Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< December 11 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 13 >
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 12

[edit] Has George Bush ever met Osama Bin Ladin

Has George W Bush ever met Osama Bin Ladin in person? 202.168.50.40 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely. But we know he would like to find him. Xn4 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume the OP means before the whole 9/11 thing. But even then, the answer is pretty much guaranteed to be no. If that had been the case, you can bet that people would have made a big point of it by now, like they do with the photos of Saddam and Rumsfeld. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
However, there is only one degree of separation between them Bush and Osama bin Laden, since they both know a common person of bin Laden's family.217.168.0.203 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
They both are from large and influential families which have had dealings with each other through international government. But that doesn't mean that any two leaves on a family tree have actually met. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The locations of bin Laden's family are well known, why arn't they arrested and have their finger nails pulled out until they reveal his location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.30.101 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because even George Bush wouldn't resort to that kind of terrorist method? DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Or because Dubya's Daddy would disown him for harming Daddy's business associates and personal friends? Corvus cornixtalk 17:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Or, possibly, because he has been disowned by his family, had his inheritance revoked, been permanently banned from his home country, and has had no contact with his family. What would be the benefit or torturing people who do not have the information we want? Of course, there are many people who assume that everyone in Saudi Arabia is related to Osama and chats with him on the phone every day - so this argument will get a knee-jerk "oh they know where he is" reaction from them. -- kainaw™ 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course once you have tortured them, they'll probably end up telling you a bunch of stuff they made up (as is common with torture vicitms) to get you to stop. I guess if you want, you could hint to them that they should tell you he's in Iran (despite the fact he hates the Iranians about as much as he hated Saddam) so you would have an excuse to invade Iran. So perhaps torturing them isn't such a bad idea depending on your POV Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The Bin Laden family are mainly in Saudi Arabia, where they're rich and influential with the present regime structure. The Saudi governing oligarchy -- who are rather grudging and reluctant to cooperate with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts at the best of times -- are extremely unlikely to hand them over en masse to the U.S. government. Furthermore, there were plenty of Bin Laden family members in the U.S. at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and Dubya's reaction was to give them a free pass out of the country with very little or no effective FBI interrogation of the vast majority of them. AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Improbable yes. Not impossible though. Bear in mind that they could have met before September 11, both had fairly long lives before then and there Osama wasn't always so hard to find. I'm not suggesting some sort of conspiracy just pointing out that there was a time when they weren't sworn enemies Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. Osama was a perceived enemy of the US even before 2001. Wrad (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
And he was a perceived ally before that. -- kainaw™ 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, during the Soviet-Afghan wars, right? Maybe what we need here is an outline of how American feeling toward bin Laden has changed over the years. Wrad (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

During the Afghanistan-Soviet war, Osama bin Laden was a relatively minor figure who ran a logistics and supply organization in Pakistan (for sending weapons and supplies to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan), using Arab money. I see no reason why George W. Bush (who at that time was running a failing oil business in West Texas) would have had reason to meet with him then... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallish Countries

How many (and which) countries have a population of 500,000 or fewer persons? DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See List of countries by population, from Solomon Islands (165) on down. AecisBrievenbus 01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by country. I find that list not very well-named... for instance, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Saint Barthélemy aren't in any sense countries, as they are collectivités d'outre-mer (that is, parts of France), and St Helena and the Pitcairn Islands are small British colonies, so not countries, either. Xn4 01:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
My primary meaning in my question was for sovereign entities, but I do find it useful to have non-sovereign entities with a degree of self-government included for comparison. DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Checking that list against a list of independent countries, I find that 32 of the places on it are independent and smaller than the cutoff population. This comparison was done partly by hand because of country names having different forms, and I may have gotten one or two wrong. (Also, of course, the warning at the top of the list should be noted.) From largest (almost 500,000) to smallest:
  1. Solomon Islands
  2. Luxembourg
  3. Suriname
  4. Malta
  5. Brunei
  6. Bahamas
  7. Iceland
  8. Maldives
  9. Barbados
  10. Belize
  11. Vanuatu
  12. Samoa
  13. St. Lucia
  14. São Tomé & Príncipe
  15. St. Vincent & the Grenadines
  16. Micronesia
  17. Grenada
  18. Tonga
  19. Kiribati
  20. Seychelles
  21. Antigua & Barbuda
  22. Andorra
  23. Dominica
  24. Marshall Islands
  25. St. Kitts & Nevis
  26. Liechtenstein
  27. Monaco
  28. San Marino
  29. Palau
  30. Tuvalu
  31. Nauru
  32. Vatican City
--Anonymous, 2007-12-12, 05:05 UTC.
I'm not quite sure whether Greenland and the Faeroe Islands should be considered "countries", per se, since they technically belongs to Denmark. However, they both have home rule and are independent from the mother country in all things but sovereignty. There's a little article here about Rigsfællesskabet, which talks about these Danish provinces. So perhaps Greenland and the Faeroe Islands should be added to the list... Saukkomies 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Good stuff, thank you so much for your work. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanism design theory and environmental regulation

I understand that mechanism design theory, for which 3 economists were awarded the Nobel Prize for economics for 2007, can be used for formulating environmental regulation. I would like some non-mathematical and easily accessible material on how mechanism design is useful in designing policies for pollution control N. Ramagopal (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)N.Ramagopal

I'm not that fluent in accessible literature for this specific topic. First I'll give you a short example. Take it as a stylized version of a factual case. Then I'll give you some humble suggestions on accessible general material on Mechanism Design.
Suppose you have a factory that can cause some damage to an individual. You, as a State Authority, may want the factory to run and produce profits, and compensate the individual for any known harms. If the damage produced by the factory's activity is greater than the profit we'll get for the factory's performance, then you wouldn't want the plant to run.
Now, suppose the factory profits and the damage to the individual are pieces of information only known to the company and the affected person, respectively. Do agents have any incentives to reveal that information to the Authority? For this case, a Clark-Groves mechanism can be used to give such incentives. Just ask the company agents for their estimates of profits (b)and the individual for a figure of the expected damage (c). Then let the factory work whenever b > c. In such case, make the firm pay c and give the individual a subsidy for the amount b (notice that here external funds are needed!). It turns out that this mechanism produces an efficient outcome (i. e. it allows the factory to work whenever that is socially convenient) and gives the incentives so that agents will reveal their information truthfully (that is, they can't do any better lying).
Regarding literature, you may want to have a look at here and here. Keywords of interest for your research are Clark-Groves Mechanisms, truthful relevation, and implementation, among others. You may also find interesting this material from the Nobel Fundation. Hope that helps :) Pallida  Mors 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon and the Marseillaise

Why did Napoleon ban the Marseillaise in 1799? 75.162.133.252 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is to do with the coup of 18 Brumaire 1799, by which Bonaparte overthrew the government of the Directory. Those who planned the coup, and especially the Abbé Sieyès, were anxious to put an end to Jacobinism, and Bonaparte's popularity after his Egyptian adventures of 1798-1799 gave them the opportunity. There's an interesting comparison with Stalin's rejection of The Internationale, which was replaced by the National Anthem of the Soviet Union during the Second World War. The Internationale, like the Marseillaise, had glorified revolution. After Bonaparte banned the Marseillaise, the song Partant pour la Syrie (written by his step-daughter Hortense de Beauharnais) was widely used instead. Although that song isn't about Bonaparte himself, it was inspired by his expedition to Egypt and has remained closely identified with the Bonapartists ever since. In the same way, the first version of the new Anthem of the Soviet Union (1944) glorified Stalin, though more explicitly. Xn4 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question appearing on my final

On my final exam review lies the question "According to Aristotle, what reveals character in a drama?" Try as I might I connot find the answer in my notes or reading, so I was wondering if maybe someone here could enlighten me on this point. 129.108.227.171 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly all that was wanted as an answer was "plot" or "action". The Poetics outlines six elements of drama: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle and melody, and of these plot comes first: "In a play, they do not act in order to portray the characters; they include the characters for the sake of the action" (Poetics 1450a.20). Probably the question was posed to elicit this. For an essay, this could be added to considerably :) - Nunh-huh 10:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast response. I think that is probably what my proffessor be lookin' for; it sounds like something he would place in a test. Thanx. 129.108.227.171 (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Pierre Pellissier

Would like to write an article on Jean Pierre Pellissier - a French missionary to South Africa in 1830, prior the dicovery of diamonds etc and the the historical Great Trek. He was the the first permanent european missionary in South Africa, above the borders of the Cape Colony, and started the town Bethulie.

We are the sixth generation still living in SA, and have lots of historical information on this topic. Sam PellissierPellissier (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OffTopic, I've wikilinked your town Bethulie in case you didn't know we have an article on that. Rfwoolf (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sam. You'll find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Article development and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The first of those says "Please don't create pages about yourself or your friends, pages that advertise, or personal essays" and also "Wikipedia surveys existing human knowledge; it is not a place to publish new work". Your ancestor's life seems to meet the tests of Wikipedia:Notability, but you might feel it would be better to get someone outside the family to work on the article. It will need to rely on sources which anyone can access, such as Jean Pierre Pellissier van Bethulie: 'n Volledige Lewensbeskrywing van een van de eerste Franse Protestantse sendelinge in suid-Afrika (Pretoria, 1956). I hope this is helpful. Xn4 12:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The health of FDR

Is it true that Franklin Roosevelt's political enemies spread the rumour that he was suffering from syphilis in the run up to the presidential election of 1932 Major Barbara (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to this source, "it was whispered that Roosevelt had syphilis, which he contracted from his wife, who got it from a black man." There are three implications of this insinuation:
1. It implied that he was very ill, too ill to run the country
2. It implied that he couldn't even be in charge of his own household, that he couldn't even "control" his wife, so why would he be able to run the country?
3. It implied that he was carrying a black man's disease, a very serious allegation in those days.
AecisBrievenbus 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I would add that it also implied that his wife was someone who loved Blacks, which back in 1932 would have cost Roosevelt a lot of votes. Of course, as it turns out, Eleanor was in truth very sympathetic to the cause of Civil Rights, but that probably had nothing to do with this rumor. Saukkomies 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You aren't really famous until you've been rumored to have slept with someone you're "not supposed" to have (black, gay, whatever). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Shall we amend our notability criteria then? ;) AecisBrievenbus 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the accuracy of the information on the link provided by Aecis, though I confess that I do tend to hold some of these Google 'sources' at critical distance.

Anyway, that's all quite beside the point. Malicious stories about Roosevelt and syphilis began to circulate before he was even nominated to stand for his party in the presidential election of 1932. In the build up to the Democratic convention of 1928 an anonymous circular was sent to all delegates and alternates, claiming that he was infected with the disease. "In the home office of every life insurance company in the United States", it said, "there is on file the health examination report of every person holding a life insurance policy...If you will examine the health examination report of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt you will find that he is suffering from ataxia produced by syphilis. For almost ten years, however, Governor Roosevelt has been parading himself before the public as a victim of infintile paralysis in order to gain sympathy and hide his real affliction. Carrying on this deception further, Governor Roosevelt has induced some men of wealth to establish at Warm Springs, Georgia, a sanitarium for the real victims of infantile paralysis. The most disgusting, vicious and really dangerous thing about this matter is the fact that Governor Roosevelt (with his loathsome and infectious venereal disease) bathes in the same pool with these poor innocent children..."

And this poison most likely from fellow Democrats! In response, Roosevelt took out $560,000 worth of life insurance from twenty-two different companies, who appointed a panel of doctors to examine him. He was declared to be perfectly fit, though the whispering campaign against him, and his suitability for high office, was to continue. All of the details here can be found Ted Morgan's FDR: A Biography, (London, 1985) p. 337-8. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that sources like the one I provided should be treated with caution. I don't know who this Rob Hafernik is, but he doesn't appear to be a reliable source. I have no access to the two sources he mentions for this particular article, but they might be reliable: Modern Times by Paul Johnson and The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972 by William Manchester. AecisBrievenbus 02:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is so interesting. Wonderful response. Thank you. Major Barbara (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montaigne on memory

What does Michel Montaigne have to say about memory? Could you please direct me to a specific passage in his Essays? Yours sincerely, Christine Spencer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.98 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Michel Montaigne a reporter for NPR? Wouldn't she say about memory whatever someone else had said about it? Beekone (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's a little sad. See Michel de Montaigne. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing little about it. I was obviously thinking Renée Montagne, which now seems like a ridiculous association. It doesn't help that I listened to NPR on my way to work, so it was just fresh in my head. Beekone (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no man who has less business talking about memory than me. For I recognize almost no trace of it in me, and I do not think there is one in the world so monstrously deficient. All my other faculties are low and common; but in this one I think I am singular and very rare, and thereby worthy of gaining a name and reputation. I could tell some marvelous tales about it, but for the time being it is better to follow my theme. Michel de Montaigne Of Liars (1,9).

—eric 15:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I love Montaigne, self-effacing, humorous and precise; expressing in limpid prose some simple and universal truths. Here is my favourite passage on memory and its defects;

Memory is the receptacle and case of science: and therefore mine being so treacherous, if I know little, I cannot much complain. I know, in general, the names of the arts, and of what they treat, but nothing more. I turn over books; I do not study them. What I retain I no longer recognize as another's; 'tis only what my judgment has made its advantage of, the discourses and imaginations in which it has been instructed: the author, place, words, and other circumstances, I immediately forget.

I am so excellent at forgetting, that I no less forget my own writings and compositions than the rest. I am very often quoted to myself and am not aware of it. Whoever should inquire of me where I had the verses and examples that I have here huddled together, would puzzle me to tell him, and yet I have not borrowed them but from famous and known authors, not contenting myself that they were rich, if I, moreover, had them not from rich and honorable hands, where there is a concurrence of authority with reason. It is no great wonder if my book run the same fortune that other books do, and if my memory lose what I have written as well as what I have read, and what I give as well as what I receive.

You will find this in the 1976 Penguin edition of his Essays, page 212-3 of the section On Presumption. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Edward, Duke of Coburg

Did anyone see the Channel 4 documentary last Thursday on Charles Edward, Duke of Coburg? If so, do you agree, as one person said, that he 'was a very big Nazi who got away with it.' Lady Electric (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I watched this. I thought Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha a sad and rather pathetic figure, whose importance had been considerably overestimated by the programme makers. The image the stuck in my mind was that of the tiny, rheumatic figure at the funeral of George V, following the cortege in uniform, horribly out of place in his ridiculous coal-scuttle helmet. Altogether quite a tragic life. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Duke's descendants are listed in the list of succession to the British Throne. Wouldn't the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 have precluded this? Corvus cornixtalk 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have assumed so, Corvus, certainly for any in his direct line, though I admit that constitutional law is not an area in which I am entirely comfortable. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Other people who lost their titles also have decendants in the Line of succession to the British Throne; it makes sense to me that they're there, as nothing in the rules of succession says that a British peerage is required, and the 1917 act doesn't mention the succession. People are in the line of succession based on their descent from Sophia of Hanover, not based on any titles they may or may not have. FiggyBee (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's My Sign?

I'm not sure if this is the right desk to ask a question about astrology. Should I have perhaps asked it at the Science Refdesk? J/K...I can just imagine how they'd absolutely freak out on me that I'm asking an astrology question on the "Science" page! :)

Anyway, I'm really not into astrology at all, I'm just curious about something. I'm born August 23, 1973. According to almost all the sources I come across, I'm considered a Virgo. However, on more than a few occasions I've been considered a Leo. What's my sign? 70.52.61.169 (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, this link [1] should help. Richard Avery (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help, but I've only come here because the articles provide no answer to my question. In fact according to the link you provided, I'm a Virgo, yet for example according to this [2] site, I'm a Leo. The sources are always conflicting. I realize this'll sound rather oxymoronic, but is their any coherent, legitimate, source that would give the "authoritative" birthdates for each sign?
BTW I say oxymoronic because I'm using words like "coherent", "legitimate" and "authoritative" in a question regarding astrology. No offense to true believers! 70.52.61.169 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware there are two sets of common dates used in astrology. One is a fixed set of dates which do not vary based on years. This is by far the more commonly used system. However some prefer to use dates which vary based on the year, more closely matching the time the star 'sign' is visible in the sky. There are I'm sure other systems which various people use. Ultimately there is simply no such thing as authority in the field precisely because astrology is not a science and has no scientific basis nor does it even have any sort of body so you can say what you want. If you want, you could make your own system where you are whichever sign you want to be Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually Sun sign dates suggests that perhaps the dates always vary. So perhaps I'm wrong and there is no such thing as a fixed system instead every astrologist uses different dates based on their 'average' value. This probably explains why you are finding so many different answers to the same question. All I know is I am always Cancer whatever the system used (well that I've seen). If you want to find an 'accurate' answer, I believe stuff like RedShift 5 can help. I presume consulting an astrologist will also although I can't guarantee each one will give you the same answer Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, for the record, I too have a similar situation. My birthday is January 20th, which in some places is regarded as in Aquarius, and in others as Capricorn. Not only that, but officially I was born just 15 minutes before the cusp between these two signs. I've had various theories about this all my life (having studied Astrology to a degree). When I was young I wanted to be an Aquarian because I liked the song "Age of Aquarius" from the musical Hair, but then I later decided I would just say I was born "on the cusp" and leave it at that. Lately, though, I've begun to like the idea of being a Capricorn, and so that's more or less what I consider myself to be now. There is another explanation I've come across, too, which is that for someone born on the cusp, his or her life will be influenced mostly from the earlier sign in the early part of his or her life, and from the latter sign in the later part of his or her life. Of course, there's also the idea that one born on the cusp has different influences from both signs all through life. There is really no consensus on this among Astrologers! So my advice would be to decide for yourself what you want to be - Virgo or Leo - and then that's what you'll be! By the way, for those who consider Astrology to be a silly pursuit and nothing but nonsensical brain candy, I would agree. However, just because something is silly nonsensical brain candy does not mean I cannot enjoy studying it and talking about it with people.... Saukkomies 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You need to know your exact time of birth, including whether or not daylight saving was in effect on the day you were born. The Sun signs (or any of the planets' signs, for that matter) do not change exactly at midnight. It can happen at any time of the day, which varies depending on the year, and your location on Earth at birth, particularly the longitude. If you know these details, a professional astrologer can work it out in a minute using an ephemeris. The stuff found in newspapers and magazines is written for the general population, not for individuals. They give rough dates during which the Sun is in particular signs; for dates not near the cusp, they're usually a reliable indication of the Sun sign, but for those near the cusp they're very unreliable (and, as you've noted, they often disagree with each other). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there are two philosophies behind how one astrological sign changes to another (well, discounting the philosophy that states that astrology is all bogus, that is). What it means when a sign changes is that from our perspective on earth the sun (or whatever other point of reference you're using) has moved in the heavens from one quadrant of the sky that is dominated by a particular constellation into another quadrant dominated by a different constellation. Of course it's obvious that there are 12 constellations that are considered to be "astrological signs", and these 12 are roughly along the ecliptic (the disc that is formed in space by how the sun and the planets are lined up) so that it crosses (or comes close to crossing) these particular 12 constellations. So what astrologers did was to precisely divide the 12 constellations up into equal sections - each one having the same time as the others. But this doesn't really reflect reality - some of these constellations are off-center, and others actually slop over into their neighboring constellation's time period. Additionally, some of the 12 zodiac constellations are very large and take up a lot of sky, while others are quite small. To sum it up, these 12 constellations are not uniform in size, placement, or distance from one another. So this precise division of the constellations is really just some mathematical shot in the dark to come up with 12 equal time periods - it doesn't really fit with what the stars are doing up in the sky.
As I mentioned, there are two philosophies on how this works when we move from one sign to the next. Let's take the sun sign, for example. As the sun moves along its path from one zodiac constellation to the next, it gets to a point where it's sorta halfway between the two. Some people want to calculate this time down to the exact second, which is possible to do, but what are they measuring? The sun itself takes up roughly half a degree of sky, which means that it takes the sun's disk a lot longer than a few seconds to move across a given point in the heavens. If you measure things from the exact center of the solar disk, then you would be able to calculate things down to the precise second, but is that really meaningful? So then there's the second philosophical approach to this, which is that it isn't supposed to be all that precise. The sun moves from one sign to the next, and there's this period of time when it's sorta in two signs at once, which is called "being on the cusp". If you try to make it more precise than that, you're just getting too nitpicky about the whole thing (in my opinion, of course). But of course there are those who still hold to the idea that astrology ought to be as precise as possible, so everyone has his or her own mind about this sort of thing. Saukkomies 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I second (third?) the question(er). May 21st is a geminic bull. or a bullish gemini. An hour difference and you're a total different personality? I like it, pick the best. Keria (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How are judges assigned in the Los Angeles County Superior Court?

I noticed that Lance Ito suggests (without citation) that some people say Ito may have been assigned as a 'neutral', non white/non black judge. I'm wondering, was this even possible? I have always believed and this is supported by [3] that judges are assigned mostly at random. According to the URL, each court has a written system or plan for assigning judges to cases. What was the Los Angeles County Superior Court's plan? If it was completely random, then I don't see how Lance Ito could have been assigned because he was Asian. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep you on the right track, you should know that the link provided refers exclusively to Federal Justice system. The Supreme Superiour courts of California are governed entirely (subject only to Constitutional issues) by the State of California. I suggest you find a similar site devoted entirely to the California Judicial system, rather than the Federal system. 70.52.61.169 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Balkans and their language

Why the region of the Balkans, especially present-day Montenegro, Bosnia and Croatia, does not speak a Romance language considering that the region of what was the former Yugoslavia was one of the first places to be conquered by the Romans? What happened? --Taraborn (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The language does retain traces of Romance languages: the 2nd and 3rd person plural verb endings are very like Italian, for example. The region was occupied by Slavs in sometime around the 5th century, and then there is a lot of complication with parts becoming part of the Ottoman empire, parts belonging to Austria, other parts to Hungary, the coast to Venice... at various times and in various orders. I am told that the Croatian of the Dalmatian coast sounds a lot like Italian. Apparently Latin was the language of bureaucracy in Croatia until somewhere in the 19th century. It's a beautiful language, if somewhat tricky for speakers of English. SaundersW (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I notice from your user page that you are Spanish. You would find several things in common with Spanish: the vowels are open and clear, like Spanish, and the "r" is rolled. There are phonemes something like Spanish "ll" and "ñ" (can't find the right "n" in the list!). The subject pronoun can normally be dropped in a sentence and there are a lot of clitics which have to be used in a set order (but in a set position in the sentence). SaundersW (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
And at the risk of stating the obvious, the Romans have left the legacy of their alphabet in those Slavic-speaking territories most under their influence. Wareh (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Curiously, the Roman alphabet was reintroduced into the Balkans. The Glagolitic alphabet (the oldest known Slavic alphabet) was used in the Balkans certainly from the 12th century and "In 1248, Pope Innocent IV gave the Croats of southern Dalmatia the unique privilege of using their own language and this script in the Roman Rite liturgy." The Glagolitic script was then superseded by the Roman and moden Cyrillic scripts. SaundersW (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(1: edit conflict)I am beginning to feel a bit obsessive here... The reason that the region has changed hands so often and been so desirable to conquerors is that it is effectively a crossroads of routes into Europe. There is a corridor north of the Dinaric Mountains from Hungary to the Mediterranean, and land routes through Bulgaria and Greece through former Jugoslavia into Central Europe. The Venetians of course found the Adriatic a convenient route to the islands of the coast. This map [4] will help to illuminate that, I think. SaundersW (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I suppose, then, that the clear Cyrillic/Latin line we see today is partly explained by nothing more than the adherence to Roman or Eastern Christianity in more recent times. Is there any Slavic language that has a comparatively uninterrupted history of using the Latin script? (The article implies that e.g. Czechs and Poles used the Glagolitic script but doesn't obviously provide clear parameters. Perhaps there was also sometimes divergence between liturgy and other uses?) Wareh (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The Sorbian languages have probably never been written in anything but the Latin script. Marco polo (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The basic answer to the original question is that Vulgar Latin was supplanted in some parts of the former empire, such as England and Germany west of the Rhine, by the language of invading peoples. In the case of the Balkans, the explanation is the migration of the Slavic peoples into the Balkan Peninsula, as SaundersW said. Marco polo (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
And returning to the side issue of the Latin script: Croatian seems pretty well adapted to the Latin script since it manages to accommodate all its phonemes in a phonetic system with 5 extra (modified) letters and two digraphs. On the other hand Polish has combinations like szcz which seem to cry out for the Cyrillic щ. SaundersW (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
See also Dalmatian language, a Romance language spoken on the Croation coast until recently (centuries recently). Steewi (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing missed above is that although under the Roman Empire Latin was widely used in the Balkans, the principal local languages were Illyrian, Thracian, and Greek. Greek, of course, survives in Modern Greek, and either Illyrian or Thracian (or both, there's a debate about this) in the form of Albanian. The Latin-speakers largely retreated into the general area of Romania, giving rise there to the surviving Romance language Romanian, although some became nomadic and their descendants are the Vlachs. (As with everything about the Balkans, there's much more to it than that, of course. The Balkans are an astonishing part of Europe for the survival of multiple languages side by side, village by village.) Xn4 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your excellent responses. --Taraborn (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escapes from the Soviet Gulag

How frequent and how succesful were these? Zinoviev4 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the statistics you're looking for, but I do have a very good reference for one escape from a Soviet Gulag camp. It is the true story of Sławomir Rawicz, who was a Polish officer who, along with 6 other men, escaped from a Siberian labor camp during WWII and walked 4000 miles (6500 km) across Mongolia, the Gobi Desert, and over the Himalayan Mountains to get to freedom in India. He published his autobiography called "The Long Walk" in 1955, which is an absolutely fascinating read; one I would highly recommend even for teenage readers. Saukkomies 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article, the "veracity has always been considered controversial".  --Lambiam 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The veracity of the tale is not that they escaped the Gulag, but that they reported seeing Yetis while in the last trek of their journey while caught in a blizzard in the Himalayan Mountains. They were pushed to their limits in that blizzard to the point that had not some Tibetans found them and brought them to their homes and nursed them back to health, they would undoubtedly have perished. Perhaps seeing the Yeti was symptomatic of their near-dying condition - who knows? But that's the part that is lacking in veracity. The fact that they escaped the Gulag and hiked all the way to India is not contested. At least as far as I know... Saukkomies 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I checked this out more, and I must retract my statement above: apparently there are people who challenge Rawicz's account of his long walk from Siberia to India to escape from a Gulag prison in WWII... My apologies. I had only been aware of the controversy about the Yeti story in his book, not of the other controversial stuff. Saukkomies 09:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.44.104 (talk)


You will find what you are looking for in Rebellion and Escape, chapter ten of Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A History. There were, in short, escapes right from the beginning, though weather and location was a factor in determining their frequency. The proximity of many of the earlier camps to Finland was an important incentive in escape attempts. In 1932 alone over 7000 inmates were recaptured trying to cross into Finland. According to the official camp statistics some 45,575 people escaped over the whole system in 1933 alone, of whom 28,370 were recaptured. In Kolyma in the far east of Siberia escapees organised themselves into gangs, stealing weapons and terrorising the local population.

It's worth stressing that the overwhelming numbers of these escapees were not political dissidents at all but hardened criminals. Some of their escape strategies were particularly gruesome. In view of the distances involved, lack of food was one factor working against a successful escape. To overcome this prisoners took to escaping in groups of three, two of the party deciding in advance who the 'meat' was to be; yes; that's right, the meat! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another good book which discusses escapes from the Gulag system (which I can't believe that I had forgotten about until just now) is the pivotal and highly acclaimed work by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called "The Gulag Archipelago". Solzhenitsyn actually had first-hand experience in the camps as a political prisoner, and drew upon hundreds of other Gulag prisoners' personal stories in writing this book, which he had to do in complete secret between 1958 and 1968, and then smuggled out of the country to have it published in the West in 1973. In part due to this book and his other books about the Gulag system, Solzhenitsyn was awarded the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature, and then after "The Gulag Archipelago" was published, was exiled from the Soviet Union in 1974. I had the opportunity to hear him speak that year when he came through my home town of Anchorage, Alaska on his way to visit the Russian Orthodox Bishop in Sitka, Alaska. Some people have considered Solzhenitsyn to be a 20th-Century version of Leo Tolstoy - a Christian moralist who tried to call attention to his country's shortcomings through the written word. Whether this is actually the case or not is open to debate, but his writings were very influential, that cannot be argued. Some of Solzhenitsyn's works that touch upon the Gulag are (in chronological order):
As far as I can tell, Solzhenitsyn is still alive and residing in Russia. Saukkomies 09:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malaya and Indo-China

Considering the anti-colonial struggles in these two places why were British counter-insurgency operations in the Malay States effective and those of the French in Indo-China so disastrous? Was it because of differences in military strategy or levels of commitment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.109.249 (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the French in Indo-China after WWII was that the French government was still recovering from the cataclysm of the war. When the Japanese surrendered, the Allied forces that went into Vietnam were British, not French, not American. This fluke of fate had (I believe) a lot to do with the resulting upheavals that ended up taking place in Vietnam. During World War II the Japanese rounded up all the French soldiers in Vietnam and put them in POW camps. At the same time, though, there was a considerable guerilla partisan army of indigenous Vietnamese called the Viet Minh under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh who were fighting against the Japanese. The Americans were giving aid to the Viet Minh through the Office of Strategic Services, (or the OSS, which was the organization that later became the CIA).
When the war ended, the Japanese handed power over to the Vietnamese. As Ho Chi Minh gave a speech celebrating his country's long sought after independence, there were American officers standing next to him on the platform, applauding his speech. But then the chinese and the English arrived in Vietnam. Instead of recognizing the Vietnamese freedom fighters, the English liberated the French soldiers from their prisons, armed them, and then vacated the scene, leaving behind some very upset Vietnamese partisans, who instead of winning their independence, ended up trading one colonial power (Japan) for another (the French, again). The result was the beginning of the insurgency. At any rate, this is talked about in the wiki article on the Vietnam War. As a side note, the first American casualty of war in Vietnam was an OSS officer who was openly opposed to French colonialism. His jeep was ambushed just outside of Saigon in the jungle. In other words, the first American to die in the Vietnam War was killed by the French.
The situation that took place in the Malay Peninsula was different because the English were the original colonizers, so after the war they resumed their power in that region more easily. THere might be some other factors, but I'll leave that for others more informed.Saukkomies 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Aid could reach the Viet Minh much more easily than it could read the Malayan Races Liberation Army. The MRLA was vastly outnumbered by British forces. The Viet Minh had support from the majority ethnic group in Vietnam. The Min Yuen drew its support from the Chinese minority in Malaya. The MRLA was very poorly equipped, the Viet Minh rather better and increasingly so as the war went on. The Malayan Emergency and the wars in Vietnam are really not comparable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer, 217.42, has nothing at all to do with the differing degrees of military commitment. Indeed, the French deployed much more in the way of force and firepower in Indochina than the British ever did in the Malaya. What you really have to look at here-the key to the whole issue-is the differing political strategies adopted in each case. The French intention was to restore, in almost all respects, their pre-war colonial authority, paying little attention to the emerging national movement. It was because of this that the Viet-Minh was able to move beyond its Communist ideological confines, becoming a movement of national liberation in the most complete sense.

Now, in strategic and political terms, the British position in 1945 was no better in Malaya than the French in Indochina. The Japanese had been defeated, yes, but the former subjects of the Empire were imbued with a new sense of national consciousness. There was also a vigorous and well-armed Communist guerilla movement, organised in the Malayan National Liberation Army. But, almost from the beginning, the British adopted a different strategy from the French. Instead of struggling against the tide of Malayan nationalism they worked with it, effectively separating and isolating the Communist Min Yuen from the rest of the national community.

When the British returned the old federated and unfederated Malay States were reorganised into a new Malayan Union. However, because of opposition from Malayan nationalists this was quickly replaced by the Federation of Malaya, returning power to many traditional rulers. The long-term British intention, moreover, was not, as in Indochina, to re-establish colonial authority on the old basis, but to hand over power to a non-Communist native government as soon as this was practicable. During the course of the Emergency, before full independence in 1957, Malayans became an increasingly important part of the bureaucracy, the army and the police. In effect the whole insurgency, it might be said, was being eaten away, from the inside out.

Ethnic divisions between the Muslim Malays and the Communist Chinese served to isolate the guerilla campaign still further. In his counter-insurgency operations, General Gerald Templer made use of this 'ethnic fragmentation', resettling large numbers of Chinese squatters away from the forest fringes to New Villages, where they could be protected and kept under watch. Deprived of this essential base of logistical support, the number of guerrilla attacks dropped from 6000 in 1951 to 1000 in 1954, just as the strength of the Min Yuen army declined by half. In that same year, while the French were being defeated at Dien Bien Phu, the Malayan Communists were forced to retreat in Thailand. And that was the way to do it! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clio makes many good points. I just wanted to add that a key component of the New Villages concept (as mentioned in Malayan Emergency) is that although they may have been more or less forced on the Malaysian Chinese who were monitored and guarded there, the people did generally enjoy a better standard of living, were provided ownership of the land and money. This was obviously important because if you just move people into another location and monitor and guard them without providing any significant incentive, you just increase resentment and likely make things worse. Note that although the British may have used the fact that the MNLA was primarily supported by the Malaysian Chinese to their advantage, they did work to ensure that the Malaysian Chinese (and Indians) were provided with at least a resonable set of rights including the right to vote and the right to hold citizenship (since this was part of the problem). They also made it clear that one of the biggest obstacles to independence was the insurgency. Some people argue that the assassination of Henry Gurney was also a major mistake. He wasn't particularly resented by the population so his killing may have made Malayans think "we're not safe from these people, they're nuts". Also note that the success of the British in the Malayan Emergency particularly comparisons with Vietnam has been extensively studied, Googling will find a lot of different articles. Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On how one addresses saints

Although the article on the subject seems to suggest you have to be dead to be a Saint - though the meaning has shifted over the centuries - just hypothetically, if one were to meet a Catholic Saint, would there be a correct form of address?

Thanks, all Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, when one prays to a saint, it's something like "O most beloved Saint Murgatroyd, I beseech thee in my hour of need ....." - so I guess if you met one at the laundromat you'd say "Hello, Saint Murgatroyd, how the **** are you?". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you might... Actually, I think they'd be pretty forgiving with what forms of address they'd accept. Technically, the words for "Saint" and for "Holy" come from the same foreign root, so "your holiness" would probably be correct using the Catholic method. Me, I'd just call him Murg. ◄Zahakiel► 21:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
By definition, there is no such thing as an official living Roman Catholic Saint (see the article canonization). The process to be declared a saint cannot begin any sooner than five years after death (with notable exceptions that can be made by the Pope, such as with Mother Teresa). Of course, the process only recognizes persons as saints, they are saints by virtue of the grace given to them in life. In which case, one refers to them as you would anyone else. Thus, during her life, Mother Teresa was known by her title and her name (she is now officially "Blessed Teresa of Calcutta"). Or, if one's title merits a deferential term (such as all popes being referred to as "your holiness") you would use that. Pastordavid (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
According to Roman Catholic doctrine, a distinction must be made between being a saint, and having received the title "Saint", which turns "just another" saint into a certified saint. The canonized person does not become a saint by the process; rather, it expresses a solemn and public declaration by the Church that this person was holy: a saint. In spite of extensive "case law" – each canonization process proceeds like a formal court case – there is no clearcut definition of when a person may be deemed to be a saint. But clearly, waiting till after the death of a suspected saint before declaring Sainthood can avoid some rather embarrassing situations.  --Lambiam 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, all very helpful - and so prompt! Didn't know about the etymological link between saint and holy - reminds me that bead and prayer have a similar link. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just one thing: the title "Your/His Holiness" applies to the living pope, not to dead saints (not even to saints who were popes). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the question of how to address a saint isn't so hypothetical, there's a lot of addressing of saints that takes place everyday through prayer. The Hail Mary prayer provides a template for how a prayer to a saint is supposed to work (note that properly speaking, when praying to a saint, the individual doing the praying is asking the saints to pray on their behalf, or at least is supposed to be doing so. In vernacular Catholicism, the prayer is often "Saint-so-and-so help me" rather than "Saint so-and-so pray that God will help me." Presumably God and/or the saints in question cut people some slack in this department). Looking over common prayers to saints, generally it's "Saint so-and-so" in the prayer, with the notable exception of Mary who has a whole panoply of titles which are used singly or in combination in the various prayers to her. 68.183.18.54 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've often heard third person reference to saints as "the blessed X" or "the blessed saint X". Steewi (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The title "blessed" is generally used to refer to those who have been beatified (one of the steps toward declaring someone a saint), but not canonically declared a saint. These are called the beati or the blessed. Pastordavid (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical concept

Someone, probably a philosopher himself, once said that the long-term role of each philosophy is to die, leaving behind useful conceptual building blocks for subsequent philosophers to use. I think it was a German, maybe Hegel or Marx, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know for sure? Lantzy talk 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, Lantzy, I would be surprised if any philosopher admitted to being no more than a 'link in a chain', so to speak, since what they each have to say is positively the last word in human understanding! And as for Karl Marx, well, The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That's why I remember it — because it seemed like a peculiar sentiment coming from a "professional" philosopher. I'm thinking it was probably Hegel. Lantzy talk 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Taking Xn4's lead, I had a quick trot through my copy of the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, but cannot find a passage that would fit. I do emphasise that it was a trot. Time permitting, I will go over the same ground a little more slowly and post a note on your talk page, Lantzy, if I come across anything. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Hegel does suggest somewhere that every philosophy, like every religion, comes in its due time and passes away, leaving its ideas behind for new thinkers to develop. I think it may be in Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion? Xn4 02:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds almost exactly correct. Lantzy talk 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I know Issac Newton said something to the effect of "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Does that count? Saudade7 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, that doesn't imply any sort of real evolution. Real evolution requires DEATH, not simply addition.--24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay, then all I can think of is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions even though that's about the Philosophy of Science. Or then there's Roland Barthes with his concept of "Bricolage" - that seems more "building blocky". But both of these are more recent. Was 24.147.86.187 responding to me? I don't think the OP was asking about Evolution. But by the way, Evolution doesn't require death (only individuals can die); Evolution requires EXTINCTION! (although I am sure that there is a possible world where it doesn't) Saudade7 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if I understood the notion at the time, it was that the nature of all philosophies was to rise and fall, and therefore that the most useful thing a philosophy can do is to leave behind a concept of more lasting merit. So yes, the philosophies would "die" in the sense of a fall from prominence. I will have to look at The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to see if it's in there. Thanks to everyone for their responses. Lantzy talk 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Kuhn is not about philosophies; he is about specifically scientific theories. There's a big difference there in terms of context, structure, constraints, community, necessities of empiricism, etc. Applying Kuhn willy-nilly to all sorts of things dilutes what is good about him and makes his approach overly vague. In my opinion. And I don't know what Barthes says about bricolage but Levi-Strauss' usage of it doesn't have anything to do with progression/evolution. I think Hegel is spot on as the answer here; though if I recall his entire game is also that he claims to know where philosophy is evolving to (expression of the Geist or whatever—been awhile since I read my Hegel). And evolution does require death; extinction is just a side-effect of many individual deaths and an evolving genetic landscape. ;-P --24.147.86.187 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't get so upset. I was responding to the original question. I don't know what evolution had to do with the original question. I also don't think that death and extinction are the same thing, but that really, again, doesn't have anything to do with the original question. Finally, Hegel's theory is dialectical/teleological and Evolution as Darwin and sunsequent scientists meant it is not. Saudade7 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Freud said that "The goal of all life is death." Are you sure you're not mis-remembering? Matt Deres (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but not to such an extent as that. I admit my mind may have deformed it, but the comment certainly concerned philosophies, i.e. theories, not living things. However, thank you for reminding me that it may have been Freud. Lantzy talk 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)