From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< December 31	<< Dec | January | Feb >>	January 2 >

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 1 January 1 1.1 Majority Shi'a Muslims 1.2 Pathans in Bangladesh? 1.3 Zoroastrianism 1.4 Why does Russia care about the independance of Transnistria? 1.5 Mystery of Saddam's WMDs 1.6 What is a dead Russian soldier doing in Chimay, Belgium? 1.7 Austria, 1860s 1.8 Gift Card Fad 1.9 Ethnic enclaves in the U.S. 1.10 Paris employment statistics 1.11 Renaissance humanism and New Testament hard copies 1.12 Test your knowledge 1.13 the difference (if any) between genocide and crimes against humanity 1.14 Holland and the Netherlands? 1.15 Percentage of population going to war (like in Germany) 1.16 Philosophy: has it ever been of any practical concrete use? 1.17 Can bacteria think? 1.18 Dioceses 1.19 How long have accountants been known as accountants?

[edit] January 1

[edit] Majority Shi'a Muslims

Which Muslim countries that has Shi'a Muslims as majorities, like Iran and Iraq? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.193 (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

In addition to the countries you have identified, Shias make up the majority of the population in Bahrain, Azerbaijan and Lebanon. Overall, Shias make up some 15% of the Muslim population worldwide, so are likely to be found in varying degrees in all other countries as a minority. Clio the Muse 03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One clarification on Lebanon, while 60% of the Muslim population is Shia, only 60% of the total population is Muslim, meaning only about 36% of the total population is Shia, so it's not a Shia-majority country. See Lebanon#Demographics_2. StuRat 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It would also be interesting to know of other non-majority Musilm countries where Shia form the majority of the Muslim community. Like Armenia, maybe? Any others?--Pharos 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on Shia population features a table with percentages. ---Sluzzelin 04:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And the article Demographics of Islam has some colour-coded maps.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pathans in Bangladesh?

When I was reading the article "Pathans", I saw the facts that which countries has the most Pathans, and I saw that 545,000 live in Bangladesh. Which part of Bangladesh do these Pathans live? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.193 (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Do you mean Pashtun "Pashtuns (also Pushtuns, Pakhtuns, Pukhtuns; Pashto: پښتون Paṣtun, Persian: پختون Paxtun, Urdu: پشتون Pashtūn), or Pathans (Urdu: پٹھان, Hindi: पठान Paṭhān) and or ethnic Afghans[13] are an ethno-linguistic group primarily in the North West Frontier Province"? because that page gives no quotes on bangladeshi population as far as I can see?

See also Demographics of Bangladesh???87.102.14.212 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoroastrianism

I have two questions to ask you about Zoroastrianism:

1. Do Zoroastrians believe that one can only go to heaven by being a Zoroastrian, or that one cannot go to heaven without being a Zoroastrian?

2. Do Zoroastrians believe that all people go to either heaven or hell after they die?

The Anonymous One 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the page on Zoroastrianism will give some general indications on these questions. The ultimate goal, I believe, is one of universal salvation. Clio the Muse 05:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does Russia care about the independance of Transnistria?

I previously read something about Russia setting up a front organization to support the idea of Transnistrian independence, and the article makes some brief allusions to Russia disputing the Moldovan/Ukranian agreement on Transnistrian customs clearance. What I don't get is why Russia cares about the issue in the first place. Can someone comment on why the Russian govt. cares about this? —Dgies^t c 06:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be largely a question of solidarity and influence. There are a higher proportion of ethnic Russians and Ukranians in Transnistria than elsewhere in Moldova. Clio the Muse 06:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider similar situations in other countries that are regional powers. Why does the United States care about who is leader of Cuba? Why does Australia care about the situation in the Solomon Islands? Why would the E.U. be concerned about Kosovo? Why are Japan and China concerned abut North Korea? These three points may give some indication:

1. Russia is on moderately friendly terms with the relatively stable governments of Moldova and Ukraine. The formal independence of Transnistria will not only create a new - and by all accounts less stable - country in this region, but also (given Transnistria's border disputes with both Moldova and Ukraine) possibly de-stabilise these other two countries. There is also no guarantee whatsoever that Transnistrial leadership would be on friendly terms with Moscow.
2. Transnistria declared itself independent unilaterally from the Soviet Union, despite not being a fully-fledged Soviet Republic. If its independence is supported, it will give added impetus for calls for independence of other former Soviet areas below the republic level - such as Chechnya, Ossetia, et al.
3. As Clio points out, there are Ethnic Russians in Transnistria, and almost certainly also a reasonable number of ethnic Transnistrians and Moldovans in Russia, too.

Grutness...wha? 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

These are all reasons why Russia would, should, or could oppose Transnistrian independence, but the point is that they unofficially support it. For further background information, see Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and the references therein.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best, and most disturbing parallel, is that of France and Rwanda, and what might be referred to as language politics. Clio the Muse 15:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean?Evilbu 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Evilbu, I almost missed your question, tucked away in here! I was referring to the build up of interest blocks, usually of a client-patron nature, based upon language and other cultural and political interests. In the French case it became a particular form of neocolonialism, for which the term Françafrique was coined. As far as Rwanda was concerned, it meant the support, military and otherwise, that Mitterand extended to Habyarimana, his friend and ally. This entailed a blindness to the reality of local ethic tensions, which ultimately had terrible consequences. Clio the Muse 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Russians see it as a way to "take back" part of Moldova. That is, the larger Russian and Ukrainian population percentages in Transnistria will eventually bring it back under Russian influence, which wouldn't happen if that population was diluted amongst the larger population of Moldova, which is mostly ethnic Moldavian. StuRat 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's weird, Russia seems to support Transnistria (which is in fact an independent state) but does not recognise it. Armenia obviously supports Nagorno Karabach's independence from Azerbaijan and they don't recognise it either. Evilbu 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

International diplomacy can be a very weird game! The Russian and Armenian examples are by no means unique. Think of America and Taiwan. Clio the Muse 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For a state in the international system to recognize a state outside of that system carries significant diplomatic costs, more so than just supporting such a government informally. Consider the diplomatic cost to Turkey of recognizing Northern Cyprus.--Pharos 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery of Saddam's WMDs

I know, it's me again. I'm only fed up once again by a recent editorial in my local newspaper telling me that since no WMD's were found after the fall of Saddam, they never existed.

We all know they existed. We all know they were used. So what became of them?

I'm really asking because we all know that Iran is working on nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Yes, you may have called me paranoid had that Iranian midget of a President had not said so himself!

In any case, the saddest thing that happened a couple of days ago was that a human being was killed. Yes, he had to be killed, but his execution is no cause for celebration. A life was ended. No Israelis danced in the streets. Not like the Palestinians who danced in the streets on 9/11.

Incredibly, as I heard of the execution, I almost felt like crying.

But all that aside, where are the WMDs? In particular, the chemical weapons? They were used. They killed hundreds of thousands. And now apparently they never existed.

I just hope that the planned destruction of Iran's obvious WMD program hasn't been spoilt by the fact that the "Mystery of Saddam's WMD's" hasn't turned up anything yet. Loomis 09:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You kind of rambled a bit there... Is it fair to summarize your question as "What was the ultimate disposition of Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs?" —Dgies^t c 09:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has a whole bunch of theories about WMDs in Iraq. But what do the experts think ? Well, David Kay, who resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group in January 2004, said he did not believe Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons [1]. And in January 2005 the final report of ths ISG said it had "not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003". I'll go with the experts on this one - I don't think the WMD stockpiles existed. Gandalf61 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See this well-referenced article.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no mystery regarding Iraq's WMD. They had them and they used them. At the end of the gulf war (first) we know they hid them. We know the UN found some. We believe some to have been distributed, with Syria putting their hands up as suspects.

The specific poisons Colin Powel; referred to in his famous address to the UN have not been found and may never have existed, but might also.

I don't think Israel is the sole target of terrorists. Those most likely to be killed from terrorist activity are Arabs, and one assumes Arabs are in the most danger from WMD. DDB 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, DDB. Well said. Clio the Muse 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a little bit of everything:

• Fewer chemical weapons were produced than was thought. This was partly Saddam's fault, for trying to create the illusion he had a massive WMD program (early on) to intimidate his enemies.

• No nuclear weapons were ever developed (although they tried early on).

• I'm not as certain about bio weapons, perhaps a tiny amount were produced, but not enough to be usable.

• Many chemicals weapons were used up against the Iranians and Kurds.

• A few may have gone to his neighbors (Syria and/or Iran), like planes he sent to Iran, which seems bizarre to me. Did he ever expect those countries (his enemies) to give them back at some point ? He must have been thinking he would do anything he could to hurt the US, with supplying weapons to US enemies being seen in that way.

• Others were destroyed, per the UN mandate, but without documentation. This seems like very odd behavior, to deprive himself of weapons and yet not get credit for having destroyed them. Saddam's reasoning seemed to be:

A) He didn't want to risk being caught with them, as that could mean his downfall, so had them destroyed.

B) He didn't want his enemies to know he had destroyed them, as he would then lose his intimidation tool. He thought he could satisfy the UN and US by saying he destroyed them, yet still intimidate his neighbors by failing to prove he destroyed them. This was a major miscalculation on his part. Some destroyed shell fragments bearing chemical traces have been found, but most are probably buried in a forgotten location in the desert somewhere, and my not be found for years, if ever. StuRat 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I think Stu Rat's last point here is the most important mentioned. While the U.S. has found a few random chemical shells (probably just misplaced and abandoned ones) and a few pieces from Iraq's nuclear program, most evidence seems to show that, like the Allies after WWI, he just dumped them somewhere out of the way. Rmhermen 15:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember the former UN inspector Scott Ritter said that something like 90% of Iraq's weapons had been verifiably destroyed. While Iraq was obstructive over the remaining 10%, many of those were biological weapons of a type that degrades over time and would no longer be useable except as fertiliser. Iraq was known to be virtually disarmed by the time the invasion started. North Korea, also part of Bush's "Axis of Evil", has WMD and has not been threatened with military action. I don't think it's any surprise that Iran is determined not to stop their nuclear programme. Ahmedinejad may be a nutter, but he's rational enough to know that America is less likely to attack him if he can defend himself. --Nicknack009 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What can I say, Nicknack, that would add to your wise words? President Ahmedinejad is as calculating as most, and a far better poker player than the intellectually challenged George Bush. If only our politicians understood a little more of the history, culture, politics and religion of the Middle East, we may have avoided the terrible errors of Bush and Blair's war of 'liberation'. Clio the Muse 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the rambling everyone! Blame it on a combination of a little too much New Year's "cheer" (!) and a little too much doom and gloom in other parts of the world. I know the old WINASB (Wikipedia Is Not A SoapBox) Mantra, and I commit myself to it, despite the odd ramble.

But I guess Dgies was best in summing up my question, rhetorical as it may seem by 2007, it's still a mystery to me. No I wasn't asking about nuclear weapons, as the only nuclear program we ever had any evidence of was "illegally" destroyed by Israel in 1981. And I wasn't referring to biological weapons either, as those were never Saddam's WMD of choice anyway, and we have no evidence of him ever using those either. I'm only referring to what the world knows Saddam had and used, those being the chemical weapons sarin, tabun and VX. Now David Kay can scream at the top of his lungs that he didn't believe Saddam had stockpiles of these chemicals in 2003. Fair enough. Perhaps he didn't. But he did have them when he used them in 1988 in Halabja. We know that. What we don't know is what ever happened to them. Did they get used up in attacks such as Halabja? Doubtful, but I suppose possible. Otherwise what happened to them? Were they dumped into the Tigris?

I think DDB and Stu's answers are the most honest and really the best we'll ever have. He had them, he used them, he hid some, he may have distributed some to Syria, the UN went in to look for them, they kept getting the runaround and eventually got tossed out for good, in December '02 the UN demanded an explanation for how they were disposed of, and Saddam replied with several tens of thousands of pages of BS. The US then goes in and cannot find a trace. Not one canister. I'm in almost complete agreement with DDB, except for where s/he says that "there is no mystery". No mystery!? Seems to me like the biggest mystery since JFK's assassination! But I suppose it's all moot now.

As the trite proverb goes, hindsight is 20/20, but back in the winter of '02/'03, even the French and the Germans couldn't convince themselves that Saddam didn't possess these chemical weapons. I hope we don't go back revising history to say that it was their position then that he didn't have them. Even the French and the Germans couldn't figure out what was going on, and presumed he had them, but just disagreed that invasion was appropriate. Or at least not yet.

In any case, another trite proverb is that history repeats itself. What happens now if despite all the evidence and all the posturing, either Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decides to pull another Saddam? "Nuclear capabilities? What nuclear capabilities? Oh you silly paranoid American cowboys! We were just kidding around with all that talk about nuclear capabilities! Gotcha! Just please don't embarass yourselves again by supporting another silly paranoid President who believes in such nonsense!"

(And I promise to shut up about the whole thing from now on!) Loomis 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You completely ignore one aspect, namely that according to the UN inspectors something like 90% of Iraq's weapons had been verifiably destroyed, most of which were chemical weapons, as related above by Nicknack009. From 1991 to 1998, UNSCOM sent 500 teams to Iraq staffed by nearly 3,500 inspectors. These teams examined some 3,400 sites, including 900 formerly secret military installations, and destroyed billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment. UNSCOM had regular access to Iraqi factories and laboratories, used video cameras to monitor Iraqi industrial and military sites 24 hours a day, placed chemical sampling devices around Iraqi labs, monitored the movement of Iraq's industrial equipment, pored over Iraqi documents, and questioned many Iraqi scientists and technicians. After defecting in 1995, General Kamel told his UN and CIA interrogators that "Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them" after the war. Why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that there just weren't any WMD left, except perhaps a few overlooked piles of rusting and non-viable biological weapons?  --Lambiam^Talk 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that possesion of 'WMD' was the pretext for invasion of Iraq. That's why certain politicians were so adamamant that Iraq still had significant weapons of this kind - despite the UN inspectors saying that most had been destroyed. (Notably one British scientist who said that Iraq didn't have any left David Kelly was found dead in a ditch and war began anyway). 'WMD' was an excuse for an action illegal under international law. 87.102.14.212 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that's being completely ignored is my question. No matter how hard I try, my question is met with nothing but cynicism. Dgies had my question right straight from the start. "What was the ultimate disposition of Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs?". The only answer I get are: "He never had them, stupid! You were just duped by the "intellectually challenged" George W. Bush!" No I wasn't. We were ALL "duped", in one form or another by Saddam's final, most "intellectually challenged" failed ruse.

Once again, nobody's answered my question. I asked about what happened to Saddam's chemical weapons, and in response I'm told that he "got rid of them". But that wasn't my question. My question wasn't whether or not he "got rid of them", he obviously managed somehow o "get rid of them". What I'm curious about is how. What happenned to them?

Lambiam tells me that 90% of his weapons were "verifiably" destroyed. Great! Now we're onto something! But who exactly "verified" that they were destroyed? And if they "verified" that they were destroyed, I'm still dying to find out the details. JUST HOW WERE THEY DESTROYED?

I know I've repeated it far too many times, but the one thing that pisses me of more than any other is what I'd call "intellectual dishonesty".

I fully admit it, I was duped. Saddam, apparently, pushed his luck and "cried wolf" one time to many. I recognize that I believed the WMDs were there, as every rational bone in my body made the only logical assumption, and that was that when dealing with a guy who's lied 100 times, his credibility is spent. I expected to find huge stockpiles, but I was wrong. Saddam had apparently made the biggest miscalculations of his life, and ultimately he hung for it.

But unlike many others, when played for a fool, I admit it. Yet so many others just don't have the character to do likewise. Today, one of the first days of 2007, rather than have the strength of character and the intellectual honesty to admit they were duped as well about the whole thing, instead their intellectual cowardice forces then to backtrack and pretend that they "were onto GWB all along". Despite being intellectually challenged, George W. Bush managed to fool a good part of the world into backing him up in his oh so diabolical plans.

Well here's the cold truth folks: I hate to resort to hyperlinks to back up my point, so I'll summarize them, yet provide the hyperlink in any case just to prove that I'm not pulling this out of thin air. Bush didn't fool us. Here are a few opinion polls conducted in the key period between September of 2002 and March of 2003; that period between when Bush's initial speech to the UN about the perceived Iraq threat in September '02, and the ultimate invasion in March '03. Here's sampling as to the public opinion at the time concerning the specific question as to whether the respondent "believed Saddam was in possession of WMD's

• Britain's ICM Research, conducted between January 17-19, 2003. "Do you yourself believe that Saddam Hussein has developed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass production?" Yes: 75%. No: 10%. Don't know: 15%. [2]

• Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor, September 3-8, 2002 (even before GWB's "speech full of lies" to the UN). "Do you believe that Saddam Hussein is an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the US or not?" Yes: 60%. No: 33%. Unsure: 7%.

• ABC News Poll, September 12-14, 2002 (also before the UN speech). "If Iraq agrees to admit the weapons inspectors, but then interferes or does not cooperate with them, in that case would you favour or oppose having US forces take military action against Iraq?" Favour: 81%. Oppose: 17%. No Opinion: 2%.

Well, I have literaly dozens of pages of these polls, each and every one of them saying ultimately the same thing: The vast majority of the public, in the US and the UK at least, took it pretty much as a given that Saddam had WMDs. Anyone interested can simply click on the following link: [3]. Much if not all of the debate was not at all about "whether" they existed, but rather, "how best to deal with it".

Look, nobody trusted the guy, and the general consensus at the time seems to have been as clear as possible that Saddam was a serious threat to his neighbours and the free world. If you believe the war was wrong, you have every right to that. If you believe other actions should have been taken instead, you have every right to that opinion as well. But if you're trying to claim to me that you knew all along that the WMD's never exited at all, and you choose to jump onto the "Bush is a retard" bandwagon, in a cowardly effort to cover up the fact that you were duped just like the rest of us, I have no interest in such flagrant intellectual dishonesty. Loomis 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think we may never know, at least in the near future. If they were destroyed in country, there may be a paper trail -- or not. There may be witnesses and participants, and careful environmental testing can find residues and breakdown products to verify that destruction occurred -- a lot of the time. Did he give any of them away? Don't know -- it's possible, but my feeling (pure speculation) is no, since he was no friend among his neighbors. He definitely had the weapons at one point, gassing thousands of Iranians and Kurds, but now the weapons are not there, and they went somewhere. All I can say Loomis is that it is disturbing to me too. Antandrus (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The destruction was verified by UNSCOM inspectors (as I wrote). Read that article. I feel sorry for you falling for government propaganda, but if you had cared to examine the issues deeper (wasn't it clear at least that there was a controversy between the UN inspectors and the US?), you could have known that it was propaganda. Never trust any government, and in particular not if they say: trust us.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lambiam, I did check out the article you referenced. I read through it, until afterwards realizing that I was reading an article published by the self proclaimed "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA". And you feel sorry for me falling for propaganda! Is an article by the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA" the very best there is out there? If so I thank you, as you've done a far better job than I ever could in proving my own point. I just hope nobody out there starts to suspect that "Lambiam" isn't anything more than a straw-man sockpuppet created by Loomis himself! :) Loomis 09:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the point is that I'm supposed to have helped you prove. The article I linked to, insofar as it is not clearly stating an opinion, is fully supported by verifiable references. The author, Larry Everest, is a well-respected writer, whose articles have appeared in the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the Oakland Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, New York Newsday, Z Magazine, and other publications. Because he writes for the Revolutionary Worker newspaper does not mean it is not true what he writes. I linked to that publication not to "prove" anything, but only because it answered the question you had posed, and I supposed you were looking for an answer. It may indeed be possible that the United States have reached a point where communist publications are left as "the very best there is out there" if you want to hear the truth. By the way, when I last wrote "Read that article", I meant our own article UNSCOM. The 90% estimate was given by Scott Ritter himself as a lower bound. But then of course, he was represented as having been bought by Iraqi money, after having been accused by Iraq of being an American spy. A constant web is being spun of propoganda and counterpropaganda, full of disinformation. In the end, you have to discern for yourself who and what you are going to believe, but the convenient truth is not always the best.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, once you put it that way, perhaps we don't disagree as much as would appear (except of course for the part about looking to "Revolutionary Communists" as any credible source of "truth" (or Правда/Pravda) as the Soviets referred to it). Indeed, Saddam created for himself and the world one hell of a mess of confusion and disinformation. The UN and the weapons inspectors themselves couldn't make head or tails of what was going on. Not that I'm any big fan of the UN, but just to show what was going through their minds, they passed UNSC 1441 unanimously, which, even in its mildest interpretation, was at the very least their expression that they were sick and tired of Saddam's games, and demanded that he quit with those games, and give them some real answers. Were they too just playing a game of propaganda, knowing full well that Iraq was disarmed? The only "truth" of the matter during that time is that no one really knew what was going on. All we had was the word of a brutal dictator who time and again thumbed his nose at the international community. On the other hand, somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the British and American people, in public opinion polls I referenced above, many of which were taken before Bush even began to speak publicly about the Iraq issue (with all the alleged "propaganda and lies"), apparently believed that Saddam did indeed have WMDs. I was one of those. Perhaps you were too. Perhaps not. I just wish more people would have the courage to come out and say that to the best of their abilities, given the information available at the time, that's what they believed as well, rather than to so disingenuously backtrack, claiming that they new the truth all along, and that it was all the fault of GWB, that big bad idiot-savante, who while barely being able to tie his own shoes, nonetheless had possessed the genius to convince Congress, and a few powerful allies to go to war. Loomis 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The question was what happened tot the WMD, the answer is most of them were destroyed long before the war started. Some were verified destroyed by the UN. Some just 'dissapeared' but still haven't been found. What is the confusion exactly.?87.102.4.89 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC) As to how they were destroyed - burnt, pored into pits, reacted with some chemical to reder them inactive perhaps?87.102.4.89 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The confusion is that I keep asking how they were destroyed, and all I get in response is that "they were "verified" as being destroyed". "Alright, assuming they were disposed of, once again, HOW were they disposed of?" "I don't see the mystery, UNSCOM says they were disposed of, and none were found, so they were disposed of. It's been "verified"". And around and around we go. Isn't anyone the least bit curious? What really gets me are these two sentences in particular, said practically in the same breath: "Some just 'dissapeared' but still haven't been found. What is the confusion exactly?" Well that's just it! Am I the only one confused and concerned when something as dangerous as a chemical weapon just 'disappears'? I seem to keep getting the same answer: "We're 100% sure, no doubt about it, that they were destroyed. As to who/what/where/when/how, we haven't a clue and we're really not all that curious about it". How can one be so certain that something was destroyed, yet not have one clue as to any single detail of its destruction? Loomis 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

William Rivers Pitt pubished a little book in 2002 called War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. It includes an extensive interview with Scott Ritter, who says that, through economic sanctions and UN inspections, "Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of those factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories... this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat. It doesn't even constitute a weapons program. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited." He talks about "eliminating" factories, but occasionally will say things like "once we blew it [a chemical weapons factory] up, the Iraqis no longer had the ability to produce new agent". Of the nerve gases the Iraqis had produced, he says "Sarin and Tabun have a shelf life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they're now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo."

This book came out before the war began. Tony Blair's "dodgy dossiers" were shown to be dodgy before the war started, as was the claim that Saddam was trying to buy Uranium from Niger. It had been obvious for some time that Blair had been trying to talk up WMD as a pretext for supporting a war that Bush was dead set on, and on close inspection it was utterly unconvincing. A lot of people, it is true, hadn't bothered doing the close inspection and were relying on the tabloids and TV news bulletins, neither of which go into anything in much depth, but most of those who marched against the war had. I don't know what the situation was in the States, but the UK there were a lot of us. We lost, but not because we were wrong.--Nicknack009 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you've got an interesting viewpoint Nicknack, and, of course, (unlike in Saddam's Iraq) you have every right to it. Unfortunately, even if Scott Ritter is to believed word-for-word (something I just can't accept, I've heard the guy speak many times, and unfortunately the guy just comes off as mentally imbalanced, to say the least. I'm afraid I just can't accept him as anything of a "credible witness". But all that's beside the point,) even if he's to be believed word-for-word, I'm really trying my best here to focus on one issue and one issue only. Whatever evidence there may or may not exist as to the motivations of Bush and Blair are also beside the point. I disagree with the allegations you presented, but those are the subject of an entirely different debate. In asking my very narrow, very specific question, I refuse to be distracted by entirely unrelated issues.

Once again, my question, very simply, is: What became of Saddam's chemical weapons? Despite our differences, I think we can both agree on two facts: 1)At one point they existed; and 2)despite exhaustive searches, after the war, no significant trace of them was found. Of all you wrote, the only parts that are even slightly apposite to my question are the following: "Of the nerve gases the Iraqis had produced, [Scott Ritter] says "Sarin and Tabun have a shelf life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they're now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo.""

Of course just before that he speaks of "eliminating" factories. But all he says about that is that in "eliminating" these factories, Iraq no longer had the capability to further produce chemical weapons. Unfortunately, my question has nothing to do with Iraq's capability to further produce weapons. My question is strictly concerned with the weapons already in existence. What happened to them? Apparently even Scott Ritter doesn't know. Once again: "Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they're now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo.". Ok, so what happened to all this "useless, harmless goo"? Was any "useless, harmless goo" ever found? Apparently not. Nothing was found. Nothing at all. That's what concerns me most of all.

Despite my views as to the lack of credibility of Scott Ritter as a witness (which, by the way, while many may consider it to have been some sort of ad hominem attack on the man, assessing the level of credibility of a particular witnesses is a cornerstone of the justice systems throughout both the Anglo-American Common Law as well as the Continental Civil Law traditions,) even he doesn't offer much to answer my question.

Anyway, it's becoming clear to me that no one seems to be able to offer any logical answer as to my very specific question: "What actually, really, happened to Saddam's chemical weapons?" I don't blame any of you, and I apprciate your contributions. Unfortunately, I'm no closer to any sort of answer as to what actually happened to Saddam's chemical weapons. Still, I thank you all for your input. Loomis 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit dumb - but do you mean the weapons that were destroyed, or unaccounted for weapons. If you want to know more about what happened to the weapons that were actually found I think we can help.. As to the rest I have no idea.04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll note in the passages I quote from Ritter that the items he says were "verifiably eliminated" includes "the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories". If you had read Ritter before the war and found him unconvincing that would be one thing, but he has been entirely vindicated by what was found after the war. Iraq was effectively disarmed by UNSCOM. --Nicknack009 09:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicknack, while the RefDesk is obviously meant for learning things, so many treat it as a battleground to "win" one argument and make the other "lose". I don't see it that way. I've said it so many times, but each time it seems to be met with cynicism, yet I'll say it one more time: I'M NOT HERE TO WIN, I'M HERE TO LEARN! When I thanked you for your input, that wasn't sarcasm, that was honesty. All I meant to say is that while I thank you for your input, I remain unconvinced as to your position. That's all. Yes, my rhetoric may be of the Socratic "confrontational" style, yet I truly try to learn as much as possible from anyone who has any capability of contributing to my knowlege. You certainly do. Basically, what I'm saying is that though I disagree with your positions concerning the war, please, PLEASE understand that when I tell you that I thank youfor your input, it isn't meant as a snide remark, it's said in complete honesty: I THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT. All the best, and I'm sure you'll agree with me on this one: May 2007 be a year of peace. Happy New Year. Loomis 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt your sincerity, and I never thought you were being snide. However, I thought it necessary to point out that Ritter referred to the "elimination" of actual weapons as well as factories, because your reply seemed to indicate you'd missed that. I'll second your wishes for peace in 2007. Happy new year to you too. --Nicknack009 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As others explained to you already: Large parts of the chemical weapons were destroyed under UN inspection supervision after the first war. What had not been destroyed Saddam claimed to have had destroyed later. While the documentation was shoddy and lacking, Iraqi authorities had pointed out to the new inspection team where they had been destroyed and the UN inspectors were working on developing a way to verify that claim when they had to vacate Iraq. As for how they were destroyed, the methods usually used are one or the other form of incineration. Though in the case of composite weapons, you might simply dump the individual parts well away from each other. In both cases, it is entirely conceivable that this can be verified by traces. Most people talking about "hidden" weapons are unaware of the sensitivity of modern detection methods. The suggested "sanitizing" of labs was a huge joke, since all it can do is reduce the probability of traces being found, while increasing the chance that IF traces are found, it is pretty clear that there was an attempt at obfuscation. As for bioweapons, Colin Powell's trailers were the laughing stock of microbiologists well before the war. There was no recorded use of WMDs after the first inspection stint. So practically the entirety of the program was either destroyed by the inspectors or sealed by them. Between 1991 and 2003, Saddam had practically nothing. In order not to appear weak towards his neighbours, especially Iran, he remained ambiguous about that -which was not only predictable but actually predicted by many familiar with the culture of the area. You can't be a strongman and admit to have cowtowed to others completely at the same time. As far as transport of any weapons to Syria is concerned, that still does not explain the absence of any and all traces. The production would have left traces. Plus there was never a serious suggestion on how such a large-scale transport should have happened unnoticed. The area is wide open, and a truck convoy is easily spotted by sattelite or spy plane. So if there had been any, I am sure the NSA or the CIA would have provided nice photographs. And the only rail connection between Iraq and Syria is through Kurdish territory and right under the nose of the Turks. In fact, unless you unload in the middle of nowhere, you'll have to proceed to the syrian/turkish border to go anywhere with your train and only then can go further south into Syria. So, to sum things up: The vast majority of weapons was destroyed by the first inspection team. What they did not cover, Iraq allegedly destroyed on its own. The search for evidence on this was prevented not by Iraq but by the US. There is no evidence whatsoever that any production of WMDs was started during the later 90s. And the absence of any evidence to that end strongly suggests there was never a serious attempt at mass-scale production, since otherwise, it is unlikely that not even a hint of evidence would have been found. All of this was predicted before the war, not the least since most of the suggestions by the Bush administration amounted to a declaration that they did not believe the laws of nature to be valid in Iraq. It should be noted that contrary to your suggestions, UNSC resolution 1441 did no such thing as suggesting there were WMDs, it tightened the thumbscrews to ensure that there was hard evidence on the issue in all aspects. Practically everyone looking at the data -including intelligence community reports- with a critical eye was aware of the absence of any solid evidence for the existence of WMDs. There is a profound difference between "We can't 100% exclude there aren't any because there's some tiny bits of data we're still missing" and telling Saddam to stop pretending and bring that evidence and actually suggesting there are WMDs in existence. --84.60.107.82 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is a dead Russian soldier doing in Chimay, Belgium?

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/40915186@N00/339643546/

how come he ended up there?

I really can't say with any precision. However, many thousands of captive Russian soldiers, unprotected by international conventions, were employed by the Nazis as slave labour. It may be one of those. Clio the Muse 14:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you take this picture yourself? There seem to be at least two of them so it's not just one freak-case. How are we so sure they are from the First World War? There isn't any date, the text just says "ici repose un ancien combattant russe". (here lies a Russian veteran)

The hammer and sickle suggests it is from the Second World War rather than the First. I think there may have been some Imperial combat units in France during the Great War, though I doubt either the Soviets or the Allies would have subsequently decorated their graves with Communist symbols. Clio the Muse 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Clio is right on this one. You shouldn't be seeing a hammer and sickle on a Great War burial, unless someone put it there later. If it's a WWII burial, I'm going to speculate that there were probably numerous cases of the Allies coming upon bodies of Russians who died working as slave labourers -- that was a common fate for Russian POWs. On the other hand, though, look at this [4] which has a mention of Russians used as forced labourers in WWI. Antandrus (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austria, 1860s

A certain Simon Freiherr von Winterstein, buried in Vienna (probably in the Zentralfriedhof), had been a member or otherwise associated with the:

• Abgeordnetenhauses des Reichsrathes (1861 - 1869)
• Herrenhaus des Reichsrathes (1869)

What are these? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 13:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Old Austrian Parliament, prior to the enactment of the current constitution in 1920, I believe. The 'Herrenhaus' was the House of Lords, and the 'Abgeordnetenhauses' was the lower house. Reading that tells me he was first an MP and then a Lord. Natgoo 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Imperial Austrian assembly was divided, on the English model, between Lords and Commons. For Herr Winterstein to move from one to the other suggests that he succeeded to the family title from his father in or around 1869. Clio the Muse 14:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The compound noun Abgeordnetenhaus literally means "House of Deputies". The ending -es is the genitive ending, meaning "of", for example as in Mitglied des Abgeordnetenhauses: "Member of the House of Deputies". Likewise Reichsrathes is the genitive of Reichsrath (which literally means "Imperial Council", in an older spelling). The transformation of the Empire of Austria into the dual-monarchy Austria-Hungary took place right in this period, in 1867, but also after that, the Reichsrat only concerned the Austrian part; Hungary had its own government and parliament.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the above squares with my initial assessment (based on basic German and almost total ignorance of the history), and provides ample support for expanding upon the sketchy material I have. And may I note, dear RD staffers: even if I'd chosen the most likely topical Talk page to post this query, how likely is it I'd have gotten such speedy and comprehensive answers there, compared with yours here? -- with thanks, and kudos, Deborahjay 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gift Card Fad

I mostly manage the 2000's fads page, and i think based on all the hype surrounding gift cards and their rise in popularity they are most likely a fad, but i have no idea when they were first released or whether they are a 2000's only fad? (also, would more further questions on fads go under the misc page?)--Technofreak90 14:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We had a recent question on gift cards. They aren't new at all, although they do seem to have become more of a "rip-off" recently, with short expiration dates, exclusions on usage, reduced value before their expiration date, and no discount on the purchase price. However, that discussion was on gift certificates, good for one retailer only. The more general temporary prepaid credit cards are newer, if that's what you mean by "gift cards". StuRat 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

California specifically forbids expiration dates on gift cards. Even if you have one with an expiration date, if you use it in California past that date, it is valid. However, on the news recently, there was a report that the state of Texas considers "unused gift cards" as abandoned property, and therefore property of the state. No indication in the report as to how long you can hold onto a card before it's considered abandoned. The article also said that the state of Nevada is considering similar legislation. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as the original question, there were paper "gift certificates" for years, with specific amounts printed or written on them. I can't say when gift cards came about, but they're just a computerized version of gift certificates, though sometimes you can recharge them (add more money to them). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic enclaves in the U.S.

Does anyone know of books that discuss and describe the various ethnic enclaves in the U.S. of today? Their culture, history, things like that. Jack Daw 14:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a list of such places. Perhaps some list some sources. See List of ethnic enclaves in North American cities. Rmhermen 15:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paris employment statistics

Does anyone know any (or where I might get some) comparative employment statistics for the Paris suburbs for 2005 to 2006? My coursework kind of falls apart without such...

Thanks!

Farosdaughter 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

INSEE is a good source of stats for France - and they may have what you want, if you order and pay. See also these 2001 employment figures for the Arrondissements of Paris. Good luck! -HJMG 10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance humanism and New Testament hard copies

In literature, Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) and Francesco Petrarch (1304–1374) are often considered the Fathers of the Renaissance. These figures as well as others like Poggio Bracciolini scoured the monastic libraries across Europe for lost ancient texts, especially classical Middle Ages Latin works (also ancient Greek works). However I can NOT find any reference to these well known figures (or others of similar notoriety) that they ACTUALLY "found" anything of the New Testament. Also in their writings I can NOT find where they even mention that they had physically in their hands an ACTUAL hard copy of anything of the Middle Ages from before the Fourteenth Century that they even read of books or Codexes of the New Testament. Where is there references that any of these 3 (or similar Renaissance humanism figures) actually had primary sources of the New Testament that were verified from them (saying something to the effect "it appeared" to them to be "hundreds of years old" as a physical hard copy, that they had in their hands they were reading from, of a hand written copy done by a copyist of the Middle Ages of BEFORE the year 1300)? Not speaking of any of the 39 books of the Old Testament texts, just any of the 27 books of the New Testament. --Doug 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Doug. I feel sure that your knowledge of Petrarch and Dante is considerably better than my own, but I'm finding it a little difficult to pinpoint a specific question here. However, I do not believe that either of these great authors was working from original texts, but simply interpreting what was part of the common knowledge of western Christendom. Clio the Muse 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug, Why are you so insistent that they MUST have had original copies? And why do you keep shouting at us? I doubt if I am the only one who finds all your CAPITALS and emphasis distracts me when I'm trying to read you. I don't know the answer to your question, but the parsimonious answer, in the absence of any direct evidence, is that they didn't mention having originals because they didn't have them. Also, I wonder whether they would have found the age and authenticity of the physical document as important as we do today? --ColinFine 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both for answering. I will restrict my use of capitals. I was just using them to show emphases, however I'll hold back on this usage. Also perhaps I should have made my question more clear. What I meant to say was that I am looking for where either Petrarch or Dante (or any others like them) say in any of their "works" or letters that they actually read any actual hard copies of the New Testament. I can not find any evidence of this. Now I also should have made clear (my fault) what I am looking for is not of an "Original" (of say from the first few centuries), however any hard copy done by a copyist off any of these supposed 'Originals' copied perhaps in the years say between 1000 - 1300. The Idea being NOT (sorry) of an 'Original' but of one done by a copyist off these supposed 'Originals' of any of the 27 books of the New Testament. I do NOT (sorry again) believe that it was a part of the common knowledge of western Christendom. Need an actual reference from one of these Renaissance people (a famous well known person of high reputation like Dante, Boccaccio, Petrarch, Da Vinci) that says they themselves actually had in their little paws some actual Copies off these "supposed" 'Originals' of any of these books of the New Testament. Perhaps I may sound a little skeptical, however let me make my viewpoint much more clear. I am VERY (really really I'm sorry) skeptical!! In other words, I do not believe you will ever find in any of their letters or works where they say they had a hard copy that they believed to be "several hundred years old" or some wording to this effect from THEM. Taking your word is not good enough. In other words, looking for a reference from them (a famous Renaissance person) that they had such NT books in their little o' paws. Now that should show up in at least some of their "works" or letters. Petrarch wrote over 500 letters alone, not counting the several hundred letters to all kinds of people (many high ranking like Popes and Kings) these others wrote to. However there is no evidence they even read from the New Testament (Latin or Greek), let alone collected any of these Codexes. None collected any of these ancient hard copy Codexes or manuscripts that were copies off the supposed Originals(or even read them). Why not??? There is no records or references of this at all. --Doug 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get where you're coming from. I suggested that if they didn't say they had any, then perhaps they didn't, and I think you're saying the same thing but with more emphasis (Sorry). What's the big deal?

I can't work out whether you're actually trying to prove they didn't have ancient copies, or that they did but conspired not to say so. What's wrong with my suggestion that they didn't have ancient copies and didn't regard this as an important issue? Or do you have some evidence to the contrary? --ColinFine 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not saying there was any conspiracy. Some of these Renaissance people I named were in different time periods (i.e. Petrarch and Da Vinci) so there could not be a conspiracy. The big deal is that there is no proof whats-so-ever that any of these Renaissance people ever had physically in there hands any of the pages (i.e. any of the Originals of say 100 A.D. - 900 A.D. or hand written copies by copyist of about 1000 A.D. - 1300 A.D.) of the New Testament. If these people (i.e Petrarch and Poggio Bracciolini) collected the classics of ancient Latin (and some Greek) texts then why didn't any of these Renaissance people collect any pages or books or manuscripts or Codexes (Middle Ages 1000 A.D. - 1300 A.D. hard copy thereof) since it would be quite valuable. They collected much other Latin classics, however NONE of the New Testament. There is absolutely no proof (references of their letters or their "works") of any of these Renaissance people collected any of these. Perhaps there was none? If no Renaissance people collected (or even read) any Middle Ages (i.e. 1000 - 1300) copies, then how do we know there is any? In fact I say there was no such Codexes of the New Testament for them to put in their little o' paws. That's why there is no records they collected any. If anyone knows of any references from any famous Renaissance person saying they collected or even read from any New Testament 'Originals' or even any copies (i.e. 1000 - 1300), please show me that reference. Must be something of their "works" or of one of their letters. Actual documentation of Renaissance references. --Doug 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug, I have to say that I completely agree with Colin on this issue: I do not think the antiquity of documents would be an issue of any fundamental importance to any Renaissance author, who may indeed have prized more recent hand-written copies, still enormously expensive for the time. To be honest, and please forgive me for being so direct, you give me the impression of being on some kind of crusade or personal quest, and I am not really sure that the Reference Desk is the place to be making these points at such length. Clio the Muse 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus (written in the 4th century) "has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, appearing in its earliest catalog of 1475 and in the 1481 catalogue." Wareh 02:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the question correctly, Doug seems to be asking why, if the Renaissance Humanists were collectors of old Latin and Greek texts, they didn't collect old Biblical texts as well as Classical ones. My understanding of the answer is, the Renaissance was a time where neglected Classical Greek and Latin texts, i.e. texts that hadn't been extensively copied in the Middle Ages, and were thus not well known, were actively sought out and disseminated. It wasn't like collecting first editions. If you found a copy of the works of, say, Tacitus, you'd be discovering a work which had been virtually unknown and unread for centuries. The books of the New Testament, on the other hand, would have been among the most copied, disseminated and read texts in existence. Finding an old copy wouldn't mean gaining any new knowledge, so wouldn't have been a priority for the humanists. --Nicknack009 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the answers above. Fully understand them, especially that of Nicknack. Elaborating on Nicnack's answer, the question is (where I didn't made clear in the original question): how does one know that in fact the books of the New Testament were amoung the most copied IF there is no Renaissance Humanists saying in any of their works or letters that they actually read from such books of the New Testament, copied in Latin (I assume). Looking for documented proof (i.e. personal letter, diary, poem, book or "work" by a Renaissance Humanist) that says they themselves have actually read from the New Testament. Looking for something from the Renaissance Humanists that shows proof the New Testament was widely disseminated and read texts in existence. I am not talking of books of the Old Testament, however of the New Testament. On that of the Codex Vaticanus: agree totally with the quotation found by Wareh. However those dates do NOT show an indication of the New Testament in existence before the Fourteenth Century (my original question). It only shows an indication of the New Testament existence after the Fifteenth Century. The earliest date (per quotation) is 1475. The part of "(written in the 4th century)" is not part of the quotation and is just something someone injected to make it appear older than it really is. Looking for actual reference documentation that the New Testament existed before the Fourteenth Century. I have researched this question for over 2 years through several history books and many encyclopedias and can not find such documentation from a quote (for example) of a Renaissance Humanist giving an indication that they themselves had in hand physically an actual copy of the New Testament. Where is there such? --Doug 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For a Renaissance Humanist who can be unequivocally said to have read the New Testament, there's always Erasmus, who not only read it, but published a critical edition of the Greek and a new Latin translation in the early 16th century. For evidence of knowledge of the Latin Vulgate in pre-14th century Europe, see my answers to one of your other questions further down the page. --Nicknack009 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not heard that Dante spent time searching for old manuscripts. Petrarch as you know was ordained, so a bible was nothing new to him (remember at the time you read Vulgate or nothing, by church order). He could not hardly written to the pope to say he had just discovered the Vulgate. As you will know, he specifically lamented and searched for the Greek and Latin writings that had been neglected by the people of the age which he called the "dark ages." He had no reason to go looking for bibles; they, of all, had not been neglected, so they would not be his field of interest. Erasmus, as Nicknack noted, does not fit your hypothesis. The texts he used to make up the Textus Receptus were very much pre-renaissance. As for new discoveries and old texts, almost all the old NT texts and books from before 600AD have been discovered and dated during the past 200 years. If not writing about something is taken as evidence of it's non-existence, then the deduction you must make from Leonardo's notebook is that his writing is proof that there were no women in his time (or at least that they were not "widely disseminated"). Leonardo must be considered a more accurate observer than Petrarch, no? If two persons did not write about bibles in a century, that is absence of writing, and if you think that proof will be found in their writings (Why? This would require exceptionally strong justification), then that is absence of proof, not the other way round. It would be difficult to ignore the knowledge that paleography and textual criticism has given us about the existence, translation, and transcription of the NT long before the Renaissance. --Seejyb 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug, your last reply seems to me to confirm Clio's suggestion that you are on a personal quest, to prove something that your are not stating clearly. Specifically, your comments seem to be tending towards a proposition that the NT didn't exist before the fourteenth century, or perhaps that it was not read. Is that where you are heading? Or is it something else?

Proofs by absence of data are notoriously difficult. You say you're looking for "documented proof (i.e. personal letter, diary, poem, book or "work" by a Renaissance Humanist) that says they themselves have actually read from the New Testament." But might that not be a bit like looking for documented proof that a 21st century scholar watched the news?

Incidentally, my 'conspiracy' was a joke, not intended literally. --ColinFine 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! You got it!!! That is precisely what I am saying: that the NT didn't exist before the fourteenth century. Now since it didn't exist before the Fourteenth Century, then of course any scholar or humanist of the Renaissance humanism could not have read the New Testament. There is no letters or "works' from any of these humanist in the 14th Century that say they had any pages of the New Testament because it didn't exist before this time. There is a large list of these Humanists on this page, however none (zero) have any records or references to ever reading the New Testament. Many of these were very prolific in letter writing, so surely (I'm not calling you 'Shirley') there should be some mention in some letters or something that references them reading from the New Testament. However there is none! Now for the argument of: But might that not be a bit like looking for documented proof that a 21st century scholar watched the news? - not if that scholar was very prolific in letter writing. It certainly would show up similar to your quote. He/she probably would write to another younger scholar something like this: "Saw on CNN news this evening on television that they put the polar bear on the endangered species list because of global warming. As an Elder I have noticed this trend so you of the younger generations will have to reverse this before the humans are wiped out." Seems very plausible to me. --Doug 17:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Test your knowledge

Many of the lists listed at Lists of basic topics have gaps in them. If you are knowledgeable in a wide variety of subjects, or well versed in a single subject, please come and help. Simply browse one or more of the lists and fill in any holes that pop out at you. Some of the lists are "complete", but I bet you could find "fundamental" topics missing from those too.  The Transhumanist   16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the difference (if any) between genocide and crimes against humanity

I tried looking up both definations of "Genocide" and "crimes against humanity", they were basically the same. When Sadam was recently hung they said it was for "crimes against humanity". That made me wonder why they used that term as opposed "Genocide". Any help you could give me would be appreciated. Thanks SusanMissprin 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They are, in all essential respects, the same thing. However, genocide, strictly speaking, refers to crimes agianst a specific race. Saddam's alleged crimes were, to be correct, sectarian rather than racial, insofar as they were directed against religious and ethnic communities, rather than races as such. Clio the Muse 17:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION, they are not "in all essential respects, the same thing".

Genocide is the killing of a 'race', compare patricide, matricide, fungicide etc.

Obviously genocide is a crime against humanity if it is committed against a human race.

But a 'crime against humanity' can include other things such as mass torture, slavery, mass rape etc. So genocide is just one example of a crime against humanity.87.102.14.212 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then there is another dimension, the UN is legally bound to intervene in genocide, so they simply redefine any genocide as "crimes against humanity", so they can just ignore it. StuRat 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

True, every genocity is, by definition, a crime against humanity. But not every crime against humanity has to be a genocide. Same as An apple is a fruit, but not every fruit has to be an apple :D Aetherfukz 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Genocide is a legal term that refers to the harm or desctruction of a specific group of people. They can be grouped together by race, gender, social status, political or religious beliefs, etc, and the methods to bring about their destruction can range from forced relocation (Armenian_Genocide) to the disruption of the family structure (Lost Boys of Sudan) to concentration camps (Auschwitz concentration camp). Crimes against humanity refer to crimes that transcend the concept that crimes are the concern of countries and its people and are instead crimes that all of humanity should be offended by and condemn. Labeling certain crimes "crimes against humanity" justifies the creation of International Criminal Tribunals (ICTR) and certaintly allows genocide to be punished. But they are not the same thing. One can commit a crime against humanity, such as torturing innocent citizens, without acting to destroy a certain group.

And, to clarify, acting to destroy a religious or ethnic community would STILL be considered genocide. As a reference: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Themodestmouse 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that the notions of "Genocide" and "Crimes Against Humanity", though obviously related, are quite separate and distinct. I'd put it best by placing the crime of "Genocide" as but one of several "Crimes Against Humanity". In other words, "Genocide" is a subset within the larger notion of "Crimes Against Humanity". I agree, more or less, with most of what Themodestmouse said, with one large exception. Though it can very much qualify as a Crime Against Humanity, I don't see how "forced relocation" can qualify as falling within the "Genocide" subset. The suffix "cide" is from the latin verb "to kill". The reason why the Armenian Genocide qualifies as a bona fide "Genocide" is due to the fact that it involved the mass killing of countless Armenians. Saddam could very well have been charged with "Genocide" just for his mass killings of Kurds, if not for a variety of other possibilities. In fact, Saddam wasn't charged with every possible crime he committed during hs reign, as a trial like that would involve thousands, if not millions of separate charges, and would no doubt last an eternity. So instead what the prosecutors did was the must "open and shut" charge available to them, which was, in their opinion apparently, a certain massacre of (I believe) some 140 individuals. After all, you can only hang a guy once. Loomis 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holland and the Netherlands?

Is Holland the same as the Netherlands or are they two different countries?

If you had bothered yourself to read the article (Holland) you would have found it out without any help. Flamarande 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC) PS: Sign your statements!!!

Please don't bite the newbies. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In short : they are not the same! Holland refers to parts of the Netherlands. Holland is not a country, the Netherlands is a country. The inhabitants of the Netherlands speak Dutch, but they call it "Nederlands" in Dutch.Evilbu 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

However, it is traditional, although not technically correct, in English speaking countries to refer to the Netherlands as Holland. StuRat 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only in English-speaking countries, it's quite common internationally. 惑乱 分からん 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Flemings often refer to their northern Dutch neighbours as "Hollanders" even though they know it's not correct. But as far as I know, lots of Dutch people who are not a "Hollander" don't like to be called that way.

Oh, the whole country used to be the shortlived Kingdom of Holland, so for a brief moment, Holland was the entire country.Evilbu 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

NB "Holland" is a contraction of the Anglo term for The Netherlands, "Hollow Land". This is on account of the dykes. Vranak 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard the Netherlands were rather dyke-friendly, but the name Holland, afaik, is derived from Old/Middle Dutch "holt-land" wood-land, (derived from the same word as English "holt" and German "holz". 惑乱 分からん 00:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's technically not the same, but in everyday use it's close enough. It's about similar to saying British people are from England which happens far too much in The Netherlands. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, 'Holland' officially covers 27 of the 28 'cantons' (administrative regions) of The Netherlands. Vranak 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

YRI. According to our article Holland, the area is divided between two provinces of the Netherlands: North Holland (Noord-Holland) and South Holland (Zuid-Holland), while the article Netherlands tells us that the Netherlands is divided into twelve administrative regions, called provinces.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a packet of speculaas in my pantry. The writing on the packet is in 4 languages. The Dutch bit refers to the country of manufacture as "Holland". The word "Netherlands", or anything like it, appears nowhere on the packet. JackofOz 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly they were made in Holland rather than any other part of the Netherlands? I'm sure I've seen 'Made in Wales' on things, so similar things happen. Skittle 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wales is a country.172.159.156.28 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether Wales is a seperate nation depends on your definition. In many ways it's powers are similar to those of a US state or a Canadian province. StuRat 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But "Holland", except as a pars pro toto for the Netherlands or as a no longer existent historical entity, is not a country, state, province, canton, or other administrative division.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly heard Dutch people say (in English) that they're "from Holland", meaning "from the Netherlands". I think they've probably accepted that it's the common name for the country abroad, even if they aren't too keen on the idea. -- Necrothesp 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percentage of population going to war (like in Germany)

Hello,

I heard that about 150,000 soldiers from the USA are now in the Middle East. That's quite a lot, about 0.05% of the entire population. But I would like to know how much it really is. So for instance :

1. How many people (percentage or absolute number) from Germany were actually enlisted in the army during the World Wars and were at least required to leave home for that. 2. How many of them actually left the homeland?

I know that my question is not that easy to answer, (especially because the population drops during a war, so that can have deceptive effects on percentages). I'm just curious, it seems to be unmanageable to have Germans in Belgium, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Russia, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Finland,....... Same question for Japan and USA.

If you have some sort of URL that is of relevance, I would be very happy as well.

Thank you very much,Evilbu 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject is mobilisation - but our article doesn't give details of percentages. However the article for Recruitment to the British Army during World War I says - By the end of World War I almost 1 in 4 of the total male population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had joined, over five million men. I don't think it was nearly as high in Britain for WWII but may have been in Germany. 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be a smaller percentage in WW2 ? That was the war which could have meant the end of the UK (and the world as we know it), had it been lost, after all. StuRat 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WWII had less of those idiotic trench charges. In WWI that's where the Brits and the Commonwealth suffered the majority of unneeded casualties. Think to La Somme and General Douglas Haig --The Dark Side 03:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To correct you Evilbu, 150 000 is only 0.0005% of the population of the US of A. 0.05% of 300 million is 15 million. But don't worry, it's only two zeroes. --The Dark Side 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dark Side's arithmetic is wrong and Evilbu's was correct. "But don't worry, it's only two zeroes." --Anon, Jan. 2, 07:12 (UTC).

One small observation, Dark Side, your estimation of Douglas Haig is no longer widely held, redolent, as it is, of the old-fashioned Oh, What a Lovely War viewpoint. War is a bloody business, especially when two evenly matched opponents confront one another, and you cannot defeat a powerful enemy without suffering terrible casualties. If you want Second World War examples you need to travel to all points east, to places like Stalingrad and Kursk. Clio the Muse 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed,. Recent scholarship suggests that Haig was hardly a thoughtless butcher, and that the casualties, while horrific and tragic, were perhaps not as avoidable as was once thought. Indeed, if you look to some (very) recent works by Hew Strachan, Jay Winter, Gary Sheffield and John Bourne, you will find that the "cutting edge" (as it were) of scholarship on this topic suggests that, once the trenches were established, astronomical casualties were quite possibly unavoidable - and indeed, only a handful of commanders on either side were able to conduct operations without significant casualties (Plumer comes to mind, but there are others). Sheffield and Bourne in particular paint a rather different picture of Haig that runs rather contrary to the received wisdom. Carom 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, most of the casualties could have been avoided, not by the generals, but by the politicians, by ending the war early. The old logic, that the costs of war would be less than the gains (for the victor, at least), clearly no longer applied in the era of trench warfare. Any territorial gains were not justified by the huge cost. Therefore, they should have agreed to an armistice, on approximately equal terms, as soon as this became apparent. StuRat 16:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To get back to the initial question, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on this subject, which is not exactly mobilization, but something known more precisely as the military participation ratio. You (Evilbu) will probably find the figures you want by doing a google search using that term. —Kevin 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it was I that missed the two zeroes. However, as for Haig, I don't think he purposely sent excessive men to their deaths because he was "callous and indifferent to the plight of the soldiers.” Rather, I think he just made some mistakes and refused to correct them until many lives were needlessly lost. I do recognize that people must die in war, but they shouldn't be lost through incompetence by superior officers. For the record I speak only of his participation during the battle of the Somme. --The Dark Side 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy: has it ever been of any practical concrete use?

By practical use I mean has it ever done anything concrete that you can actually touch, or made any money? (Ignoring the money made by people teaching it or selling boks about it etc). And I don't want to hear about the Philosopy Of Science - the science came first, then the philiosophy fitted itself around it rather than the other way around. 62.253.53.96 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think philosophy probably came first. As for your question though, I'm not sure. Sorry. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I rather think philosophy and sophistry mean roughly the same thing... 'doing wisdom': making money from 'doing' wisdom. See also the first quote on my user page: Vranak 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that philosophy has ever done anything concrete or made money, though neither of those is its goal. On the other hand, I do think that philosophy has made possible doing concrete things and making money. I once heard someone refer to philosophy as "mental hygiene". Philosophy provides tools that allow people to avoid mental traps or errors in thinking that can result in concrete things that fail to work, or efforts to make money that don't pan out. One of the most useful branches of philosophy is logic, which helps people to avoid fallacies, or faulty thinking. Beyond this, philosophy, or at least logic, have clear applications to the practice of law, which certainly has concrete results and makes money for its practitioners. Marco polo 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And a mental trap or error in thinking that results in concrete things that fail to work -- this would be a Bad Thing presumably. Vranak 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What we call natural science now once was the province of philosophy. Before it came to be a separate field, keeping a new breed of scientists busy, the notion of the scientific method had to be developed, which was done by... ?, guess... Right on! Philosophers! Very good. Likewise, logic, now usually considered an area of mathematics, grew out of...? When the answers to the hard questions in a sub-field of philosophy have reached consensus, it is spun off. What is left as being considered philosophy are the hard questions that haven't (yet) been answered. So while philosophy has not been, and never will be, of any "practical concrete use", as by definition the questions it addresses are unsolved, it has pioneered the approaches that have, ultimately, made computers possible.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have two brothers, both are philosophers. When I put this question to them, one said, "that is a good question, I must think about that." The other thought the question meaningless, and went about his work. I asked my second brother about the question, and he said "Can't you see I'm busy?" "But it's a question. Surely you don't ignore questions. What kind of a philosopher are you?" "I'm not ignoring the question." He told me. "I am answering it." DDB 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats very funny. --Judged 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us be clear about one thing at least: sophistry and philosophy do not mean the same thing, roughly or otherwise. Indeed, western philosophy, as we understand it today, might be said to have emerged in opposition to sophistry and other forms of insincere thought. Has philosophy ever had any practical use or concrete application? Is thought of any use? These are both huge questions which cannot be weighed by scales of utility. However, I will say that all aspects of human development, both good and bad, are inconceivable without the development in modes of thought, whether this be logic, epistemology, aesthetics or metaphysics. Just imagine, moreover, a world without ethics, without notions of good and bad conduct. Take away all of these things and ask if it is possible to conceive in any meaningful sense what it is to be human, what it is to exist, in other words, beyond the level of mere instinct. Has it ever done any good? I'm reminded of A Christmas Carol, and with every apology to Charles Dickens I will take some of his words slightly out of context: And, therefore...though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it! Clio the Muse 00:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice answer. I remember a loose definition of philosophy, I believe by Bertrand Russell (though I do not remember in which essay or book I encountered it, and I may be misquoting): "Philosophy is an unusually persistent attempt to think clearly." More or less. Looked at that way, it is of value immeasurable on any scale. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that philosophy has many ties to ideology, which has done a lot of "practical" things in the world, good and bad. Your life is more governed by some dead fellow's philosophy of freedom, of governance, etc., than you probably realize. --Fastfission 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of what I would say has already been said (especially regarding the historically inaccurate claim that science came first and philosophy of science came after it.) In addition to the above suggestions I have a few. Contemporary philosophy of science interacts with statistics. A causal search algorithm, known as TETRAD, was developed by philosophers at Carnegie-Mellon University. Similarly the uses of information criteria, like the akaike information criterion, have been explicated by philosophers (notably, Elliot Sober). There are currently two living members of the United States National Academy of Sciences who are philosophers, Brian Skyrms and Patrick Suppes (Willard Van Orman Quine was also one, but he is no longer alive.) In fact, Suppes was awarded the national medal of science. Of course, to be in the NAS, they must have made contributions to science. Work in contemporary logic is used substantially in computer science especially artificial intellegence. Work in decision theory is being applied to actual decision making, largely now by people in business schools. Most hospitals hire at least one person specializing in bioethics in order to inform their decisions. I know that contemporary usage, especially amongst "scientifically minded" people, treats "philosophy" as synonymous with "baseless speculation", but it is only the result baseless speculation by close minded people. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can bacteria think?

Is thought defined loosely enough that it can be claimed that bacteria, through to their internal chemical reactions, can think?

83.94.245.53 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No; they are quite litterally "mindless eating machines". :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the definitions found at thought, no not really. However they can respond to their environment but it is anthropomorphizing to call that thinking. —Dgies^t c 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In his Gödel, Escher, Bach, Doug Hofstadter presents some conversations with an ant hill, aptly named Aunt Hillary. The idea is that while individual ants are mindless machines, the society formed by the collectivity of ants – who, as we know, exchange signals with each other and can be considered to be the elements of a vast information-processing system – might possess intelligence, just like intelligence is an emergent property of the collectivity of mindless neurons forming the human brain. While an entertaining thought, the observed level of intelligence of ant societies – inasmuch as we can interpret it – is not very high. Like ants, bacteria display some social behaviour; they exchange signals and adapt their behaviour accordingly. Again, the collective intelligence displayed does not appear to rise to the level of what is commonly considered "thought". In my opinion this is more a matter of degree than of principle. Other people disagree and see an essential qualitative difference. Ultimately the issue is indeed one of definition. The problem is that when the concept of "thought" was formed, no-one considered the possibility that one day we might ask whether some non-human information processing system was capable of thought, so by default you should add "displayed by humans" to any definition given by someone who did not explicitly consider the possibility. Fish can swim; can submarines swim? If you define "to swim" like my dictionary does as: "to move in water by movements of the limbs, fins, tail, etc.", then is the screw of a sub covered by the "etc."? Not in the usual use of the verb "to swim". The same could have happened to "to fly"; the meaning could have been: ""to move in air by movements of the wings." Then we would have to concede that kites and airplanes can't fly. As it is, whatever some philosophers say, people appear to be quite happy to use "thought" for the computations leading to the behaviour of animals and computers alike. If the result of the information processing capabilities of a society of mindless elements becomes sufficiently complex, so that we can no longer grasp it as the combined result of very simple signalling and switching, then I'm sure we will likewise call it "thought". See also Turing test and Chinese room.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bacteria can be said to 'think' when they can exhibit a personality, exercising choice, not mere programmed activity. Recent research into spiders show that they have personality, some are aggressive, some are timid, some are lazy. Bacteria has only ever been observed acting as all other bacteria would. Human cells are not thinking creatures, but the collective that makes a person is. Individual ants have personality. Do trees make choices? I don't think so .. DDB 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ever met an Ent? Vranak

So we seem to have concluded that an individual bacterium certainly does not think, and it seems unlikely that a colony of bacterioa would exhibit any emergent behaviour that could be classified as thought. On the other hand, spiders probably do think. What about multi-cellular organisms that lack a brain or central nervous system - such as jellyfish - can they think ? Gandalf61 10:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I believe some form of central nervous system is required to think, so if jellies don't have one, I don't think they can think. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we therefore conclude that jellyfish do not think that you can think? Vranak 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

bacteria cannot think since it has no brainuser:ynj

Gee, that's a good answer! (Slaps forehead) That I did not think of that!  --Lambiam^Talk 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dioceses

How many Catholic dioceses are there in the world? --Lazar Taxon 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here in my town, I think there are 250+ (estimate, I only know for sure of about 20, from a relatively small portion of the city). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - there's only about 200 in the whole US. --Lazar Taxon 21:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought parishes. Then in that case, my town only has one. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is! I knew it had to be on Wikipedia. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If I counted correctly, that makes 488 dioceses.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are probably a few more too; the number is more likely closer to 500. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice that that list claims to be very incomplete: The article diocese gives "As of 2003, there are approximately 569 Roman Catholic archdioceses and 2014 dioceses." Rmhermen 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you counted the titular sees, it might even be higher. AnonMoos 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long have accountants been known as accountants?

In Europe in the 1700s, say, were there accountants who, like now, kept offices where merchants etc came to manage their accounts? If so, were they called accountants? - if not, what? - bookkeepers? Ta - Adambrowne666 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Accountancy as an activity is probably as old as civilization itself, and I know of at least one literary reference to 'incorrect accounts' in The Clouds, a play by Aristophanes, written in the fifth centuary B.C. In the English speaking world I think those practicing accountancy were most commonly referred to as book-keepers, or perhaps clerks, comptrollers or auditors. I think the Scots were the first to give formal legal recognition to the profession of chartered accountant as such in 1854, an example followed in England some thirty years later. Clio the Muse 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

perfect! - thanks for yet another helpful answer, Clio. Adambrowne666 01:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary's first citation in this sense: "1539 Househ. Ord. in Thynne's Animadv. (1865) 33 And the said Books shall be examined with the Accomptants and particular Clerkes for the perfecting of the same." Wareh 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wareh; so it looks like 'accountant' came from 'accomptant'? Adambrowne666 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it came into English from French accomptant (the late Latin verb accomptare is derived from the prefix ad- + computare, to calculate). The p would never have been pronounced in English. Wareh 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks again. Adambrowne666 08:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)