Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< December 29 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 31 >
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.


Contents


[edit] December 30

[edit] Avignon papacy - 46 Years

I see in the Popes in Avignon that there was a 2 year gap between the first Pope and the next Pope. What was the reason for this? Then I notice that there are 4 Popes next in line until Pope Urban V. It looks like coincidently then there are 46 years that ran continuously to Pope Urban V. This then being the years 1316 to 1362. Now coincidently I add up their numbers and it ALSO is "46" (22 + 12 + 6 + 6). Is there NOT a reference someplace in the New Testament something to do with a Temple being of "46" or of "46 years" old or something to do with the number "46". Was NOT Pope Urban V the first pope that tried to move the papacy back to Rome? I notice also in this article that it refers to the Avignon papacy being from about 1309 to 1377. It seems like I have seen it as 1378 instead and in history books as the Avignon papacy being of "70 years". Is this not correct being of "70 years" for the Avignon papacy? I have also seen this reference of 70 years in some websites to Avignon history records. Also I notice that Pope Gregory XI is to 1378 and the transfer was to have taken place in 1378. This then would make it close to this reference of "70 years" being then from about 1309 (or 1307) to about 1378. It was Pope Gregory XI that made the transfer to Rome, however I understand shortly after he died. I understand the Pope that ACTUALLY finalized this of an "official" transfer back to Rome from Avignon was Pope Urban VI. --Doug 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Doug! Anyway, turning to your question on the Avignon Popes, following the death of Clement V in 1314 the cardinals were so divided politically that they could not agree on a successor, making the ensuing vacancy, known in the church as a Sede vacante, one of the longest in the history of the Papacy. It wasn't until 1316, under the influence of King Philip V, that John XXII finally emerged as the second of the Avignon Popes. On your next point, I have no information on the significance of the figure 46, though I imagine this is pure coincidence. Urban V did indeed attempt a move back to Rome, but abandoned this under pressure from the influential block of French cardinals. There seems to be some confusion in Wikipedia articles on the subject, but my understanding is that Gregory XI moved the seat of papal power back to Rome in January 1377, under the influence of Catherine of Sienna. There may also be some confusion over dating with the emerging Western Schism, and the creation by the French cardinals in 1378 of the anti-pope, Clement VII, who took up residence in Avignon, in opposition with the Italian, Urban VI, whose seat of power was in Rome. I hope this helps. Clio the Muse 01:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that helped a lot. Thanks! I also noticed some confusion here as to about "70 years" for the term of the Avignon papacy. I have even researched this is several history books at local libraries and have found many say something to the effect of around or "about 70 years" for the term of the Avignon papacy. With your information and this history book information, this then would be the dates somewhere around the start of the Avignon papacy being from about 1307 (to 1309) to your date of January 1377; a period of "about 70 years". There were then SEVEN (7) Avignon popes. Since Avignon Pope Clement V started his papacy in 1305, this of "about 70 years" then is probably a rounding of approximately the term of the Avignon papacy. This would be pretty close since the "transition" period for the start of the ACTUAL Avignon "papal court" would have been about October 1307 to March 1309. Then from around 1308 (+/- 1 year) to January 1377 is just under the "70 years" as is recorded in many history books and encyclopedias. I just happen to have noticed this "COINCIDENCE" of the 46 years from the actual reign of a CONTINUOUS "papal court" of from 1316 to that of the start of an attempt by Urban V in the year 1362 to move to papacy back to Rome. Also this "COINCIDENCE" just happens to be these Avignon Pope numbers added up (John XXII + Benedict XII + Clement VI + Innocent VI) being then XLVI ("46", I think in Roman numerals). --Doug 14:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on the Buddha's first sermon

The Dialogues of the Buddha are recorded as the suttas, correct? I have wondered if the Buddha's first sermon where he declared the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path to his previous teachers, was that sermon also recorded as a sutta in tha Pali Canon? If so, I would be greatly delighted to find out which sutta it was recorded as. Thanks in advance AmateurThinker 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally, this is held to be the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta ("the sutta of the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma"), which is at Samyutta-Nikaya V.420. In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation it starts on page 1843. There are suttas that describe events before this one, but they are included as stories within later suttas.--Shantavira 10:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is this?

I have always thought that this particular statue is of Confucius, but I am not entirely too sure as some of my peers think it is Lao-zi. Does anyone know for sure who it is or if it is even an historical figure. Thanks! — Arjun 05:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also don't assume it is Confucius because of the file name...since I took it :). — Arjun 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No, his exaggerated features and caricatured grotesque appearance identify him as a Taoist sage, perhaps one of the Eight Immortals, such as Iron-crutch Li with his staff and medicine gourd (?). --Wetman 11:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!!! — Arjun 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, don't you think the pic would look better if it was cleaned first ? A brush and a few minutes would be all it would take. But, maybe you don't have sufficient access to it for cleaning. StuRat 14:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...do you have any tips as I have tried before and the dust seems to not budge. The statue is very old. — Arjun 21:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
How about a rather dilute solution of hand dishwashing detergent and an old toothbrush ? I'd be particularly gentle near painted areas, like the eyes, but the rest looks like it could withstand a vigorous brushing. Brush in the same direction as the grooves for best results. StuRat 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law: accidental overhearing of confession

If, say, I overhear a confession of a crime told by a a person to a priest or a lawyer, accidentally, can I testify to it in court? If I go to a police, do they have 'sufficient evidence' to do a search or what not? What is the legal status of accidental evidence discovery (if I'm not a policeman)? My husband and I are arguing over this because I saw this as part of an email disclaimer "Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client, physician-patient or other privilege." and I don't think it's legally true (in a sense that if any incriminating evidence is received in such a way, it can be used legally despite the disclaimer), but my husband disagrees. Settle our dispute please :) With facts, I mean :)--Knyazhna 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; some may not recognize any privileges related to confessional statements to priests to start with. Unless the law (or established precedent) explicitly extends the privileged status to accidental overhearers, it is quite plausible that your status as an overhearer of a privileged communication would be judged to be the same as when the communication had not been privileged – after all, the rationale for making certain communication privileged does not apply. But the test is in the pudding: only in an actual court case would you find out. I agree that these email disclaimers almost certainly have no legal standing. Perhaps they are there for due diligence reasons.  --LambiamTalk 06:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore it depends on the severity of the crime; For example, Paul Bernardo & Karla Homolka, Serial Killer and Rapist Team; Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka -- the Ken and Barbie of Mayhem and Murder. They lured, sadistically raped and tortured young women, then murdered them. http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/bernardo/index_1.html --Jones2 09:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes in the US the issue of whether the confessor (let's call him "Edeward") had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is introduced. If Edward said in the confessional booth of the Church or in his lawyer's office that he killed someone, and a policeman standing outside heard it, he has a better chance of getting it excluded than if he said it in a bar and a policeman at the next bar stool overheard it. Edison 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Town twinning

I don't understand the artlicle Town twinning. What does it mean? For example it states:The city of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada was one of the first cities ever to enter into an international twinning arrangement when, in 1944, it twinned with the Ukrainian city of Odessa, which at the time was part of the Soviet Union. This was based on aiding the allied port city during World War II.? --Delma1 10:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The article seems perfectly clear to me. Please indicate what it is you don't understand, and perhaps people can help. --ColinFine 12:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The arrangement is one to one with local councils. Sometimes local councilors will visit the sister city and learn about local arrangements that work, in the hopes of transference. Sometimes schools get involved too. It is not a mutual defence pact, as between states. DDB 13:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So what actually happens, take in the above example? --Delma1 13:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See DDB's answer above. As far as I am aware, it is a purely civil arrangement, i.e. there is no contractual obligation to do anything at all. It all depends on people in the town taking some initiative and organising at least a few exchange visits. In the end, it's all down to the people involved to come up with ideas. Sometimes very little happens. I must confess I have no idea which cities my home city is twinned with.--Shantavira 14:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think twinning is often used to promote tourism. I remember reading an article about the people of an american town complaining that lots of them had visited their british twin but few had come from britain to visit them. meltBanana 15:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No to your last question. Have a look at the site map of the Sister Cities International site. There are pages and pdf articles that should answer almost all of your questions. --Seejyb 14:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more of a sort of social/cultural/friendship exchange. Where I live, we have sister cities (a.k.a. twin towns) in China and Japan. My home city is promoted as a holiday destination in its sister cities - they are promoted here as good places to do business in Asia. Our city's botanical gardens include a traditional Japanese garden, and a traditional Chinese garden is under construction - both of these built with the financial and technical support of people in our sister cities. Those cities have hosted art exhibitions by artists from my home city. And so on. Grutness...wha? 07:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also often a good excuse to have a few trips somewhere at taxpayer expense for a committee while these things are being arranged - but I'm just a cynic sometimes. Robovski 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reserve requirement of Canadian Banks

In article: Reserve requirement it states: As of 2006 the required reserve ratio in the United States was 10% on transaction deposits (component of money supply "M1"), and zero on time deposits and all other deposits.. My question lies here: What is the Reserve requirement of Canadian Banks? Please provide references if possible. Thnx. --Judged 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The table in the Reserve requirement article says that the Bank of Canada (which is Canada's central bank) does not have a required reserve ratio. I imagine that this means it operates a more flexible voluntary reserve policy, similar to the Bank of England. There might be more information at the Bank of Canada's web site. Gandalf61 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open market operation

In article Open market operation: it states: The process does not literally require the immediate printing of new currency. A central bank account for a member bank can simply be increased electronically. However this will increase the central bank's requirement to print currency when the member bank demands banknotes, in exchange for a decrease in its electronic balance. Does the Canadian Government have an account with the big 5 banks in Canada, and are there references to that effect? --Judged 11:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, to be clear, only the italic lightface portion of the question above is a quote from Open market operation. The italic bold portion is the questioner's question. Now, the article on open market operations refers to operations by central banks, not by governments. So, whether or not the Canadian government has accounts at commercial banks is not relevant to open market operations that might be conducted by Canada's central bank, the Bank of Canada, which is not one of the "big five" commercial banks. The Bank of Canada would conduct open market operations, as described by the article, not through accounts it held at commercial banks but through accounts held by the commercial banks at the Bank of Canada.
In fact, both kinds of accounts seem to exist. This document from the Bank of Canada refers to settlement accounts held at the Bank of Canada by "about a dozen financial institutions". Part II, Section 17. (2) of Canada's Financial Administration Act empowers the Receiver General for Canada to establish accounts at financial institutions for the conduct of government business. Marco polo 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval currency

What currency did they use during middle ages.. i relaize this might varied a bit from region to region, but was it a typical thing with system much like this :

Gold coins - most worth silver coins bronze coins - least worth ?

or was it typical with just gold coins ?

how did the money system work ? did they have names on different coins, like today we have forexample in england POUNDS, PENCE etc.

how much was a gold coin worth? (if goldcoins was indeed used much)

How much was a bread worth compared to how much was a sword/weapon and various armour worth ? how many breads would u get for 1 gold ?

I'm just trying to figure out APPROXIMATELY how the system worked and the worth of items compared to the coins value. just getting an idea...

Say a baron or a lord sold his land. how much money(or gold?) would he likely sell it for ? ofc, the size of his land would be vital in deciding that, and the quality of it and what was in it as well. it would be nice to get an idea of how it worked.

how much was normal daily/weekly/monthly salary for various jobs/works ?

Thank you, Krikkert7 12:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Krikkert

Currency is anything that can be accepted for trade. Vikings would use trinkets as well as bolts of cloth or animals or land. Traders existed by taking things from one town to the next. Barrels of pickled fish are currency.
A viking raiding party might introduce themselves to a local king. They would bring cloth and food and accept manufactured goods as gifts. Literaly, trade.
Coins, stamped with a king's likeness are currency, but mainly for wealthy and state transactions, not for local life. Peasants had little need for coins. Peasant clothing was restricted. If a peasant stole the clothing of a wealthy person, anyone could see. It's interesting that trade, currency and accounting grew hand in hand with the printing press. DDB 12:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Your questions are rather too broad. Just like today, the cost of land, armour, work, or bread would all vary depending on many factors. Even the term Middle Ages covers several hundred years during which these factors would all change considerably. Have you read our article on the history of money? Also see the History section in the currency article.--Shantavira 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

One comment, money was in the from of coins then, with their value being exactly due to the value of the constituent precious metals. Paper money, and our current coins, have a value based only on faith in the financial system of the country which prints them, which is quite different. The only faith required at the time was that the coins were actually coined of the metals claimed and were of the size claimed. StuRat 14:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Salaries for jobs were quite rare. Most people would work for their relatives, or possibly be an indentured servant. In both cases the only salary was likely to be room and board and training in the field. This was a subsistence economy for most of the people, there was no excess wealth to save. StuRat 14:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This varied substantially over the course of the Middle Ages. During the early Middle Ages, it is true that currency, in the form of coins, was rare and mainly used by feudal nobles and church hierarchy. However, as the Middle Ages progressed, the use of money increased. This was partly due to the growth of cities and urban markets. Serfs could and did sell their surplus produce in urban markets for cash (coins). Also, after the Black Death, there was a severe labor shortage, and even serfs were able to demand compensation (sometimes in coin) for their labor. Successful serfs could even save money (in the form of coins) and buy their freedom and/or a piece of land of their own.
Gold coinage was almost unknown in Europe until the modern era. Most coins were silver, and silver was the basis for most currencies. The pound sterling carries this name because it was originally a unit of account referring to a pound of sterling silver. The basic unit of English currency was the silver penny, 240 of which made up a Tower pound. Marco polo 02:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Since coins were based on their weight in silver, would you make a purchase by just plopping your coins on a scale? If so, how would they account for debased coins? -- Mwalcoff 05:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Coins were recognizable, as they are today, by the images and text stamped on the coins. The silver content of coins was generally known, as a new coinage could be melted down and assayed. Debased coins would be discounted accordingly. Marco polo 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Producing short-weight coins was a very serious matter, which remained a capital offence into the 19th century; various means were used to make it obvious if coins had been debased, e.g. design elements on the edge of the design which would make it clear that metal had been trimmed from the coin; later they were able to mill the edges of coins, or even inscribe writing into the edge - the reason many British £1 coins today have "DECUS ET TUTAMEN" ("An ornament and a safeguard") on their edge is because that was used on coins in the 17th century. In earlier days, the name of the moneyer who produced the coin was inscribed on the coin, so the king knew exactly who to blame if a coin was produced with insufficient weight or fineness of metal -- in 1124 Henry I summoned all 150 moneyers to his court at Winchester, and 94 of them were convicted of producing short-weight coins and had their right hand and one testicle cut off, which presumably encouraged the others to maintain their quality control! -- Arwel (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Kings were not just charged with protecting the coinage, they could also themselves be responsible for its debasement! A classic example of this is James III of Scotland, who attempted to spend his way out of financial difficulty by a particularly unscrupulous form of deficit financing, the so-called 'black coinage', one of the reasons for his growing unpopularity. On the question of wage rates in medieval England there is quite a lot of detailed information. In the period before the Black Death in the mid-1340s skilled labourers could expect to earn around 3d a day. With the severe shortage of labour caused by the plague, coupled with increasing demand, a steady process of wage inflation set in, causing Edward III to introduce the Ordinance of Labourers in 1349, reinforced by parliament's Statute of Labourers in 1351. Both had limited effect. We also know that the Peasants Revolt in 1381 was caused by unacceptably high levels of taxation, coupled by more rigorous attempts by the government of Richard II to enforce the earlier wage statutes . Clio the Muse 05:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. "Goodbye, Mr. Chips"

I am reading "Goodbye, Mr. Chips", and I am confusing. Mr. Chips wrote:"This was the kind of fight in which the Germans busied themselves." Students thought it's very funny. I don't get it. Germans made themselves busy in World War 1. What's so funny? Could somebody kindly solve my puzzle?

One more question. Mr. Chips told a boy,"You're growing up into a very cross sort of world. Maybe it will have got over some of its crossness by the time you're ready for it. Let's hope so at any rate....." I don't understand the meaning of "a very cross sort of world". Any advice would be very much appreciated.61.60.242.186 13:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Jenny

Don't know what was funny about the first one - it might be to do with the context which isn't quoted. But "cross" means angry. He just means there's a lot of anger in the world. --Nicknack009 13:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The joke is saying that the Germans declared war just to "keep busy", as if they were bored and had to find something to do. StuRat 13:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the passage. The joke is not in the actual phrasing. It is the fact that he managed to find something in a 2000 year old latin text, Julius Caesar' Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, that was relevant then, during a world war I german air-raid. "Genus hoc erat pugnae, quo se Germani exercuerant" meltBanana 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Context is everything - This bit reads - "And once, on a night of full moonlight, the air-raid warning was given while Chips was taking his lower-fourth in Latin. .... Is there anyone who will volunteer to construe?' Maynard, chubby, dauntless, clever, and impudent, said: 'I will, sir.' 'Very good. Turn to page forty and begin at the bottom line.' The explosions still continued deafeningly; the whole building shook as if it were being lifted off its foundations. Maynard found the page, which was some way ahead, and began shrilly: 'Genus hoc erat pugnae - this was the kind of fight - quo se Germani exercuerant - in which the Germans busied themselves - Oh, sir, that's good - that's really very funny indeed, sir - one of your very best - Laughing began, and Chips added: 'Well - umph - you can see - now - that these dead languages - umph - can come to life again - sometimes - eh? Eh?'" - I.e. they busied themselves fighting then - and they were busing themselves fighting now. Jooler 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the headline from Our Dumb Century between the World Wars: "Peace-torn Germany Struggles With No War in Sight" --Maxamegalon2000 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL. StuRat 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The book is one of my favorites. I also loved Delderfield's 'To Serve Them All My Days.' The joke meanings have already been posted. However, to say that the Germans busied themselves with war is to say that a relatively routine task, which people all do, was, for Germans, fighting others. It was an insult. It was also apt for the moment.

For the world to be cross, the world would be upset, in a fighting mood. This is another apt description of WW1. The hope given that it would not always be so. cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye_Mr_Chips DDB 01:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you all. You are all so helpful and lovely.61.60.242.186 15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Jenny

Oh, Oh, question again. Before Mr. Chips died, the boy Linford visited him then left. Mr. Chips thought: An old leg-pull, to make new boys think that his name was really Chips...... Why he thought so? His name was always really Chips, isn't it? 61.60.242.186 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Jenny

I believe that was his nickname, not his real name. StuRat 18:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I found his real name is Chipping. Thank you.61.60.242.186 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Jenny

[edit] Shoes on or off ?

In the US, it is generally considered socially unacceptable to take ones shoes or boots off when visiting a guest's home, while in Japan, it is expected that you would take your footwear off in the same circumstances. (Personally, I think the Japanese have this one right, why should we have hot, sweaty, disease-prone feet while also tracking in everything we stepped on outside ?) My question is, where do other cultures around the world stand on this custom ? Is shoes-on the norm or shoes-off ? StuRat 14:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In Norway, the norm is shoes-off if the setting is informal. --NorwegianBlue talk 15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I know some people here in the US who do that too (including myself). Still, it's rare. I remeber one of the homes where they did that was German, though I can't say if it's only them who do that. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 15:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In Britain it depends on the inhabitants of the house. You take your cue by whether there's a pile of shoes by the door and whether your host has any shoes on. Sometimes I'll ask 'Is this a shoes-off house?' or 'Should I take my shoes off?' if I feel it is unclear (eg, I'm visiting and they're wearing slippers, or their shoes are particularly dirty so I'm not sure if they'd normally take them off). It's rarely considered rude to take your shoes off on entering a carpeted house, although it could look like 'settling in' when they're only expecting a brief visit! It might be considered rude to retain your shoes, so it's worth paying attention. I would expect to retain my shoes in a house that didn't have fitted carpets. On top of this, I suspect there is a class dimension (isn't there always?). Interesting that removing your shoes in your host's house is considered rude in the US. Skittle 15:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This code of conduct, which is now widespread in Britain, is a relatively recent thing. 30 or 40 years ago very few people would have considered taking shoes off to save a host's carpet or paquet flooring. Jooler 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if it's at all related to the rise in central heating? Skittle 16:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In german-speaking regions of Europe it is shoes-off too. Aetherfukz 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't agree that it's "socially unacceptable" to take your shoes off while visiting a guest's home in the US. In houses that I visit, I take my shoes off, especially if there is wall-to-wall carpeting. If anything, I think it's rude to leave your shoes on as that would be sullying their floors. This is of course all null if I see that the house's inhabitants are all wearing shoes while indoors. I have noticed that while I lived in Texas and Louisiana, more people tended to leave their shoes on while indoors than they do here in Minnesota. --Chickenflicker---♣ 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In all Islamic countries and South and East Asian countries that I know off the norm is that you do not wear your outdoor shoes inside a private residence. Our article Etiquette in Asia mentions some countries, some under the heading "Shoes", some in the per-country treatment, but not systematically.  --LambiamTalk 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I take my shoes off whenever my feet are starting to get uncomfortable. In restaurants, in cars, in libraries. I try to be discreet, though I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of. It doesn't do any good to suffer in silence. Of course, you can only get away with this if your feet are relatively odourless. Vranak

In the Czech Republic, it is also often customary to remove one's shoes when entering a house. And as said before, it's not that uncommon in the U.S. When I visit my parents' house, I take my shoes off on the mat next to the door, lest I mess up the kitchen floor. This may be more common in the northern parts of the country, where for much of the year footwear is covered in mud and gunk. -- Mwalcoff 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In Australia, I've not heard of anyone taking off their shoes when entering a house. I don't do it, and I don't know anyone who does. I've never been expected to take my shoes off, either. Perhaps climate has something to do with it? Taking off shoes on a hot day releases a terrible smell. Pesapluvo 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a common bit of circular reasoning: "people should leave their shoes on because people's feet stink". The problem with that statement is that their feet only stink because they keep their shoes on, allowing heat and humidity to build up to become a breeding ground for bacteria. StuRat 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I had to take my shoes off whenever I entered my Bulgarian ex-girlfriend's house. They flipped out the few times I forgot and wore them in, so it must be a strong custom in Bulgaria. —Keenan Pepper 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Here in New Zealand, in general one wouldn't take one's shoes off when entering a house - except when that house is part of a Maori marae. There it is a mark of respect, more akin to removing shoes on entering some holy sites. Grutness...wha? 07:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

(Southeast Texas, US) I'm not sure it's rude to take off your shoes when entering someone's house, I think it would just be a bit weird. I've certainly never seen it. Except one time, I was at a friend of mine's house, and his dad told me to take my shoes off when I came inside. They had some Japanese ancestry, though, which might have had something to do with it. Black Carrot 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

LOl @ Pesapluvo. I agree that it's quite uncommon in Australia, but I have a handful of friends who have a shoes-off requirement in their homes. One friend has a ready supply of guest slippers in various sizes, designs and colours, to cater for all tastes. JackofOz 23:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, circular reasoning it may be, but if I was required to take my shoes off every time I entered a house, especially in summer, I would be taken to the International War Crimes Tribunal for using weapons of mass destruction. It's good to see that the things known as thongs in Australia (i.e. flip-flops not g-strings) are now acceptable on semi-formal occasions here. Grant65 | Talk 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In Hawaii, it is considered the norm to take off one's shoes before entering a house.

[edit] Sha'biyat question

Looking through the articles on the sha'biyat of Libya, I see a link for Al Jfara that actually links to Al 'Aziziyah. Lots of articles link to Al 'Aziziyah, but the only one that links to Al Jfara is the Libya page itself. Has the sha'biyah been renamed? Whatever it is, the articles are contradictory and should be harmonised. Nyttend 16:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what exactly was diefenbaker's achievement?

diefenbaker canada's 13th prime minister is famous for his bill of rights. what are his other achievements?

Have you checked John Diefenbaker? Also please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). -- Aetherfukz 17:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually becoming PM despite not being from Ontario or Quebec or of Anglo-French background was a big one out West - the "Two Solitudes" myth Ontario and Quebec writers harp on (about everyone in Canada being indisputably, undeniably either English or French) has never sat well out here, where a huge percentage of the population is either Central/Eastern European or First Nations. There's also the Avro Arrow controversy. --Charlene 23:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Booty Song Lyrics

I just came back from the Carribean. There I heard a song that was entirely comprised of the word booty and some descriptor: Big Booty Small Booty Your Mama's Booty Can someone please tell me the name and artist of the song? I know this question was asked before but I cannot find the answer. Can anyone please help?

Booty man - Tim Wilson? Also please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) -- Aetherfukz 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] psychology

explain about allport trait versus type theory

Gordon W. Allport contains a brief explanation; there's a fuller explanation here. - Nunh-huh 18:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Somerset Maugham short story about a man and an elephant

Many years ago I read a short story that I am reasonably certain was written by S. Maugham. It was about a British officer serving in India who ends up shooting an elephant essentilly to avoid looking foolish in front of the local villagers.

I am working my way through Volume I of a collection but have yet to find it. I was hoping to find it to use at weekly discussion group I attend.

ken

Could that be George Orwell, Shooting an Elephant?  --LambiamTalk 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm 100% sure Lambiam is right. It's a powerful and unforgettable story, and you've described it well. Antandrus (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is indeed by George Orwell, though as you probably know by now, it is set in Burma, where Eric Blair served as a policeman, rather than an army officer. It is also a matter of debate if it should be considered a short story or an essay based upon a real experience. In truth, it is probably a bit of both, though the short story was not really Orwell's genre. Clio the Muse 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I could finish Keep the Aspidistra Flying in a single sitting, which I believe is the definition of a short story. Vranak 05:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Impressed as I am by your achievment, Vranak, I do not believe the speed of your reading can really serve as a proper bench mark in such matters. I admit there is sometimes a fine line between the short story, the novella and the novel; but at some 150 pages plus in the Penguin edition, Keep the Aspdistra Flying has every right to be considered as a novel, and is so included amongst Orwell's other works in this field, from Burmese Days to Nineteen Eighty-Four. Incidentally, I read all of Orwell's novels in a single sitting (not on the same day!), but this had no effect on my estimation of their classification. Clio the Muse 05:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hanging Saddam's dog - truth or WP vandalism?

Just found this paragraph added to the Blondi article:

Blondi is also the name of the dog of Saddam Hussein Shortly after the execution of the dictator Saddam Hussein, his dog Blondi followed the same fate to the gallows. Contrary to Saddam, Blondi’s execution was broadcast live in full length. Some minor complications arose, which dragged out the death struggle to unbearable lengths. Animal activist group PETA has filed a formal complaint to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.

and a link to this site with a supposed picture of the dog's execution. Truth or trolling? --Kurt Shaped Box 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly trolling. Dogs are not particularly liked in the arabic world[1] and if this does have anything to do with Saddam it is probably a symbolic hanging of stray who is no better then Saddam. Also the islamic-faschism ignores the fact that Saddam seemed to take Stalin as his role model rather than Hitler. And another also, why would PETA complain? one dead dog too late to save it is not like it is trying to stop an industry. meltBanana 21:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the original picture with an apparent date code from '92. They seem to be as barbaric in Washington as in Baghdad. meltBanana 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolute vandalism. First of all, although Saddam did not appear to follow many of the tenets of Islam (yeah, understatement of the decade), he likely wouldn't keep a dog. Most Muslim scholars hold that dogs, like swine, are considered unclean. Blondi was Hitler's dog, not Saddam's. Also, where was he going to keep a dog, and who kept the dog alive? Saddam couldn't even keep his own sons alive. --Charlene 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where can I find a good archive of videos/pictures of American soldiers violating human rights in Iraq?

I need videos/pictures of Iraqi men/women/children being raped, civilians being shot at, etc. I've already seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures on wikimedia commons, so don't direct me there. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not going to find much worse than some footage from a chopper which spots Iraqi combantants, not actively engaged in fighting. After a little conversation with his comrades, the pilot guns them down with a vulcan cannon. Well... he guns one down. Another takes out a rag and waves it -- presumably meaning 'peace'. I believe the words, 'waste 'em' are spoken, so the pilot guns him down too.
I don't think you'll find any rape or clear-cut murder though. Vranak 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If im thinking about the same video, I cant remember any part in that video with a rag being waved, but its been a while since ive seen it (It was an Apache Gunship by the way.), but I do remember one of the gross violations was the fact that they opened fire on someone they knew to be wounded and no longer combat-effective (if he was even a soldier), they flat out say "He's wounded," before opening fire a second time. There a section in an article with a link to the video here. Cyraan 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

CNN seems to catalog anything that might oppose US interests .. have you looked there? If you want something that you know wasn't fabricated, you might need to search Fox, imho. DDB 01:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"I need videos/pictures of Iraqi men/women/children being raped, civilians being shot at, etc." And what if none exist? Will you just look harder? Loomis 08:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean none exist? I've already said, I've seen pictures of Abu Ghraib and whatnot, I was asking for more. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The Abu Ghraib pics don't show "videos/pictures of Iraqi men/women/children being raped, civilians being shot at, etc.", they show men being humiliated. If by "civilian" you mean "civilians not engaged in fighting", there have been a small number of those, as in just about any war, but I doubt if there is any film or pics of the actual events. StuRat 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Loomis was pointing out that there is indeed a dearth of picture of what you are looking for, and that the reason may be that it was simply not occurring frequently enough to be photographed in the quantity that suits your purpose. Sites such as [2] (NB the real Robert Fisk is NOT associated with this site) collect pictures, but what the pictures represent is guesswork. A web search for "pictures american atrocities iraq" yields extremely few pictures that seem convincing. --Seejyb 20:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God being Jesus's father

Was God, Jesus's father? Heegoop, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you're not looking for a yes/no answer, take a look at the articles on Genealogy of Jesus and on Son of God. ---Sluzzelin 01:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that Jesus did claim to be the 'son of God' -- or at least that's what Nietzsche claimed, likely in On the Genealogy of Morals. Vranak 02:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If Jesus is the son of God, then isn't the reverse true? (God being the father of Jesus) --The Dark Side 03:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is true... or so I've been led to believe. Vranak 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you ever say an Our Father, aren't you saying he is your father as well? Many people (have been led to) believe we are all children of God.  --LambiamTalk 07:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well if everyone's father is God, then doesn't that sort of diminish the whole notion of 'fatherhood' into a bland, meaningless, totally banal phrase? Vranak 17:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone's father is God. Not everyone is a Christian. The prayer is for people who pray to God. BenC7 11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Philip K Dick loved this form of areligious argument. One of his, from VALIS, is the question "Can god build a bridge across a ravine that he made too wide to build a bridge across?"

The thing about language is that there are meanings to words that ascribe meaning to thought, so that the thought becomes meaningless, or a joke. Words are shades of constructs, and Escher had fun with such shades of constructions.

"God the father" has a different meaning to "Bill is the father." My interpretation of the question has many layers. "Is religion silly" "Is religion worthy" "dooes god exist" etc etc.

I believe religion is silly and worthy. 124.189.220.83 01:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) that last was mine DDB 01:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, great. Answer to original question: Yes. BenC7 11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Clio the Muse 14:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We can't, of course, answer the original question, but can state which religions and sects believe Jesus to be the son of God (I think that's pretty much all sects of Christianity, with very few non-Christians believing this). Of course, the definition of "son" is rather vague, do they literally believe God provided a sperm which inseminated Mary ? You might also want to read Jonathan Livingston Seagull, where the speculation seems to be that anyone with unusual insight will either be called the son of God or the Devil. StuRat 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you are of one of the denominations which believes the Trinity, things get more complicated, as God is both the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit; in effect, Jesus is also his own Father! Laïka 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The romans also consider their god to be father. The second part of the name Jupiter means father in latin.172.159.156.28 18:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)