Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

< August 9 Humanities desk archive August 11 >


Contents

[edit] Right to Property

I want to know in detail why Morarji Desai has deleted the Right to property from our constitution. Thank you!Temuzion 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the 44th constitutional amendment. To start, it was passed by the Sansad, so whatever it was that was done, was not done by Mr. Desai personally. The amendment introduced article 300A, which states: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Not exactly what I'd call "deleting the Right to property". It is still a constitutional right. But you're right in the sense that before it was one of the so-called Fundamental Rights, and the new formulation is rather weak, as far as rights are concerned. It should offer some protection from arbitrary expropriation, but it does not protect you from bad laws. A possible motivation for the change may have been that the Fundamental Right was too absolute and did not strike a balance between individual and communal interests. In most countries there are possibilities for expropriation based on eminent domain laws. --LambiamTalk 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, for future reference, mentioning which country you're from will help people understand your question -- when you mentioned "our constitution", I almost told you to not worry, since my constitution has never had a right to property in it. --ByeByeBaby 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information about 'The Lucy Nation' (band) ??

When I was traveling though the heartland to Hawaii in the summer of 1999, I bought the soundtrack to the second Austin Powers movie, which I liked. In the years since I got the release, I have wondered about a band called The Lucy Nation. They contributed the song 'Alright' to the album. Does anyone here know: (a) anything about them and (b) what happened to the group? From searching USENET, AMG, and Amazon, here's what I have found:

  1. The members were/are Anna Nystrom, a Swede; and Andy Cousin (spelled in some sources as 'Andy Cousins'), a Brit.
  2. Cousin (or Cousins) was in a group called 'All About Eve'.
  3. A debut album, On, was released at the same time as the Austin Powers soundtrack. (Amazon has a lising for it.).

As it stands now, the three things above are all I have been able to find. I have not been able to find any listings in Napster (paid) or iTMS for this group.

After all of the above, I'm stuck. If anyone can help, that would be good! - Thanks, Hoshie | 12:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's not much to it really. Nystrom and Cousin were the only members and did everything (wrote, performed, mixed, etc.). They released On in 1999. It was just a short-lived side project for Cousin, who was a member of AAE and continued with them after he and Nystrom stopped recording together. Nystrom disappeared, from what I can tell. violet/riga (t) 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skyline (2)

http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4an6.jpg

Could you tell me which city this skyline is taken from?...I thought Sydney just can`t find the exact pic.

Definitely Seattle, see here for instance. digfarenough (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
With the Space Needle front-and-center like that, it can't possibly be anything else. --Serie 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of 11th day of the month for terrorism

There was 9/11 in New York, DC, PA. There was 3/11 in Madrid There was 7/11 in London and in India. One could even consider that maybe the airline bombings just "thwarted" by British police were intended for 8/11.

What is the significance of the 11th day of the month?

The London bombings were the 7th, thus somewhat scuppering that link. Madrid was more likely intended as specifically two-and-a-half years after Sept.11, rather than for an arbitrary date. So we end up with one arbitrary, one used because of the first one, and one unknown. The significance looks a little more tenuous... Shimgray | talk | 13:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The head of the London International Centre of Strategic Studies was asked that question on the radio this morning, and said that terrorist organisations were basicly not bothered by dates and anniversaries. DJ Clayworth 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that some Islamic fundementalists are interested in dates and anniversaries. Just as an example of that kind of thinking among academics, check out the op-ed in the WSJ from 8/8/06 that mentions how August 22nd might be significant to Iran and that the presidency may have "catastrophic intentions" for that day this year. I thought that perhaps these dates had something tied to a religious calendar or that maybe there was evidence or intentional tying. Obviously, I'm mentioning completely different groups of people with somewhat different goals, but it's worth noting that dates shouldn't be written off as un-meaningful.

I think that WSJ piece [1] mainly illustrates that the author, Bernard Lewis, is a totally insane propagandist. He leafs through the Islamic calendar, picks an interesting day and says this "might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world". No further evidence is given. David Sneek 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's all about the individual group. Black September had a thing about anniversaries, but al-Qaeda doesn't seem to care, although they did care about the World Trade Centers (as, apparently, that was something very important to billionaire Osama...I'm still waiting to find out what business deal he had there went wrong). The individual groups and individual cells could proclaim an anniversary, but, generally, they are seeking the best opportunity and timing for their attacks and won't get to choose a particular auspicoius date. Geogre 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering there are hundreds of terrorist attacks all the time, a 1/31 chance of choosing the 11th would make many interpretations open to question. --mboverload@ 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to the numerologists. The one I wonder about is wether it is a coincidence that in the US style of writing the date of the WTC/Pentagon attack it is equal to the US alarm number. Sounds like they were 'ringing the alarm' for the US. DirkvdM 06:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The London bombings were actually 7 July not 7/11. The theory is that that refers to the phone-pad 707 (for SOS). Jameswilson 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And the plane bombings were most likely not planned for the 11th anyway. DirkvdM 08:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
9/11 was important, since 911 is the emergency phone no. in USA.nids 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This question arose a while back, and I pointed out that in the west, the number eleven signifies a victory that is achieved at the last possible moment, as in the expression "the eleventh hour". Formal hostilities ended in WWI on November 11, 1918 at precisely 11 o'clock (11/11 at 11:00). The allied victory, and the destruction of the (Muslim) Ottoman Empire was also considered a major setback by Muslim fundamentalists in their quest to conquer the world. In the '90s Osama bin Laden himself often refered to "eighty years of humiliation"...obviously refering to the destruction of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. Each year, the US honours its war heroes on Veterans' Day, as does much of the Commonwealth commemorate Remembrance Day on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month (11/11 at 11:00). It should also be pointed out that despite the fact that the 11th of a certain month in the Gregorian calendar is likely to be meaningless to Muslims, this wouldn't be the first instance of Muslims using the calendar of their victims to plan an attack. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt chose the 10th of Tishrei of the Jewish calendar to launch a surprise attack in 1973. This was chosen because this day is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, devoted to fasting and praying, and therefore Israel would be in its most vulnerable position. I admit that this entire theory is extremely far-fetched, and I myself doubt that the 11th is of any relevance to the terrorists. All I meant to do is point out the fact that the number eleven has great meaning attached to it in the western world. Loomis 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The "eighty years of humiliation" thing is not quite that. The point was that the Allies in WW1 had encouraged the Arabs to rebel against Turkish Ottoman rule (Turkey was allied with Germany) - "Lawrence of Arabia". etc. But in 1918 the Arabs of the Levant werent granted the independence they believed they were due in exchange. Instead, the area was split between the British and French mandates so they ended up being ruled by Christians. In their view they were double-crossed, which is why they alwys go on about British treachery. The post-1918 period also saw the beginning of British intervention in Iraq and the Gulf. Jameswilson 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point that I wasn't aware of. However bin Laden, being both a Muslim and an Arab, is clearly more, if not entirely devoted to his religion (Islam) and is barely, if at all devoted to his Arabic nationality. His base of operations up to 9/11 was Afghanistan, a radically Muslim, but not at all Arab country. And now he's apparently somewhere in either Afghanistan or Pakistan (another Muslim, but not Arab country).

That would lead me to believe that he wouldn't at all be opposed to Ottoman (Muslim but not Arab) rule. It would also seem to follow that he'd be rather indifferent to a conflict between two Muslim forces, one Arab, and one Turkish. All that would seem to matter to him would be which of the two were more radically Islamic, and which of the two would be the most conducive to the formation of a fundamentalist Muslim empire.

It would only seem to me that if bin Laden had any grudge against any of the actors in WWI, it would seem to be the Arab "nationalists" who helped to destroy the Ottoman Empire who would be regarded as the most treacherous bunch, for they were the one's most responsible for putting an end to some 1000+ years of Muslim rule. At least that's the way it would appear to me, WWI and the Ottoman Empire aren't quite the subjects for which I have any particular expertise. Loomis 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Seven Oaks with the metis

Hello!

Do you happen to know any of the names of the men who where killed in battle by the metis in the Seven Oaks conflict on June 19th 1816.

Also your help and any comments on a man named William Linklater (originally from Orkney and in the employ of the Hudson Bay Co )would be greatly appreciated.

best regards

Maureen

We have an article on it: Battle of Seven Oaks (1816) but it lists few names. Rmhermen 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The lives thus uselessly sacrificed by Semple's unmitigated mismanagement were his own, those of his officers--Doctor White, Secretary Wilkinson, Captain Rodgers and Lieutenant Holte, and the only comparatively wealthy colonist, Mr. Alexander McLean, besides those of three other colonists and fifteen Hudson's Bay servants, whose names are not to be found in any of the histories mentioning the massacre. Only one of the North-West levies, Batoche, was killed, and one, Trottier, wounded. Could not the names of those who perished with him be discovered and graven with that of Governor Semple on the monument which has been erected at Seven Oaks? That neat, but inconspicuous, monument is about a quarter of a mile outside the city limits on the east side of the old "King's Road," between old Fort Garry and the existing Lower Fort Garry--in fact on Main Street North. It is just south of Inkster's Creek, and reads thus:

    SEVEN OAKS.
   Erected in 1891 by
   THE MANITOBA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
   Through the generosity of
   THE COUNTESS OF SELKIRK
   On the site of Seven Oaks,
   where fell
   GOVERNOR ROBERT SEMPLE
   and
   TWENTY OF HIS OFFICERS AND MEN,
   June 19, 1816.
Cowie, Isaac (1993). The Company of Adventurers: A Narrative of Seven Years in the Service of the Hudson's Bay Company during 1867- 1874 on the Great Buffalo Plains, pp. 53-4. EricR 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Could i interest you in a Mr Magnus Linklater, Chief Trader at Fort Garry, Kildonan wife and two daughters, from the same work?EricR 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mystery of UK in sport participation

Hi,

Could you please let me know why the United Kingdom (UK) participates as separate nations of England or Scotland in some sporting events such as World Cup Soccer/Cricket but participates as UK in some other tournaments such as World Cup Hockey or the Olympics?

Thanking you in advance.

Regards Saikat Ghosh

Probably because there's separate "associations" (sports governing bodies) for football and cricket (Scottish Football Association and the FA, for example). I don't know who governs cricket in England, but Cricket Scotland governs Scottish cricket. Don't forget Northern Ireland and Wales have their own football associations too: the IFA and the Welsh FA. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Where does that leave Northern Ireland, with just one and a half million people? D othey ever get to participate in anything (of importance)? DirkvdM 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In some sports (football) they get their own team, some they're with the UK (Olympics) and some with the Republic of Ireland (rugby union). A nice mish-mash! --iamajpeg 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

to make matters all the more strange, in the olypics we're not the UK, we're great britain (our 'tag' is GBR) so does northern ireland just not compete?200.179.190.140 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the team competes as Great Britain and Northern Ireland, abbreviated to GBR. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] transport and communication

ancient and modren means of transportation and communication


Oooh, ooh! I know this one. "Were less efficient than modern ones?" Geogre 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Were the modren ones also less efficient than the modern ones? DirkvdM 06:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Darn, you caught my logical loophole! The modern ones were more efficient than the post-modern ones, that's for sure. Geogre 12:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check out transportation, Roman roads, communication, etc.--Pyroclastic 19:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ancient means of transportation: Walk, run, beasts of burden...
  • Modern means of transportation: Motor vehicle...
  • Ancient means of communication: Talking, writing...
  • Modern means of communication: Fax, telephone, e-mail...

Errr...is that what's being looked for? - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Hugo Quote

I would like to know which litary work the following quote came from and what does it mean:

"He who opens a school door closes a prison."

Could it's origin be this from Les Misérables:

In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there are no happy men. The true division of humanity is between those who live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the former. That is why we demand education and knowledge.[2]

?EricR 21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not (in this form) in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, and also not in Pierre Ripert's Dictionnaire des Citations de la Langue Française. It may be one of those made-up quotations that keep circulating. --LambiamTalk 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the density of attribution on google, I think it's legitimate, but I think it's just something he said, probably not from one of his works. I couldn't find the context, though. --Bmk 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Google books gives inconsistent attributions to the french terms in different books, as "la maxime - une école qui ouvre, c'est une prison qui ferme", "paroles de Victor Hugo - Quiconque ouvre une école, ferme une prison.", "le proverbe arabe - Chaque fois qu'on ouvre une école, on ferme une prison" (unless Hugo came from Arabia that night). It is maybe in his book Choses vues ? -- DLL .. T 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's that song?

Image:Unknown song.JPG

Does anyone know what this song is? It's often played as a dance song, and this melody line is sung by several people. Thanks! Dar-Ape 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it this? It's from Kernkraft. [[3]]

Edit : oh yes, it's Zombie Nation by Kernkraft 400 (I think it was a hit in 2000).

I am surprised you were still looking when already in possession of that melody. Maybe you will be interested in Musipedia :[4]

I didn't even have to copy what you gave me, just type Up (U) Down (D) and Repeat (R) and compare the results!

Evilbu 20:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

it's in f minor though, no? not that it matters there since there are no Gs in the melody. --Alex.dsch 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Nation. My Band plays it ;) Viva La Vie Boheme
It is indeed Zombie Nation; I've checked on iTunes. Thank you very much, especially for the Musipedia website! What a fascinating search engine... Dar-Ape 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, it is not F Minor, it is B flat minor. Viva La Vie Boheme

[edit] Killing non-muslims during offensive warfare

BRITISH police have arrested 24 people over a plot to commit "mass murder" by blowing up aircraft flying over the Atlantic to the US, but there are reports up to ten suspects are still on the loose.

The arrests came as tough new security measures brought chaos to airports on both sides of the Atlantic overnight in what US President George W. Bush described as a stark reminder his country was at "war with Islamic fascists".

My question is this: Why is it that in the generic Islamic theology the killing of non-muslims during offensive warfare is morally acceptable? I can understand killing during purely defensive warfare but I have trouble understanding killing during offensive warfare. Ohanian 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The answer to your question is simple:what's 24 backwards? 42, so there you go... 42--152.163.100.72 00:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what that response means. However, the terrorists and the clerics that send them on their missions have pretty much ignored the Quran and made up their own religion. Other parts, like this idea that women must be covered from head to toe when in public, were also made up by them. These clerics and leaders should all be arrested. In Muslim countries, I believe they should be executed for blasphemy, because they "subverted Islam". Specifically, many Salafis seem to be among the worst offenders. StuRat 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
i would just like to correct stuRat here. most of these missions are covered in Islam, like covering for women from head to toe when in public, not in the Quran but in Hadiths. and as generally accepted, Hadiths are integral part of Islam. I could not find anything that terrorist do for which they could not find justification in Quran or Hadith.nids 10:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The Hadiths are an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Mohammed never said that everyone needed to do exactly what he did and reject anything new, this is just how later Muslims misinterpreted Islam. Christians could have done something similar and concluded that everyone should dress like Jesus, and nobody should ever marry, since Jesus didn't, and the only valid professions are carpentry and fishing. Mohammed was perfectly capable of telling people what rules they needed to live by, and did. There is no reason anyone should guess what he "meant to say but didn't". Most of the way Mohammed lived was due to his Arab ethnicity, not Islam. Thus, the Hadiths are used to enforce Arabic values, such as the extreme suppression of women, which predated Islam, on the Muslim world. They therefore are actually spreading pre-Islamic pagan values. StuRat 23:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
StuRat, really! 42! DirkvdM 06:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally find that people are people first and religious second. Sure, some people are Muslims, and some are Christians, and some are atheists, or whatever, but mainly, they're people, and they generally do the same cruddy, destructive, hateful things that people always do, regardless of the creed that they profess in moments of convenience. That may not seem to answer the question, but it does for me. --Bmk 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

After writing that, I wanted to moderate it a little - some people get stuck with a pretty raw deal in the world. It's also human nature not to sit down and take a beating from life, so people feel the need to do something, and usually the easiest thing to do is to pull the trigger. --Bmk 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt the qoran contain a passage along the lines of "you may fight you non-believing neighbours until they submit to muslim rule" though this was never intended to be in the physical sense (i.e. Non Violent greater Jihad) though there are disagreement in certain sects about which is the greater jihad, that off the mind body and soul, and with the pen and tongue, though some consider holy war the greater jihad. And some (a minoroty of a minority of a minority) then consider merciless killings of no-believers to be jihad, and then a minority of these believe there is an on-going jihad with the western world. Philc TECI 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One view I have heard expounded is that terrorist acts are seen as a part of a war to get the US and its Allies to stop imposing their will on the Arabic nations (especially Iraq of course). That would be defined as a defensive war. Not commenting on the correctness of the view, just reporting it. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The page has, unsurprisingly, been subject to one shitstorm after another, but you will presently find on Islamic extremist terrorism some relevant Qur'anic verses that deal with the issue of killing non-combatants. Marskell 17:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I dont knw much of the Quran but all I can summarize is that no religion preaches killing of innocent people, or people for that matter.The fanatic leaders are using God-fearing helpless people to do their bidding.This is what Hitler did, only this is worse.As I would like to put it "Violence does not bring Silence!!!"--Xandercage 1987 10:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)