns to everybody, bomb any country we like, aslong as we are a democratic state we are always the "good guys" and the other states are "evil oppressive states". Ah, and always use the "We want to give democracy down your troaths" excuse. I certainly share the opinion that the Taliban were a bunch of retarted medieaval religious fanatics who supported Terrosim by allowing Usama Bin Laden and his followers a safe haven. But at least they gave something we in all our arrogance are unable to give: PEACE. The US suffered 9/11 and in response they supported the Northern alliance in every way they could. They wanted to avenge themselves, cast down the current regime, and hunt down Ussama. Those were the real reasons and none others.

They didn't went there to liberate the ppl, destroy the poppy fields (in fact more dope goes out today, than under the Taliban), emancipate the women, rebuilt the country, and somehow give democracy to a "free, peace-loving Afghanistan" (nice illusion though). These are the excuses they like to show us so that we can say: "It was the right thing to do". The situation is going to get a lot worse there before it hopefully gets any better. Now that the US needs to support the current regime to secure the whole country and give PEACE. That's what really matters the rest is only a carefully constructed facade.

Belive it or not, in way too many countries Democracy is NOT the best form of goverment and to impose it by foreign force is the height of folly. A people has to reach a certain level of education and most importantly responsability; it has to first get used to the whole idea. And NOONE likes that someone from another country tells you what to do, and this is also the case of democracy. Don't invade other countries and impose "democracy" at gun-point and then get stupidly suprised and angry when the ppl there vote for your enemies (How could they? We invaded their county, bombed their cities, killed their relatives and now they vote in a party that doesn't like us - those ingrates). Give them real peace and trade fairly with them; real democracy will follow eventually. Flamarande 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the primary reason for the invasion was to remove Al Quaeda and the Taliban, but this, of course, left the question of what to put in it's place. The US goal was to set up a democracy, but it looks like the US was willing to settle for democracy in Kabul and warlords ruling everywhere else. StuRat 16:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, the Peace of the Taliban. Pax Talibanus. Things sure are peaceful when opening your mouth and expressing what you feel will get you killed. Or, as a woman, so much as showing your face. But oh, how peaceful it was, what with the football-stadiums-turned-execution-parks. Oh how I how the people of Afghanistan wax nostalgic for that good old Pax Talibanus. Loomis 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Never said that I liked the Pax Talibanus, quite the opposite. But they had peace and now they don't. If the situation doesn't improve many Afghans will long for that peace, believe me. Now the US, Nato, and Afghan troops have to enforce the peace in Afghanistan or everything will return to the former. They need to stay and fight, and that means suffering losses. If they retreat it will all come tumbling down, and it will get alot worse. Blood and Guts that's what we really need (and not poorly planned invasions). Flamarande 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they really had peace. There was on and off warfare with the Northern Alliance for years, for example. The brutality of the Taliban towards their citizens must also be considered. StuRat 16:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Marriage

What are the 11 specific different types of marriage that the Celts recognized. Is there a description of each?×

See http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Ancient_Celts/id/35232 --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Jewish Pope

Pertaining to Catholicism, who was the last Jewish Pope?

From [5]: St. Peter was Jewish. The only other "pope" generally acknowledged from a Jewish family is Anacletus II (1130), an antipope. Likely, other early popes were from Jewish families, but the records are not conclusive. Speculation on other Jewish Popes include St.Zosimus (417-418), based on his father's name of Abram. Evaristus (100-109) has also been mentioned based on some Pope Pius V writings. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• This was recently answered elsewhere on Wikipedia. There's actually two more possibilities. But I can't remember who they were and where it was answered. That's what happens if people cross-post the same question... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rock throwing

– When I was visiting Loch Ness in June, a friend asked me to throw a small rock or stone into the lake and made a wish for him while I was on the cruise. I did it as he asked me to do. He told me there was a story for that and asked me to find the answer and he said only the elderly poeple know the story.

I still can't get the answer so far as I was a visitor from another country.

Your answering to my question will be greatly appreacited.

Thank you

Looking forward to hearing from you soon

[edit] The source of the soul of life.

Since children are expected to take on the characteristics of their parents, where do you think the characteristics of life came from? I have found a life formula that points to the characteristics of life being tied to the characteristics of electromagnetic radiation (light). Light is one force, made up of two parts.

The characteristics of the electrical part of light are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion. Life experiences them as: No, Yes, I like you(love) and I don't like you (hate)and that is the bases of the mental/emotional nature of life. The characteristics of light also seem connected to math: negative to subtraction, positive to addition, attraction to multiplication and repulsion to division.

With life following the laws of energy, just like everything else, through light, the universe has one soul, and is full of life. I have a symbolic/math code for this at http://inthemath.com that shows this. Do you think that light can be the bases for the soul, and if not, what would make a better fit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lightprize (talk • contribs).

Hi (again). I've deactivated your link, as we've seen it quite a few times here already. Please recall that the reference desk is not a soapbox or forum for advocacy. — Lomn | Talk 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh...wow, you're right and light is simultaneously a particle and a wave pointing to the duality of our existence, thanks for the enlightenment, now I think I will stare at the sun for a while ....ugh sorry for the troll bait, this kind of crap just annoys me. See the movie Donnie Darko for a great rant on trying to compress the science of psychology into simplistic false dichotomies like love vs hate/fear. Nowimnthing 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you mad? I asked a question, and how could you have seen it, I have not been here with light characteristics before. And when I asked the question before you were at a lost for words. Judging by the insults instead of any logical answer, you are still at a lost for words. I am trying to bait you alright, I am trying to get you to answer. YOu can't can you? [lightprize 190706]

It's a "loss for words", not "a lost". I prefer that nut jobs at least use proper grammar. As for my theory, being a pastafarian, I hold that the duality between the strands of spaghetti and meatballs accounts for the duality of the soul. :-) StuRat 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

However, you have been here before for the express purpose of advocating your website and fringe theories. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research and the ref desk is not a forum for advocacy. As for your "question", I don't think it rates a response. — Lomn | Talk 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Since you posted this on the humanities desk I will assume it is a philosophical question and not a scientific question (if it is a scientific theory: what explicit, testable predictions does it make that are not made by simpler theories?). As for what would make a better fit than light for the soul: magic. I have little patience for philosophical theories not grounded in reality, so I won't spend the time to thoroughly consider your idea. However, you seem to base this theory heavily on the fact that we use the words positive and negative for electrical charge. You should keep in mind that these words are completely arbitrary and that the pairs hot/cold, up/down, or even love/hate could have been used to describe charges. As with your previous theory of the number code, you seem to be basing a whole theory on the arbitrary words that have been used to describe natural phenomena. You also seem to ignore the fact that electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force have been further shown to be two aspects of the same force, the electroweak force. Where does the weak nuclear force fit into the theory? (I know I said I'd try to treat it philosophically, but you portray it as scientific so I can't help myself). And what's with the "energitic[sic], violent nature of males and the emotional, loving nature of females"? You provide a stereotype as evidence? Please keep in mind that the reference desk's primary purpose is to answer factual questions. If you are after feedback on your theories, there are many forums on the internet in which you can request comments. Digfarenough 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That was allot. You look like you are on the soap box. 1)By magic I guess you are saying you know of nothing compareable, otherwise you would have said that instead of magic.

2) Science still sees 4 forces. The electroweak force has not been written in concrete, an that may turn out to be wrong. that has happened before.

3)I said nothing about the words, I said the characteristics. Whatever we call the characteristics, they would mean the same thing. 4) I am talking about what we have all seen. Some characteristics are clearly visible. Males have made an art of war and physical activity or sports. And the attraction of females is clear to advertising. The humanities deal with characteristics and the orgins, doesn't it? Why does this idea make you so mad? What are you, an athiest? [Lightprize 190706] Oh, I read that you are still mad at the number code. I didn't mention it here. I have moved on, why can't you?

You talk about simpler theories, What is simpler, and as inclusive than what I said about light? [Lightprize 190706]

• You get shot on the third light from a match-hotclaws**==(81.134.116.29 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Now you see? If you had something to say, you would have said it. {Lightprize 200706]

[edit] Conflicts between Aphrodite and Poseidon?

My husband is a Capt at sea. He has recently taken a post on a vessel named Miss Venus. This boat has a history of mechanical problems and failures. I was wondering if anyone could tell me if there were any conflicts between Venus(Aphrodite) and Neptune(Poseidon)? Any help would be appreciated as all I can seem to find are references to lineage and a few stating that she is a protector of sailors.

Thanks in advance :)

           71.51.53.31 19:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          aka..Cheryl O.

In the usual version of the myth, Aphrodite arose from the sea, but chronologically that was before Poseidon became ruler of the sea. They don't really interact much at all in Greek myth...Athena had more of a rivalry with Poseidon, at least in Athenian legends. Adam Bishop 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Most famously, Athena and Poseidon squared off over the fate of Odysseus. Aphrodite just doesn't do much with him, although I think she has some oceanic powers based on her home in Cythia and some powers over, specifically, waves in the Odyssey. Geogre 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You both very much :) 71.51.53.31 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cycling

Is road cycling gaining or declining in popularity? In America, I suspect it has dropped since the retirement of Lance Armstrong, but in general, what is the state of Cycling in America, the UK, and the rest of Europe? AdamBiswanger1 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A major factor in popularity is access to safe places to bicycle. I mean the highways are populated with automobiles, there are various signs prohibiting non-motorized vehicles on various roads, the pedestrians occupy the sidewalks, no place is safe for a bicyclist. That's your typical community. Then there are the places where people have lobbied for bike paths, other types of paths. User:AlMac|^(talk) 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In the UK a lot of people are putting a lot of effort into providing cycle routes of various kinds, so interest in Cycling is rising.

• In towns and cities, most new housing developments include cycle paths, and similarly with housing built in the last thirty years or more. These usually run along side pedestrian paths, but sometimes they form the same wide path. Where feasible many broad pavements have had cycle paths added (by painting on a white line to divide off a cycle path).

• In the countryside over the past few years many signposted cycle routes have been created, both national ones that go for large distances and smaller ones that only go a few miles. They seek out the quiet roads with very little traffic.

• In one rural area I am familar with, "Quiet Lanes" are being promoted. These are roads which have very little traffic and thus are safe for people to walk along, or cycle along. I expect there are similar schemes in other areas.

Its a great pleasure to cycle at will in the summer through the dense network of rural roads in for example East Anglia. You can make a holiday out of it by staying in YHAs or bed and breakfast. You could for example, cycle between the various castles in the region although you would need detailed Ordnance survey maps and a compass.

There are many articles about cycling in the UK, but I've noticed that they are unreachable by following links from Cycling. See Cycle transport in the United Kingdom, National Cycle Network' Sustrans, Cycleways in England (does not load for me).

There are many cycling websites in the UK. You should be able to reach many of them through the link pages of the sites linked from the articles. --62.253.44.92 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the history of marriage

i'm trying to find information on the history of marriage, such as, is it true the best man carried a sword in case the girl's family came to steal her back? or that a girl can be stolen and married without her consent? or why women change their last names-because the man more or less owns them? i'm looking for some sort of log of marriage throughout the centuries. thanks, bri

I find it appalling that our extensive marriage article doesn't have as much as a brief overview section on the history of marriage. This seriously belongs on the article's todo list. dab (ᛏ) 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Marriage from where? In many cultures women do retain their last name even after marriage. "Best man" also seems like a cultural-specific thing. --ColourBurst 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And what constitutes a marriage? I suppose you mean having gone through some ritual, but I've heard that in Europe in the middle ages a couple were considered married when they had been living together long enough. 'Official' marriages were, I believe, only for the ruling class. I'm curious as to whether the name-change is correlated to whether it's a matrilinear or patrilinear culture and where the couple go live. DirkvdM 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Would matrilinear cultures have parriages? (Maybe redolent of parrying (per swords above) - not to mention thrusting.) Hmmm. JackofOz 06:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In England in the middle ages, married women weren't owned, the better way to think of them is as permanant "minors" with their husbands as their guardians. The name change is more like the same reason that when you take your pet to the vet, they append your last name on the pet's name so they know who is in charge of the pet. May have to add some of this later when I have my reference books handy. Crypticfirefly 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bride kidnapping is still common, even today, in some countries. StuRat 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is matrilineal, yet the wife traditionally adopts the husband's name. A pretty fair balance, I'd say. Loomis 00:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this chart, in Iraq, women do not take their husband's names. Crypticfirefly 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hudson, New York

Is Hudson, New York a gay resort town? -- Beland 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard anything of that sort. On the other hand, it has a large and growing artistic community, and these people are not known for sexual orthodoxy. Haiduc 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

American stereotypes... Philc _T^E_C^I 11:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups referred to as cults

On the list of groups referred to as cults, a debate is ongoing whether the phrase "cult of Mary" is a "reference to a group as a cult." The issue resolves around how the use of the word "cult" in regard to a practice/devotion applies to a group of practitioners. Please share your opinion at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults#Disputed. We have been unable to get a response from postings at RfC. Gimmetrow 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blug. Why, oh why, are people so ignorantly hammering away like this, when it's so very easy to avoid all offense? The proper term is cultus. Yes, that is the word that gives us "cult," but "cult" in English has come to mean "whacky little group," and therefore, to rescue the theological meaning of the term, one ought to use the Latin. By using the Latin, you make it clear that you're referring to the theological/religious meaning of the term and not the cultural/social meaning of the term. Two letters, and no one gets mad. Take those letters away, and I submit, unless you're speaking to church historians, you change what you're talking about altogether. Geogre 02:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My point is that there is a thing called the Marian Cult or the Cult of Mary, but the Cult of Mary is not a cult. For hagiographers, church historians, and theological types, a "cult" is an invocation in prayer and an elevation to sacredness. Thus, Solange was a girl whose head was chopped off by an amorous fellow. The cult of Solange is the habit of locals to invoke her in intercessory prayer. These participants in the cult don't know each other, don't have meetings, don't locate in a single place, nor join together for the exercise of their "cult." All of that makes the ecclesiastical meaning of "cult" so different from the common use that using that term fails to communicate and actually confuses. That's why people should use the older term, IMO. Geogre 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The word 'cult' is rapidly losing all its meaning. How often is some movie reviewed and we're told "This film is destined to become an instant cult classic". The literal meaning of that is that it would be liked by a very small number of people, whereas what the reviewer is trying to say is that it will be liked by a very large number of people. Duhh!! JackofOz 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JackofOz that the word 'cult' is very diluted. And in fact, in the past 15 years or so the whole 'cult of the cult', particularly with regards to the perceived harm of cultlike organisations, has gone through a healthy self-examination and evolution. Now, there is a more specific term intended to identify measurably harmful organisations (I won't give examples for fear of offending adherents) while excluding organisations that may have wacky or extreme beliefs but which, in practice, do not harm adherents. The term is 'Destructive cult' (note that our article on the topic has a different definition). HERE is a useful document listing the five defining characteristics of a destructive cult. On another note, I think the article linked to by the OP is useless listcruft and if I'd known about it when it was up for deletion I'd have voted against its existence.--Anchoress 04:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it will go to AfD again. Before you condemn the list entirely be aware that one editor has been on a campaign to add various odd entries. Gimmetrow 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin, The Descent of Man

I recently bought this book at a yard sale and from looking at your page on it i had a question. I was curious about the original print of this book. I had seen a picture on Wikipedia of the first page of the book with the publisher and date on it. Mine was very similar. Mine appears to be an original, only it was published in New York instead of London. It was published by D. Appleton and Company in 1871. I have had a very hard time finding any useful information on the printing I have. If you could provide me with any information I would greatly appreciate it.

Amanda

it appears that 1871 is just the original publication date, not necessarily the date of your edition. I found reference to a 1883 American edition by Appleton, maybe you have that? dab (ᛏ) 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a real Appleton from 1871, definitely hold on to it. It was produced by William Appleton, a publisher in New York (the firm is named after his father, Daniel), and is the first American edition of Descent of Man. They also produced the first American edition of Origin of Species—originally as a pirated, unauthorized edition, but eventually they came to a royalty agreement with Darwin and became his chief distributor and publisher in the U.S. Hope that is of some help. Descent of Man was a highly-anticipated book, because of the success and interest generated by Origin, and so had a pretty large print run, so I don't know whether it is worth a whole lot, but it is a great find in any case.

There is some information on the Appleton arrangement (not much more than I've given you, though) in Janet Browne's Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton University Press, 2002), on pp. 133 and 222 (the Browne book is an excellent biography of Darwin, by the way — probably the best one yet written).

Here's my question: Is the Appleton edition the entire book (both volumes—21 or so chapters)? The book is usually sold as a single book today, but it originally came out in separate volumes, at least in the British versions. --Fastfission 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hollanders

If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes? -- Миборовский 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And would those from Amsterdam be called A-Holes ? :-) StuRat 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

They aren't???????????? I've got some explaining to do.. AdamBiswanger1 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually in Dutch, the language they speak in Holland (which is not a country), they are 'Hollanders', while the people from Poland are 'Polen'.

People of New Netherlands Dutch descent in New York are also known as "Hollanders" in English.--Pharos 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

But why are inhabitans or Russia Russians, while in China they are Chinese? And it gets crazy now : apparently inhabitants of the USA are Americans?? Evilbu 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright recommended a good term for people from the United States: Usonians. It was a good idea, and the word is pronouncable, but it didn't stick. Geogre 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

By your reasoning people from Holland should be called 'Holles', not 'Holes'. Why are people from the Netherlands in English called 'Dutch' in stead of 'Netherlanders'? And what do you call people from the UK? Ukonians? If they would have left Ireland alone (actually, that was a Dutchman, but never mind that) then they could have been called 'British'. Which is often done nevertheless. Which could be used by Irish republicans - they're called 'British', so why didn't they stay there? Anyway, I digress. For some answers to the original question see Netherlands (terminology). And for some answers about the British see British Isles (terminology), an article I started. DirkvdM 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's rather silly to argue that political boundaries must always match geographic boundaries, this would mean every tiny island must be an independent nation. It's a common practice for a country (and it's inhabitants) to be named after it's main land mass. Hawaii isn't geographically part of America, yet Hawaiian are Americans, just like Tasmania is a separate island from Australia, yet it's inhabitants are still Australians. On a smaller scale, inhabitants of Oahu are called Hawaiians, even though they are not from the island of Hawaii. (One exception to this common practice is Japan, which is not named after the main island, Honshu.) StuRat 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)