Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< January 31 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 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


[edit] February 1

[edit] Somali-canadians in toronto

In the former City of York, Toronto, I know notice there are some Somalis living there when I used to lie there from 1997 through 2004. I heard that Kipling CI and Regent Park area has the large amount of Somali-Canadians in Toronto. Is this mean that Somalis are everywhere in Toronto or just concentrated in one specific area? So, which area has the most? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.154 (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you been paying attention to the answers everyone has been giving you every time you ask these questions? Also, obviously not every single Somali, or anyone else, lives in the same place. There is no Somali ghetto in Toronto. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I ask about the name of the neighborhood in Toronto. please answer my question.

[edit] Regions of Somalia

in your article regions of Somalia, you said there are 18 but you added one and that is Saaxil. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.154 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The aricle on Somalia lists the 18 regions as they existed prior to the Somali Civil War. The article on Regions of Somalia features more than 18 regions, listed separately according to the new quasi-independent states on the territory of Somalia. Apparently, Saaxil used to be part of Woqooyi Galbeed, the rest of which is now called Maroodi Jeex, all part of Somaliland. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We could do with getting the stories straight at Somalia#Administrative divisions (lists 18, notes there are now 27, Districts of Somalia (lists 19) and Regions of Somalia (lists 27). More than I can face doing tonight. Messages left on the appropriate talk pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you spotted it! I missed Districts of Somalia, which is what 74.14.119.154 must have been referring to, and which is where the main confusion lay. I now removed Saaxil from that article's list. The list should either show the 18 regions as they existed de iure in Somalia before the civil war, or the 27 regions as they exist de facto in the quasi-independent states. I'm sure one could argue both ways, but certainly not for a mix of the two. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tamil Tigers

I have read through the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam article. A question the page does not seem to address is why exactly the Tamil Tigers are so different from most other revolutionary groups. They seem to be extremely well organized, with warships (Sea Tigers), fighter aircraft (Air Tigers), intelligence units, political/diplomatic personnel, and of course the Black Tigers. They also occupy quite a bit of territory, have a sophisticated administrative system. I guess my questions are:

Where do they get their money and weapons? Why are they so well organized? And why do they engage in terrorism when their goal seems to be to establish a Tamil homeland? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the first and second questions are answered in the article, e.g. at #Criminal activities (ranging from legitimate fund raising to extortion & piracy) and #Organization and activities (they want to be a government and are by now a de facto government with many of the normal functions of a de jure government.) Presumably they terrorise (or liberate) to convince the Sri Lankan government to accede to their demands. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops. . . Sorry, I missed the part about their funding. Thanks, it sounds sort of like the methods Muslim terrorist groups use. As for the second, I understand HOW the tigers are currently organized, but I don’t understand how they got that way or why they are so much more sophisticated in that respect than any other revolutionary group in the world. The fact that the Tigers want to be a legitimate government only adds to my confusion about why they would use terrorism. I would think that being considered a terrorist group by most of the western nations would limit the Tigers’ bargaining power. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Erm, they don't have "warships and fighter aircraft". The Sea Tigers have fiberglass fishing boats and small cargo ships. The Air Tigers have a couple of four-place light aircraft. FiggyBee (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Fishing boats? Those must be big fish they're going after! --S.dedalus (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The big boat in that video belongs to the Sri Lankan Navy, not the Tigers... FiggyBee (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
On a more serious note, who sells the Tigers their “light aircraft” and how have they been able to resist the Military of Sri Lanka when their location is clearly know. (Most revolutions use guerilla warfare, not territorial expansions don’t they?) --S.dedalus (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Why "light aircraft" in inverted commas? The only aircraft they're known to have is the Zlin Z-143 - does this look like a fighter jet to you? I'm not disputing that the Tigers are a formidable force, I'm just saying that characterising their equipment as "warships and fighter aircraft" is more than a little inaccurate. FiggyBee (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I just didn’t have enough knowledge of the subject yet to judge my self, so I was quoting you. Perhaps the BBC has biased my perspective on the conflict slightly. Sorry if I seemed to implied that I doubted your statement. Wow, I’m surprised those little planes can carry any bombs at all. Then again I know nothing at all about aviation. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For weapons procurement, probably a bit dated for the subject, (from Rotberg, R.I. (1999) Creating Peace in Sri Lanka. Cambridge:Brookings Institution.) LTTE procurement began with smugglers from the small fishing port of Velvettiturai (commonly known as VVT) across the Palk Strait and with the assistance of the Indian intelligence service and the Tamil Nadu state. The operation expanded dramatically after 1983 and during the next few years included purchase of small ocean going freighters (a fleet of five or six in 1999) and domestic production of landmines, grenades, and mortars.

Singapore became a major center for dual-use equipment: radios, computers, electronics, night-vision binoculars, outboard motors and diving equipment. Front companies were established in Dhaka, Chittagong, Rangoon, and Kuala Lumpur for purchasing equipment without an obvious dual-use.

The Khmer Rouge sold many weapons to the LTTE across the Cambodian border and via Trang in Thailand. Contacts were established with the Burmese military, and by 1992 a semi-permanent transshipment point had been established near the town of Twantay south of Rangoon. Cambodia also became a major supplier, in 1995 two Avro 748s were brought down, probably by SA-7 missiles from Cambodia.

The Sri Lankan armed forces do not necessarily have easy access to weapons, at times governments have been reluctant to provide arms which would be used for the counter-insurgency, while the LTTE has had access to illegal arms markets in Hong Kong, Singapore, Lebanon, Cyprus, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Kazakhstan; from war zones such as the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Mozambique; and possibly from organized crime groups in Russia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria.—eric 08:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Collier in "Ethnic Civil Wars: Securing the Post-Conflict Peace", 2007, Harvard International Review [1], claims that in a typical year the LTTE spends an amount equal to 28 percent of the GDP of that portion of Sri Lanka it seeks to control.—eric 08:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That’s extremely helpful and interesting. So if I understand you correctly you’re saying that the Indian intelligence service helped arm the Tamil Tigers? Why would they do that? From the Tamil nationalism article it says that the nationalists aim to “establish traditional Tamil homelands in parts of India and Sri Lanka.” Presumably then the Tigers plan to attack India if they are ever successful in Sri Lanka. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz tune

What's the title of this tune (fast, swung): d g g a d g, d g g a d g, d g g a d g g a d g g a d g, d g g a d g C, d g g a d g C#... ? —Keenan Pepper 03:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Now's the Time" by Charlie Parker. It's a twelve-bar blues. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Originally it's in F, by the way (c f f g c f, ...), just like Bird's other famous blues standard "Billie's Bounce". (added later: I just realized your notation is probably for a transposing instrument tuned in B-flat. (tenor saxophone, trumpet etc.) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Read this too. Oda Mari (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
But note that "The Hucklebuck" riff and "Now's the time" are only identical for the first four bars. The fifth bar in Keenan Pepper's version, and especially the sixth bar with its characteristic diminished seventh chord (#IVo7, C# being that chord's root here in Keenan's notation) are unique to "Now's the Time". ---Sluzzelin talk 08:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it in G simply because I don't have absolute pitch and had no idea what key it was in. =) Thanks, everyone! —Keenan Pepper 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Austro-Hungarian interests at the Treaty of Versailles

Hello. I am a high school student, and I have to represent the interests of Austria-Hungary in a class simulation of the Versailles Conference in 1919. I've exhausted several of our library's books, and a basic internet search only provided the same information. Unfortunately, not a lot of Versailles resources give an in-depth view into Austria's position during the conference.

During my research, I came to the following conclusion, and here are my questions:

  • Austria-Hungary was going to separate into Austria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. At the time of the conference, did the Austrian delegate support such a separation, or was that the Allies' idea?
    • Who was the Austro-Hungarian delegate?
    • Was there any other overseas or European territory belonging to Austria-Hungary that was at risk of being stripped from the empire? Were the Austro-Hungarians willing to give up this land, or did they object to such proposals during the conference?
  • In the early 1900's, the Austrian economy depended on railways. Were there any notable Austro-Hungarian imports or exports in 1919? How was the Austrian economy doing post-WWI? Did it fall or rise? Did Austria or its allies have any economic interests during the conference? Did any of the other participants in the conference have trading interests with Austria-Hungary?
    • I'm asking this question because during the conference, I might have to say something along the lines of... "Hi there, Italy! I would be willing to let you take 20% of our iron if you don't take Tyrol."
    • Did Austria-Hungary heavily participate in trading military equipment? How so?
  • Austria-Hungary was interested in a union with Germany? Did the Germans have the same feelings about this?
  • Finally, Austria-Hungary lost about 1,200,000 soldiers. Did that consist of a large amount of their military? If Austria-Hungary were to go back to war, would she have enought manpower to survive?

A lot of help would be appreciated.--Dem393 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you really can't help me right now, is there a good website that I could use?--Dem393 (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
By the time of the Versailles Conference, Austria-Hungary no longer existed. That's because all the non-German parts had seceded, the emperor had abdicated, and the "Republic of German-Austria" had been declared in Vienna. But the Allies still considered Austria and Hungary to be bad guys, so they were not invited to the conference. The best way for you to simulate Austria during 1919 is to not take part in the simulation but to write angry letters to the person playing America reminding him or her about the promises of self-determination in the Fourteen Points. (Which were being denied to the German-speaking populations outside of Austria.) Your local public library should have a copy of the very readable book Paris 1919, which includes a chapter about Austria and Versailles. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing those stuff up. I'll look for Paris 1919, but I need to clarify the fact that I must actually speak during the conference. My history teacher knows that Austria and Hungary didn't participate in the conference, but he's letting the defeated countries speak anyway. In addition, if Austria-Hungary didn't exist in 1919, then I guess we're going to have to pretend otherwise, because that's how were doing the simulation. --Dem393 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's kind of a tough assignment -- speaking on behalf of something that no longer existed! It would make far more sense for your teacher to ask you to speak on behalf of Austria and Hungary rather than as Austria-Hungary. As noted above, Austria's arguments in 1919 were based on the fact that Austria-Hungary had disbanded. If Austria-Hungary hadn't fallen apart in before the Versailles Conference, the conference would have taken on a completely different character. But it's hard to imagine a situation in which the Allies could have won WWI as decisively as they did without Austria-Hungary collapsing. The defeat of the Austro-Hungarian armies set off the independence movements in the Slavic parts of the empire that had been bubbling for decades beforehand. Perhaps if the Austrians had been able to hold on a bit longer in Italy, the dismemberment of the empire could have been put off until after the armistice. But I don't think your teacher is planning an exercise in alternate history. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I should say you have been given a crazy task. The Paris Peace Conference began on 18 January 1919, and a critical point about it is that the Central Powers were not invited to attend. The Kingdom of Serbia (one of the victorious Allies), was represented by the new State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, which included both Serbia and large parts of the collapsed Austria-Hungary. By January 1919, if the Austrians and the Hungarians had been invited to attend (which just wasn't going to happen, as this wasn't an all-inclusive conference of the kind your teacher may want to enact), then they would have been invited separately - that is, both German Austria and the Hungarian Democratic Republic (which was itself in the process of collapse). You could perhaps offer to represent one or the other of those, but it would have been quite impossible for a single individual to represent the different interests of both. It would be completely mad for your teacher to ask this Conference to imagine that in January 1919 Austria and Hungary were still united (under the dual monarchy? under a republic?) Once you start throwing the facts of the international situation into the bin, you are left with a meaningless exercise. Xn4 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, then maybe I should revise my question. What political, military, and economic interests did Austria have during the Versailles conference?--Dem393 (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, Dem393, what a task you have been set! I wonder just how well acquainted your teacher is with the history of Europe at the end of the First World War, particularly the history, and the structure, of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire? I'll come on to your specific questions in a moment, but first let me sketch some of the background details.

What makes your task particularly difficult is that Austria-Hungary, unlike Germany, was not really a nation state at all, but an historical anachronism; an accumulation of territory, held together solely by the allegiance owed to the Habsburg crown. For years before the war the Empire had been struggling against the centrifugal forces of nationalism, particularly Slav nationalism. Defeat in the war shattered the illusion, and the whole structure simply imploded. It had already been made clear in the Fourteen Points that the Allies and Associated Powers were committed to autonomy in the Habsburg lands. But when, in October 1918, the Austro-Hungarian foreign minister asked for an armistice on the basis of the Fourteen Points, he was told by Robert Lansing, the American Secretary of State, that autonomy was no longer enough, that the western powers were now committed to the independence of the Slav nations. In confirmation of this the Czechoslovak Provisional Government was admitted to the Allied camp on 14 October.

That was it; that was the end of Austria-Hungary, killed off even before the Paris Peace Conference. Czechoslovakia declared its independence at the end of October, about the same time as a new State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs came into being. Hungary and Austria separated, as another new state, that of German Austria came into being, a recognition of political reality. All that remained for the peace makers was to give retrospective justification to a fait-accompli. The Empire was dead beyond recall. Now for your questions.

  • As has already been pointed out, none of the Central Powers, including the new states of Austria and Hungary, participated in the Paris Peace talks (Please note that this process should not be confused with the Treaty of Versailles, which concerned Germany alone.) All of the subsequent treaties, Saint Germain with Austria and Trianon with Hungary, were essentially 'diktats', as the Germans argued ad nauseum in the years to follow. In other words, there was no process of negotiation; it was a case of take it or take it.
  • There were separate Austrian and Hungarian delegations in Paris. The Austrians were headed by Karl Renner, the Chancellor of the Republic, and by Franz Klein, an expert in jurisprudence. The Hungarian delegation was headed by Count Albert Appony, who later was to write "These days were very difficult for us. Every opportunity to express our arguments was refused. Even during private conversations it was the same, when we would have liked to declare our truth and we were fenced by a kind of cordon not to say anything." A diktat, as I have said.
  • The Empire had no overseas territories. The only outstanding issue was over the precise borders of the new states. Disputes between Austria and Czechoslovakia over parts of Carinthia were later settled by plebiscite. A dispute between Austria and Hungary over Burgenland was settled in the former’s favour in the Saint Germain Treaty. Hungary tried to preserve some of its territorial integrity by declaring a Soviet Republic and appealing to Russia for aid, but was overrun by the Romanian army. Large parts of the country, including many Hungarian-speaking areas were subsequently annexed by Romania and its allies in the Little Entente.
  • Both the Austrian and Hungarian economies had been devastated by the war. Neither country had any leverage in this area. Defeat was followed by further disruption, starvation and astronomical inflation. Even if the Austrians had any bargaining power it was unlikely that Italy would have been willing to trade territory for economic concessions. As it was, Italy was left deeply aggrieved that it did not get all of the gains it had expected. Disappointment at the outcome of the war was one of the factors that led to the rise of Fascism.
  • Although Austria-Hungary had its own arms industry, it became increasingly dependent on Germany for all sorts of supplies, and other forms of military aid.
  • Austria was interested in Anschluss-union with Germany- hence the deliberate choice of German Austria as the name for the new state. This was specifically forbidden by the Treaty of Saint Germain (and the Treaty of Versailles), and the name of the state was changed to the Austrian Republic. This flew in the face of the principle of self-determination granted to others by the Fourteen Points, but the peace process was always an unhappy marriage between impossible ideals and hard facts. France was never going to allow the emergence of a new Germany, even stronger than it had been in 1914. Hungary, of course, was not interested in any form of union with Germany.
  • Neither Austria nor Hungary was in a position to go back to full-scale war. As I have said, Hungary was overrun in 1919 by Romanian troops.

Well, that's it! Sorry, I know it does not make your task any easier. You are effectively swimming against the tides of history. You could, I suppose, argue counter-factually, but you would have to suspend all disbelief, to assume that there were circumstances in which the polyglot Empire could have held together.

Was it a loss? Yes, I think it was. The Empire in many ways acted as a force for stability in central Europe, and what was to come was to be in many ways far worse. The collapse of the Empire did not even solve the nationality problem. All of the successor states had control over large minorities, to whom even the most basic rights were often denied. Anyway, the very best of luck! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Clio, as usual, is thorough, insightful, and interesting. However, she made a small slip on the matter of a territorial dispute over parts of Carinthia. She wrote that the dispute was between Austria and Czechoslovakia. This was of course a dispute between Austria and Yugoslavia (then known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes), as I'm sure Clio knows. I suspect that she remembers the Slovaks and the Slovenes in the same part of her brain, as do I. Marco polo (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed! Thanks, Marco. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Clio the Muse!!!!! Although several of the things that I have been assigned no longer have any relevance to the Paris Peace Conference, I feel that I have enough information to BS my way through a theoretical speech on behalf of the non-existent Empire of Austria-Hungary. I do have one unanswered question though: I know that Austria was in favor of this, but did Germany itself have any interest in a union with Austria (the Anschluss)? In fact, was there any economic reason why either country would want a union with each other?--Dem393 (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You are very welcome, Dem. The Anschluss issue was certainly to become an important patriotic test in Germany, though in the immediate aftermath of the war it did not appear to command a high priority, as most people had more pressing concerns. While I cannot prove this one way or the other, I suspect the issue may have been of greater interest to those living in southern Germany, particularly Bavaria, than in the rest of the country. The Austrian preoccupation with the matter is more understandable, for two reasons. First, there were many who still felt aggrieved by Austria's exclusion from the Reich in 1866, when Bismarck opted for a Kleindeutschland solution to the question of German unity. Second, not only had Austria been crippled economically by the war but it seemed likely that the rump state that emerged in 1918-19 would be unable to survive as a viable and independent force. The only way that it would be able to count politically and economically, the only way to overcome its immediate difficulties, was by union with Germany. Austrians, it might be said, still had to learn how to be Austrians, a lesson only fully absorbed after the advent of a former countryman. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Sorry -- one aside. One thing you should definitely add in your speech is the Austrians' belief that under the Fourteen Points' call for ethnic self-determination, the German-speaking speaking parts of the Czech lands (see the map at German Austria) should have been able to join the country. Instead, the Czechs successfully argued that the historical boundaries of Bohemia and Moravia should remain intact, even as the historical boundaries of Hungary were being ignored to form the Slovak part of Czechoslovakia. The Germans of Czechoslovakia were treated quite well, but nonetheless the vast majority of them in the 1930s supported the Nazis and helped dismember that country. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing for the Sudeten Germans was that for Czechoslovakia to be a truly viable state, their territories had to be included. If the Sudeten territories hadn't been included in Czechoslovakia, then Czechoslovakia would have had completely indefensible borders (with the German and/or Austrian armies in the mountains looking down at the Czechs in the valleys) and its economic base would have been greatly impaired. AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JC-1 H1 History: Bizonia?

It's me again! In today's History lecture, we learnt about the causes of the Cold War. One of them was that the USA and USSR disagreed on what happen to Germany after World War II. The USA wanted economic stability in Germany while the USSR wanted reperations.

There is this sentence in my lecture notes: "In January 1947 Britain and the USA combined their zones into the single economic unit Bizonia". This is confusing and contradicts what I learnt about the Cold War in secondary school. My secondary school History textbook says that France also had one quarter of Germany and later Britain, France and the USA combined their three zones into West Germany.

Did France have a part of Bizonia? If not, what happened to the quarter of Germany belonging to France? Or is my secondary school textbook wrong?

By the way, last week, I asked some questions about the flow concept and "ceteris paribus" in Economics. Why I can't find my questions and the answer, but I could find the answer to my questions about my Literature texts and make more comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.90 (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See Bizonia. It was indeed formed from two zones to start with, and then the French joined in to make Trizonia, which became West Germany.
By the way, the zones were not really "quarters". The UK, US, and USSR originally agreed to divide Germany into three zones of similar size, and when the French persuaded the UK and US to let them have a zone too, the USSR did not agree. So the Soviets kept their original assigned zone and it was the biggest of the four, about 1/3 of the country. Same thing with the zones of Berlin, and I presume also the zones of Austria and of Vienna. See Allied Occupation Zones in Germany.
--Anonymous, 07:58 UTC, February 1, 2008.
As far as the lost questions are concerned ... I can't find them (quickly), but advise that if you get yourself an account, you'll find it much more easy to track your contributions, than will be the case if you continue to post without logging in. The contributions associated with your current IP address do not seem to feature the Ceteris paribus question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Anonymous! Now I understand. Tagishsimon, I think my IP keeps changing. Maybe I will get an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.90 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what happened to the French zone after Bizonia was formed but before it joined Bizonia to form Trizonia? Or was the French zone only formed after Bizonia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.90 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the French zone preceded Bizonia and continued for a time after it was formed, before merging into Trizona, subsequently the Federal Republic of Germany. The French had been just as anxious to exploit their zone economically as the Russians. They also had political fears over German unity. You should read Giles MacDonogh's After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift, which covers this whole area admirably. It may be published under a different title in North America. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan

What are the historical roots to the present state of instability in Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.82.127 (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pick them up at History of Pakistan; then you'll be able to ask a more focused, answerable question.--Wetman (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For the "present" instability, it would be probably best to look at the article on the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état in which Pervez Musharraf took over control of Pakistan. -- Saukkomies 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You might also have a look at the links between the Inter-Services Intelligence and the Taliban. Marco polo (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a combination, really, of history, geography, ethnicity and politics. In essence, Pakistan, or what was to become Pakistan, was always a frontier, set astride the Khyber Pass, through which generations of invaders entered into the plains of India. Because of its strategic location the local people developed a strong martial tradition. During the days of the British Raj the bulk of the Imperial forces were recruited in the Punjab and adjacent territories. Unfortunately, this militant tradition went hand-in-hand with an accompanying weakness in the forms of civil society, more highly developed elsewhere in India.

The Partition of India in 1947, with the emergence of the new state of Pakistan, had the effect of exaggerating still further the relative imbalance between the civil and the military. Also, there was the political legacy of the British creation of a separate Muslim electorate during the Raj, which served to create a 'bloc' mentality, preventing the emergence of the kinds of political pluralism that form such an essential part of stable democracies elsewhere. Moreover, though mostly Sunni, Pakistan has a large Shia minority, with persecution-on the increase in recent years-adding to the overall instability of the country.

Partition also led to ongoing rivalry with India, though Pakistan has only a fraction of the resources and the population of its neighbour. Military expenditure has been at the expense of other areas of the economy, and has added to the position and, more important, the political influence of the army. It might be argued that the army has become a state in itself, with its own unique priorities, a factor that contributed to the coups in 1958, 1969, 1977 and 1999.

High military expenditure also impacted on other areas of civil society, particularly in education, where low levels of government investment allowed religious schools to fill the gap in provision, some with a highly militant approach to Islam, further undermining the forces of secularism.

There are also ethnic problems bequeathed by Pakistan's position under the Raj, when the British, in fear of Russian expansion, bolstered the north-west frontier by expanding into Pashtun territory. Pashtun separatism has become a major cause of concern for the government, as have Afghan and Taliban Islamists in the north. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whiplash!

I was pouring cereal out of my bag of museli that I bought at Albert Heijn when I noticed a piece of light blue polythene, in amongst the mixture! Once my grandmother found a piece of a rubber glove in her tin of dog-food, sent it in was received a "prize"! I'm not asking for legal advice, 'cause I'm not considering litigation or anything, but could I get a money-off coupon to make up for my mental anguish? ----Seans Potato Business 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! My uncle once got a crate of jam after eating half a wasp that was in one jar. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You've got nothing to lose (apart from postage) I once found an empty tea bag in a box of fifty, I sent it back to the company with a humerous poem and they sent me a new box of a hundred, whether it was for the poem or the empty bag I never knew (nor cared!) Richard Avery (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what country you're writing from, but if the manufacturer in question has a toll-free telephone number for your country, just give them a ring and describe what happened; they'll almost certainly send you coupons worth one or two times what the product originally cost you, merely as a good-will gesture. Just be polite and start the call with something akin to "I like your product and buy it often, but..."
Atlant (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What generous companies you discovered! We once found a sharp metal hook baked into a loaf of bread. Rang the (very notable) company, who declared on the phone that it was impossible (obviously we dreamt the large peice of metal skewering several slices of bread, or perhaps put it there ourselves and then forgot?). Eventually, a representative came to our house to collect the loaf. "oh, you're right" he said. And walked off with the loaf under his arm. Not even a replacement (if I remember correctly). sigh. Gwinva (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Albert Heijn's return policy is awesome. You'll probably get a new bag if you want to, or get your money back. You might also write to the "Consumentenbond". User:Krator (t c) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Complained to my bank about their tardiness in replying to an earlier letter, and got a massive "Christmas' type hamper, three bottles wine, tins of food etc. as an apology. Now looking for something else to complain about!--Johnluckie (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
When I complained to McVitie's concerning some rather battered Jaffa Cakes I'd bought, they sent me £3 worth of vouchers. Didn't even cost me postage, as I emailed them. But it does seem to be a goodwill thing, so being pleasant about it can help. Skittle (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Although complaining loudly and strongly can get you a lot of places, a justified and polite complaint, properly structured will usually get a good reply. If they don't, then loudly and strongly is well justified. Steewi (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The gift-loan

Someone - I think an American president or other famous figure - once provided an acquaintance with money, and asked that instead of repaying the money he should in turn pass it on to another when able, with the same instructions. Who? Deiz talk 13:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Our article on the concept of "pay it forward" notes that Benjamin Franklin described it in 1784. — Lomn 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the one. Nice. Deiz talk 15:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do you recognize this tune?

Tune: Image:Tune123.MID

I have this tune in my head. My most probable candidate is Franz Liszt, from which I heard this excerpt in either one of his transcriptions or paraphrases. Maybe it isn't Franz Liszt's at all... Does anyone recognize it and know where it comes from? It sounds to be in nature of a symphonic poem. --Funper (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to try Name My Tune. Bovlb (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a microphone :( --Funper (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Try Musipedia then. (Doesn't require a microphone – you just play it on the piano-type keyboard.)--Shantavira|feed me 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I went though my playlist and I was listening to it right now, but I was unaware of the tune and I didn't recognize it! I forgot what I was looking for. But now I know what it is. Thanks for nothing. --Funper (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You are quite welcome. --LarryMac | Talk 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am asking, because I want somebody to listen and maybe recognize my tune. "Try Musipedia" doesn't help me and it doesn't help others to listen to my sample. Thanks though, but a slight change to that sentence can make it constructive and helpful one. It will also leave room for others to listen to it: "I personally don't now. But try Musipedia." --Funper (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You stated above, 'But now I know what it is'. Would you consider sharing that information with the many people who have listened to it? --NorwegianBlue talk 11:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The tune, playing on the gypsy scale and being pathetique in charachter, is an excerpt from Franz Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 14 (S.244/14). --Funper (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that, with due respect to whoever played it, the tune you provided above is only a poor cousin to the actual tune in Liszt's Rhapsody. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That is an unnecessary statement. --Funper (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think not. I know Liszt's music well, and I listened to the clip to see if I recognised it - I was interested in helping you out, after all. I didn't recognise it. Now that you've identified it, I can see a resemblance, and I don't doubt that whoever played it made a conscientious and genuine attempt to capture the tune of the 14th Rhapsody. But it's still sufficiently different to be unrecognisable. Apart from the rhythmic differences, your first 4 rising notes are OK but your 5th and 6th notes are descending in pitch whereas in the actual tune these 2 notes continue to ascend. Then, after you’ve descended, you jump up by a 4th, fall back a 4th, before descending again. There’s no such jump-fall pattern in the Liszt melody. It’s a simple succession of 6 rising notes followed by 5 falling notes (F, G, A, B flat, C, D, C, B flat, A twice, G twice, F twice). This wasn’t intended as a personal criticism, and I’m sorry if it came across that way, but as simple feedback. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] astrology question for astrologers  :)

hi guys...for those of you who believe in astrology and who have some knowledge of it. (i respect both skeptics and believers). about that belief that when the moon is in a given sign,it's not wise to proceed with an action that is ruled by such sign that day for it will fail or go wrong.

for example operating the nose a day when the moon is on scorpio, the ruler of the human nose... hipocrqates had this belief.

so... what if I am planning on doing something of the importance of getting married or of some long term agreement/buisness or something like that on february the 29th...on what sign is the moon going to be? is it convenient for me to do so acording to the aspects of life that that sign rules?

and if you have enough knowledge to answer this...what day would be best to sign such an agreement in february? (again, according to the moon's position).

OR MAYBE! the moon's position only has an effect on the body and operations etc, but on aspects of life, the sun has the influence, or any other planet.

I'd so much apretiate your imput. thank u. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.188.146 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You've raised some interesting points. It seems you're asking about Electional astrology for choosing auspicious dates. About two bucks (?) will get you a printed 2008 Ephemeris for the year from a new age store for finding where the moon is in signs on any day in any month as you probably know. There's a link to moon phases at article Moon. Problem is that the answer involves who is asking it as well, so any calculation would take into account your chart details – likely based on transits to your chart so that when you look for the moon on any date, check for nice aspects to your natal chart planets to do with the nature of the event. (Example, 7th house is about weddings, Capricorn and Saturn and second house about business.) There is also "Category:Wikipedians interested in Astrology" for expertise. If you don't have the software try here[2] – go to "my astro" at the top, set up an account, set up your chart with transits and bobsyeruncle. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the Moon, though, is that it moves through all 12 signs every 28 days, and it often occupies 2 signs on any given day. You'd need the exact time of the event to be sure of the Moon sign. Other planets also move from sign to sign, but it's much less likely that the transition will be occurring on the very day you're interested in (although it's certainly possible). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
...And because of different time zones, the definition of 29 February also depends on where you live. FWIW, the Moon is in the 8th degree of Sagittarius at 0hrs GMT and the 20th degree at 24hrs GMT.--Shantavira|feed me 08:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

thanx a lot guys :) it was really helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.177.88 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] word history

Any idea where the word 'Gypo' first comes from? --Fredrick day (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=gypsy+&searchmode=none) shows the origins of gypsy. i suspect that gypo started as a localised colloquialism from gypsy but my (admittedly short) search found little of use. ny156uk (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Context? There's also gypo or gippo, soldiers slang, from Egyptian. Gwinva (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An Arabian mantle (jubbah) came into the west as a jibbah—though on its trail it gave the Fr. jupe and jupon, skirt; and Eng. jumper, earlier jump. A short jacket, such as the servants wore at Cambridge, England, was called a gippo, still further shortened to gyp. Possibly influenced by gipsy, gypsy (earlier gypcian, from Egyptian, Egypt being their supposed home), it was applied to the servants themselves. It is easy, alas, to see how the word then came to mean a cheat! There is also the suggestion that the college boys may also have been thinking of gyph, a vulture—which was Greek to them. There is another sense of gyp in some localities: to handle roughly, to thrash, which may be related to gee-up, an order to a horse. Gee-up is really geehup!, commands to move ahead. Shipley, J.T.(1945) "Gyp" Dictionary of Word Origins. p. 173.

Also, since the late 1910's, a small independent contractor in the Pacific Northwest lumber industry, a "gyppo logger".—eric 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The gipon or jupon was a medieval tunic-coat. "Gyp" also means pain, as in "This leg is giving me gyp". "Gip" used to be a version of gypsum, and "gyppy tummy" is another type of Delhi belly (possibly, again from "Egypt"). I believe "Gyp" is American slang for "swindle", also. All have different etymologies. Gwinva (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What do MEDCs owe to LEDCs?

From LEDC; "in the case of countries ravaged by European colonialism, the word "re-developing" may be more accurate since there were successful economic systems prior to colonialism". Am I not right in thinking that if more economically developed countries are developed in large part because of exploitation of the resources of other countries that are now still developing, that the the more economically developed countries owe a lot to those lesser developed and should do more to help them reach the same standards of living? ----Seans Potato Business 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is one way to look at it. Another is that colonialism hurt the Imperial countries. A very brief example you could use is peanut farming. Nigeria was used extensively for extremely cheap peanuts at the expense of destroying the existing economy in the country. The cheap peanuts ravaged the international peanut market, such as the peanut farms in Georgia in the U.S. So, if colonialism didn't take place, Georgia wouldn't have suffered so much economic hardship and would be better off today. So, should Nigeria use part of the oil profits it now has to help with economic hardship in Georgia? As always, it is how you rationalize to justify your personal belief. It has nothing to do with what is truly right or wrong. -- kainaw™ 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote assumes that:

  1. The prior/initial successful economic systems would have gone on and developed, over time, to what we currently consider developed, had colonialism not happened.
  2. Colonialism broke down those systems.
  3. Those systems are something worth going back to.

These assumptions are not at all incontestable, particularly the first one. User:Krator (t c) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)