Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 6

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 5 Humanities desk archive August 7 >

Contents 1 Jewish Beliefs 2 Question about the Beaker culture 3 "All Is Vanity"-- C. Allan Gilbert-- What does it mean?? 4 Music videos 5 Religious question, marriage between Roman Catholic and Lutheran 6 Our ancestors looked like this? 7 Explaining various political systems to a child. 8 Saturday Night Live Sketch 9 Porn cave paintings 10 Spy novels abbreviated titles 11 quote from nietzsche 12 Tittitainment 13 Muhammad Ali 14 16th century latin poet 15 Humanity: Extinction of Indegenous Languages 16 Titanic 17 WAR AND HUMANITY 18 Jews under Romans for dummies 19 Big Brother UK question... 20 Lines from Literature 21 RECALL OF A MAYOR 22 Rastafari and views on masturbation

[edit] Jewish Beliefs

Do the Jews believe in Hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.241.212 (talk • contribs)

I do believe that it is mentioned in the Old Testament, therefore, the Torah, so probably. But that is a just an idea I made up seconds ago. Might want to check elsewhere... Viva La Vie Boheme

If they didn't believe in hell, why would they practise Judaism?--Shantavira 09:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Old Testament is actually rather vague on the afterlife, but see Sheol... AnonMoos 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious beliefs are frequently associated with retribution. Jehovah takes off his protection and the sinning Hebrew nation falls immediately to their enemies'hands. Personal afterlife retribution is less stressed on in the book. Now you may find reference to flames of hell in quite ancient Christian authors : maybe an old fashion coming back. --DLL 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't believe in hell, at least not how Christianity concieves it. It's more of a temporary place where our souls go to become educated about the Torah and God's way. There's no punishment involved and in a short time you end up in heaven. Pyro19 18:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the "Hell" that we seem to be discussing here is a rather Christian concept (with due regard to any other religions that may share, or even predate, this Christian concept). Asking whether Jews believe in "Hell" is almost like asking about which of the very many understandings of the Eucharist Judaism ascribes to. The question is irrelevant. The Eucharist doesn't apply to Judaism in any way. I wish I could come up with a better analogy as I'm not really satisfied with that one, but that's the best I can think of at the moment. All I can say is that the Jewish conception of the afterlife is incredibly difficult to describe, and radically different from the Christian.

So do the Jews believe in "Hell"? The short answer is no. The long answer would be far too difficult to answer in a few paragraphs, indeed even in an entire volume of books.

As for the follow-up question by Shantavira, specifically: "If they didn't believe in hell, why would they practise Judaism?" Maybe simply because we feel that Judaism gives us a guide as to how to live our lives in the most proper, ethical and moral way? Maybe because we believe that following these simple morals and rules leads to happiness and fulfillment in this life, nevermind the next? Maybe, because we feel quite simply that it's the right thing to do? Maybe simply because we love God unconditionally?

Do human beings really have to be "bribed" into leading moral lives? ("Be good and you'll go to heaven...be bad and you'll go to Hell") Is the carrot-and-stick, punishment-and-reward, damnation-or-salvation approach really necessary? Are humans ultimately that base and selfish that they'll live decent lives and treat each other with decency and respect only if there's some sort of big pay-off in the end?

I really have no idea what awaits me in the afterlife. And to be honest, for now, I really don't care. I just try to do what seems to me to be the right thing to do, the most decent thing to do. The rest I leave up to God. Loomis 00:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Judaism specifies that while there is some Divine reward and punishment in this world, the majority comes in the world to come. Judaism further believes that it's very easy for both Jew and non-Jew to reach heaven; it's more a question of how great your reward will be in the world to come. --Dweller 10:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Still though, Judaism seems to a lot more focussed on "this" world than most other religions. True, there is some discussion of the afterlife, but its main approach seems to be sort of "yes, the better person you are in this world, the better your fate will be in the world to come, but for now let's just try to focus on your behaviour in this world". Well, at least that's what I get out of it. Loomis 13:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article: Jewish eschatology#The afterlife and olam haba (the "world to come"). External link: [1]. --Mathew5000 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a lot of people wonder aloud what Jewish faith says about the afterlife (specifically heaven and hell as the Christian tradition holds) and I always thought that it would make sense that there was some idea there, as they simply believe the Messiah is yet to come, not non-existant. As another wrote, the Hebrew scriptures DO mention sheol. As for the person asking why they'd be Jeish if they didn't believe in hell, I think the idea is that you would have respect for God's wishes enough to follow them even if there WASN'T a punishment, and if there IS one, it's the same way a father would punish a child. But maybe that's just my take on things... Russia Moore 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not know who will read this since it is a week old but I will say it any way. The Christian concept of heaven and hell differs. The reality of it is the same as the Jewish heaven and hell. Isaiah 50-51 hints to it. However it is beyond our understanding. Jesus asks his deciples how they will understand when he speaks of things to come after this life on earth when they do not understand when he speaks of things that pertain to this life here on earth.( I will look for the specific verse and post it later) Jesus then speaks about things in parrables. What he is doing is relating things that we are not cappable of understanding to us in a way that we can understand. For example: We are told that the streets of heaven will be made of gold. Why? The answer: The most valued thing in this life is money i.e. GOLD. The most valued thing here will be so meaningless in heaven that the streets will be paved in it. In todays terms gold is compared in value to asphalt. It does not necessarily mean that the streats will be paved in gold, but they could be. It is the same way with hell. Nobody knows what it will be like. It is described to us in a way that we can understand. Any time I've heard someone get asked what is the worst, most painfull death they could imagine the reply is allways burning to death. The consequence of rebelling against God is to experience the worst, most painfull death forever. But the truth about both heaven and hell is that we can not understand it. And Judaism is the root to Christianity. What is true for them is true for us. What is true for us is true for them. Actualy truth is true for everybody. Personaly I hope the Universalist view of the afterlife is correct.

With all due respect to the entire Christian faith, though Christianity may have been derived from Judaism, Judaism was simply not similarly influenced by Christianity.

The Christian concept of heaven and hell is entirely Christian. Judaism simply does not share that concept. Loomis 07:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the Beaker culture

Is the Beaker culture just simply a movement of a way of building things/making things, or actually a people? Or is this simply not known yet? Rainsey 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The WP page says all : either some invading people or just a fashion for pottery design. And the answer could be found. We have to find graves linked with those beakers around Europe and tell if the remains, if useful, share enough genes to be considered as a unique people. What do you think ? --DLL 16:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure-- personally I would believe it be more feasible (sp?) that it was a cultural movement, or cultural "fads" if you will. There were no evidences of fighting found with these "Beaker culture" remains were there? --Rainsey 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "All Is Vanity"-- C. Allan Gilbert-- What does it mean??

What does this image mean? Life is intertwined with death-- but what does this mean?

Can someone help me out here with a straight explanation... I don't understand what an "intertwinement between life and death" is... sorry if this sounds stupid..

gelo 03:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, you do know that the phrase is from the Bible, specifically Ecclesiastes 1?

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3 What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?
4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full: unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
8 All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

The theme is that nothing man does is permanent, all earthly beauty fades, all things pass, and nothing really changes.

The juxtaposition of a woman enhancing her beauty by applying make-up at her vanity (a dressing table) with the death's head formed by her mirror, the cloth on the vanity, and her head and its reflection is thus a reflection of the theme and a pun in its own right.

Such reminders of death (momenti mori) were a popular moralizing theme for Victorians.

Does this help? - Nunh-huh 03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! It does! So, in effect, it's saying that all human activities are vain, and death will come to all, regardless, thus death is not the opposite of life, but a part of it?

gelo 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it<g>. Sort of the visual equivalent of an epitaph: "Stop ye travellers as you pass by, as you are now, so once was I. As I am now, soon you shall be - prepare yourself to follow me." - Nunh-huh 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

it's also making fun of the woman with the pun. To her, all is vanity (her table), to the spiritual who are familiar with the mirror, her vanity is vanity (meaningless).

I would say that an alternative interpretation (which I prefer) is that there are more important things to do in life than "vanity" (such as worrying about one's appearance). The Jade Knight 05:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music videos

Hey guys. I’m working on my next short film which will have no dialogue.. Only the music and the visual elements—hand-in-hand—working to accentuate each other and tell a story without words. So it’s basically an experiment in storytelling without words. It will be five different musical pieces, interconnected, to tell a story. Each of the five musical pieces composition will reflect the themes, messages and ideas of the segment.

I was thinking it might be a good idea to check out some good music videos, as they seem the closest to the idea I have. Could anyone suggest any music videos I can check out? Preferably, I’d like to see videos that, like my idea, have the visuals and music truly working together to tell a story. And also, preferably, I’d like there to be none or little speaking/singing- I’m trying to stick with the idea of my project. Or maybe a music video that is just plain different and unique? Whatever- I’m here to do my research so just throw whatever you can think of at me!

THANKS!

gelo 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One that comes to mind is Radiohead's video for Just, directed by Jamie Thraves. It's available on the Seven Television Commercials DVD or from various online sources. It is described on the Wikipedia article for the song here.

Watching silent movies might also be helpful. Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's Der letzte Mann for example, a 90 minute film which uses only one intertitle. Many good fragments from silents can be found on YouTube: Greta Garbo in The Temptress, Renée Falconetti in La passion de Jeanne d'Arc, Lillian Gish in Romola, the Marseillaise scene from Napoléon by Abel Gance, or, if you're interested in the very early stuff, Un homme de têtes by Georges Méliès. David Sneek 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing sounds similar in some ways to the video-music work of DJ Spooky, specifically "Rebirth of a Nation", which remixes The Birth of a Nation to illbient music. I'm afraid that I don't know if it's available outside of live performances, but it was very cool to see. Ziggurat 22:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you can spend a bit of time ballet is telling a story with out speech.You could get some ideas how to portray various moods from that.hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 08:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Religious question, marriage between Roman Catholic and Lutheran

Hello, I am a Roman Catholic in good standing with my church. I have been dating my girlfriend for 7 years and we are getting married in a year. I have booked my church but I have yet to speak to my priest about it. My girlfriend is a Lutheran, some people have told me she does not have to convert to Roman catholicism but I am not sure. If we had a choice I would rather she not convert, it feels quite weird for us to make such a big deal over to religions that are in essence very similar. I know I could talk to my priest about it, but I kind of want to get a hint at what he is going to say before I talk to him... I asked her what sacrements she has had and she said she was baptized, but she also told me that Lutherans do not get confirmed or have communion... Can anyone verify this for me and or tell me the Roman Catholic churches position on marriage to Lutherans?

Thanks in advance!

Hanez

You won't have any problem marrying a Lutheran - unless she's divorced. She'll need proof of baptism, but a Lutheran baptism is just fine. Probably conversion will be suggested, but it won't be insisted on. And of course it will also be suggested that the children should be Catholic, and that it will be better for them if both parents are too. The level of pressure will depend on which priest you deal with. But you do need to talk with your priest soon because there are all kinds of things you two have to go through ("pre-Cana") and a year is not too soon to start. Don't leave it until it's too late. (Lutherans do not consider marriage a sacrament; Catholics do, which is why the Catholic Church requires that marriage of a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian be a Catholic ceremony, while recognizing the marriage of two non-Catholic Christians as valid. - Nunh-huh 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, this level of understanding of Roman Catholicism is well over my head, yet I do have some purely anecdotal evidence (i.e., I don't understand it at all, but I do know the facts to be true). I have a work colleague who is not Christian at all, in fact he's Jewish. He met a practicing Catholic girl and they were married with the complete approval of the church. From what he's told me, all the Catholic church insisted upon was that they be married in a Catholic ceremony, and that the children should be raised as Catholics. The fact that he wasn't Catholic (or even Christian for that matter) didn't seem to be any impediment at all, so long as those other two conditions were met. (Of course in my workmate's case, it was the groom who was the non-Catholic, whereas in your case it's the bride. I doubt that's a factor, but as I said, this level of understanding of Catholicism is well over my head, so all I could do is just convey all the facts, however irrelevant that that last one may be, and hope it's helpful). Loomis 23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lutherans have communion. They don't have confirmation (pretty sure). Does it really matter? BenC7 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on that. Almost all denominations that practice infant baptism also practice confirmation. DJ Clayworth 15:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My boss is a Catholic in good standing and he married a Hindu who was born and raised in India until she came over (to the U.S.) to go to the university. I never thought to ask about those sorts of specifics but he's still a Catholic in good standing and she's still a Hindu and is active in her religious community. I know they had two ceremonies, but that's about all I know. -LambaJan 04:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our ancestors looked like this?

On Australopithecus#Evolutionary_role it shows the species as having dark brown skin (like an African?), and it shows the female as having smallish, not very pendulous breasts. I wonder if details like that are from the artist's bias and need to comply to contemporary expectations or sensibilities, or if it's the most scientifically accurate pictuer of them based on the information we do scientifically know about the species? Where can I learn more about what my direct ancestors looked like, and how they lived day to day?--Sonjaaa 06:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The details of the reconstruction are basically plausible guesses. For example, given the range of occurrence, skin pigmentation as protection against the sun is very likely. We have very little direct knowledge of the everyday life of australopitheci, and little agreement among scientists. It is not necessarily true that they were direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. --Lambiam^Talk 07:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another picture... Neanderthals#Tools --Sonjaaa 07:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Neanderthals aren't our direct ancestors (don't know about yours, though :) ), although there is speculation that there may have been some mixing with humans. The relative breast size of human females is rather unique, I believe. The only other animal that I can think of is the cow, but they are specifically bred for that purpose. There is a theory that males started preferring big breast when people started having 'frontal sex' (what is that called?), as an alternative to the buttocks. So when our ancestors started having bigger breasts depends on their sexual habits, but I don't know how we could find out about that. But see 'prehistoric porn' below. DirkvdM 08:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the australo drawing suggests they were monogamous. Perhaps that is misleading or was accurate or?--Sonjaaa 13:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody really knows. The illustration does not really suggest this, in my opinion; but in any case we know just about nothing about the culture(s) of people that far removed in time. No written records, no buildings, extremely few pictorial works of art, mainly bones and tools; not much to go on. --82.207.241.131 04:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We can make educated guess based on modern relaives of species. Chimpanzees live in small groups with a dominant male and female. The male may mate with most of the other females in the group while other males have less opportunity to do so accoring to their rank. In human societies we sometimes see this same framework. Monogamy may be an ideal in Western society, but it is rarely found in practice. I suppose the picture could be construed as monogamy, but you may notice that is not mentioned in the article at all. More likely they were somewhere in between what chimpanzees practice and what modern humans practice, though really there is little difference, esp. when you compare human sexuality with Bonobo sexuality.

As for the dark skin, hair and breasts, that is somewhat artistic license, but there is science behind it. Skin color is related to the amount of UV so it would be determined by where the species was living. People in central Africa tend to be dark so we figure our ancestors there would be too. Breasts are thought to have developed in response to walking upright. When a human female walks upright her sexual organs are effectively hidden and somewhat removed from the sexualized buttocks region (which is the only sexual region you would see if we were on all fours.) The breasts mimic the buttocks and create a sexual display. Nowimnthing 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What I love about the Australopithecus picture is that he's quite clearly not listening to a word she's saying. --Dweller 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• He-"Hey baby,wanna come and see my really cool cave paintings?"

She-Thinks*oh,that old one!* hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 08:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Also, the picture doesn't necessarily imply monogamy. Perhaps it was a one-night-stand? Or perhaps a summer fling? Loomis 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is directly related to racism. The thought that the further we evolve the more distinctly different we become from our ancestors leaves the Black man lagging behind. They have dark skin and a flat nose just like the picture. But that is not correct! Hitler and Stallin both thought that they were part of the more evolved human race. Natural selection(they planned on eliminating the inferior races.Jews and Blacks etc...) would further evolve the moddern world they hoped to create. Besides, most of these miissing links are helld together with 10% fact and 90% imagination. Learn it so you can pass but, do not become brainwashed!!! "All men are created equal" is not just a dream, it is a reality! In order to be equal we must be created that way.

You are talking about Eugenics not modern evolutionary theory. We know they had broad flat noses because of the width of the nasal cavity in the skulls. Modern evolutionary theory does not support Teleological views, Africa and ancient Africans are mothers to the human race. Nowimnthing 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, that isn't really the idea of different looks amongst races. Darker skin is suited well to hotter regions with lots of sunlight (you are less likely to damage your skin) and heights are also linked to lifestyle. It's not just about how different one looks from one's ancestors. Russia Moore 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question I've often wondered about. Yes, darker skin is suited well to hotter regions with lots of sunlight as you are less likely to damage your skin, but on the other hand, lighter colours reflect light while darker colours absorb it as heat. It would seem, therefore that the reverse should apply: Dark skinned people should fare far better in cold climates as their skin would absorb more heat from the sun than light skinned people, while dark skinned people would seem to be a lot more uncomfortable in the unbearable heat, as their dark skin would absorb that much more heat than their light skinned counterparts. Can anyone explain this? Loomis 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See Human skin color, specifically: "Dark skin protects against those skin cancers that are caused by mutations in skin cells induced by ultraviolet light. Light-skinned persons have about a tenfold greater risk of dying from skin cancer under equal sun conditions." Ziggurat 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misread my question. I recognize the health issue. I mentioned it. What I was curious about was the assumption (based on the fact that "white reflects light, black absorbs it") that very dark skin must absorb an incredibly greater amount of heat than light skin, and would therefore seem to be rather ill suited to hot climates, from at least the point of view of physical comfort.

I happen to be a rather pale skinned person. In exteremely hot weather, I'm surely more vulnerable to skin diseases than darker skinned people. But on the other hand, given the "white reflects light, black absorbs it" fact, I often wonder how incredibly uncomfortable it must be for very dark skinned people to stand the heat, as it must affect them so much more than it affects me. Further, the evolution aspect of it doesn't seem to make sense. I would have imagined that evolution would come up with a better solution for the problem of skin diseases than to simply give certain people very dark skin, which would only seem to make living in extremely hot climates all the more unbearable. Loomis 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look closer at the skin color article you will see that it is more a matter of absorbing vitamin D that is the driving force in skin color rather than skin cancer. The comfort of the person in the heat is not really a factor in evolutionary terms because being uncomfortable does not mean you cannot reproduce. Nowimnthing 12:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Much of the human body is devoted to physical comfort. Our bodies produce endorphines to help us deal with discomfort. Why would evolution have developed endorphines if not because living in discomfort has a negative effect on survival. If our darked skinned ancestors living in very hot climates were so constantly incredibly uncomfortable, they'd likely spend most of their energy trying to find some cool cave to escape the heat, and that much less time reproducing. I would imagine that the answer is entirely different: Just as the Inuit people have evolved in such a way so as to be far less vulnerable to the incredibly cold environment they live in, very dark skinned people must have developed some sort of lessor sensitivity to the great heat they live in. That would be more of a reasonable explanation, in my opinion. I just don't know how this particular mechanism works. What I'm quite sure of though, is that dark skinned people don't simply "suffer" in the discomfort of the heat more than light skinned people do. That just wouldn't make evolutionary sense. Loomis 02:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining various political systems to a child.

Does anyone know where I could find clear, relatively simple descriptions of major political systems (socialism, capitalism, communism and fascism for example) suitable for explaining such concepts to 7-12 year olds?

Have you tried the Simple English Wikipedia? David Sneek 07:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea that existed. It's perfect -- thanks!

[edit] Saturday Night Live Sketch

I would like to know the name of a particular SNL sketch. It was of a couple deciding on a baby name but kept picking each other's selections apart finding ways for kids to make fun of the names. They finally settled on (pronounced) azz-wee-pay, spelled ASSWIPE. Hehe funny skit. I'm pretty sure Kevin Nealon was in it but unsure what role he played as there was a man at the door at one point. I am also unsure of the season. --Unohav 1 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)uno

This sounds similar to a real name I encountered. This person was from Africa, but living in the US. Their name was pronounced ASH-O-LAY, but was, unfortunately, spelled Asshole. StuRat 05:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And whose fault was that? Undoubtedly a lackwit immigration official getting his rocks off with a juvenile 'phonetic' translation.--Anchoress 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. I'm just thinking that when they named him in Africa, they didn't bother to check if there were any bad meanings of the name in other languages. StuRat 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it was Nicholas Cage.--Anchoress 08:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) BTW I googled '"saturday night live" "baby names" skit' and it was easy from there.--Anchoress 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porn cave paintings

Inspired by my answer to the question three posts up, I wonder if there are any porn cave paintings. Porn#History doesn't go back further than some 10,000 years. But it is said that in the history of new media, one of the first uses has always been pornography. So by that reasoning there should be porn cave paintings. But I have never heard of any. And if there aren't any, does that say something about the way we view sex? Has something essential changed about that during the last 100,000 years or so? DirkvdM 08:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well isn't the definition of pornography graphic images intended to inspire a sexual response? So if we don't know why the paintings were created or if any body fluids got generated over them we can't really know, can we?--Anchoress 08:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One theory about cave paintings is that they were made by Shamans and were religious in nature, so that might help to explain the absence of images of sexual activities. In modern societies there's not a lot of pornography in places of worship either. David Sneek 09:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some temples in India, I believe ... DirkvdM 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why have pornographic cave paintings when you have Venus figurines?-gadfium 09:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In a society in which there was virtually no privacy and probably very little inhibition or sexual guilt (cf. other primate societies), there would be no need for porn.--Shantavira 09:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Petrkovice statuette" is a carving of a normal-looking female human torso (not greatly obese or with exaggerated breasts) which is over 20,000 years old, but whether its original function was closely analogous to anything we would understand as "porn" would be pure speculation. You can see one photo at [2] (I have a scan of an even clearer photo, but it would not be free use for the purposes of Wikipedia, so I can't upload it). AnonMoos 12:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't they find a stone age dildo some time ago? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4713323.stm --Sonjaaa 13:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The girl's gotta have it!--Anchoress 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's highly polished". I wonder if that was caused by extensive use, or do I have the causality the wrong way around now? DirkvdM 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shantavira may have a good point with the lack of privacy. It is very common for present day humans to at least cover their genitalia (although there are exceptions), which makes depictions of them likely. If that is done now (is it?) and it wasn't then (a dildo is more of a tool than a depiction), then maybe there would have been little inhibition. Funny how one can conclude things from not finding something. DirkvdM 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spy novels abbreviated titles

I have been given a quiz to try and identify spy novel titles from their abbreviations. I've looked at 15 or so novelists' bibliographies, googled etc and solved all the other titles except these two - C.T.Z and E.O.T.N I'm stuck now and would really like some help please! Thanks. --Halcyondaze 09:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Halcyondaze

CTZ = Code to Zero--Anchoress 09:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

EOTN = Eye of the Needle.--Anchoress 09:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Anchoress, you're my Wikipedia Google Queen!--Halcyondaze 11:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No probs!!!--Anchoress 12:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Temuzion 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)== I am the Wikipedia Google Queen ==

Wikipedia Google Queen.--Anchoress 09:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And I am the Lizard Queen. Wanna dance? Natgoo 10:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, no thanks. But thanks for the invite. Good luck with that. ;-)--Anchoress 11:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, if you set it up like this it might eventually work: Wikipedia Google Queen.

Uhf...! THat's so nice of u to invite us in such a way...no thanks n good luckTemuzion 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] quote from nietzsche

"someday all of this will have as much meaning, no more and no less, as speculation as to the masculinity and femininity of the sun."

what is the correct version of this quote, and from which book or essay is it from?

thank you!

It's from book I of Morgenröthe: "Als der Mensch allen Dingen ein Geschlecht gab, meinte er nicht zu spielen, sondern eine tiefe Einsicht gewonnen zu haben:—den ungeheuren Umfang dieses Irrthums hat er sich sehr spät und jetzt vielleicht noch nicht ganz eingestanden.— Ebenso hat der Mensch Allem, was da ist, eine Beziehung zur Moral beigelegt und der Welt eine ethische Bedeutung über die Schulter gehängt. Das wird einmal ebenso viel und nicht mehr Werth haben, als es heute schon der Glaube an die Männlichkeit oder Weiblichkeit der Sonne hat."

Translation: "When man gave all things a sex he thought, not that he was playing, but that he had gained a profound insight:—it was only very late that he confessed to himself what an enormous error this was, and perhaps even now he has not confessed it completely.— In the same way man has ascribed to all that exists a connection with morality and laid an ethical significance on the world’s back. One day this will have as much value, and no more, as the belief in the masculinity or femininity of the sun has today."

David Sneek 12:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tittitainment

--217.184.221.141 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tittitainment: Where did that term originate? AFAIK some US Official once said during the seventies or eighties that there would not be work for everyone anymore, and that the people would instead have to be fed and kept amused with something or other and "Tittitainment".

I remember this, but I have no idea who or when it was. I have a faint Idea it was Zbginiew Brzezinksi befor he came into office, but I simply do not know and cannot find it. However, the term "Tittitainment" is used as if everybody knew from where it originated.

Any Help /Ideas?

Anyone sure of the quote and origin?

--217.184.221.141 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)JH

From this page:

[The authors of The Global Trap quoted] President Jimmy Carter’s former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as coining the phrase “tittytainment” (“tits” plus “entertainment”) to explain how the elite 20% are going to take care of the remaining 80%. Tittytainment does not refer to sex so much as to the milk from a mother’s breast, coupled with a lot of distraction. As the authors wrote: “Perhaps a mixture of deadening entertainment and adequate nourishment will keep the world’s frustrated population in relatively good spirits.” (In the Australian context, cable television, casinos and popular women’s magazines spring to mind.)

WP had an article but it looks as though it's been deleted. But wait! A handy google search may yield further information. Natgoo 11:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted as a neologism. The German Wikipedia still has an article. Maybe it shouldn't have been just deleted, but merged into The Global Trap. --Lambiam^Talk 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The deleted article can still be read at answers.com. Maybe it should have been kept; a neologism, yes, but coined by a very influential guy and lots of google hits. David Sneek 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, boys! great help. I guess I just didn't know how to spell 'titty' correctly :-)

[edit] Muhammad Ali

Where does the footage used in this Apple ad (>1 MB) originally come from? Ali is mumbling the following: "Back up sucker! Back up. Come get me sucker, I'm dancing, I'm dancing! Follow me! No, I'm not there, I'm here! Whup. Here! Here! You out, sucker!"

I'm quite sure it was shot in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1974, during Ali's preparations for his fight against George Foreman; the footage was used in the documentary When We Were Kings. David Sneek 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought so, but who shot it and why? Where was it first used, shown? Any clues?

In this interview, When We Were Kings director Leon Gast says he was in Zaire at the time at the invitation of Don King to make a documentary, mostly about the music festival that took place there too. When George Foreman cut his eyebrow the fight was postponed for six weeks, and during that period he shot a lot of material for the film. According to Roger Ebert's review from 1997, "the original footage has waited all these years to be assembled into a film because of legal and financial difficulties". David Sneek 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 16th century latin poet

Who wrote the poem that ends with "haec mea pathenop"?

Could it be that the last word is Parthenope, the name of one of the sirens of Greek mythology? Then it makes sense, meaning "She is my Parthenope." No clue, though, as to the poet. --Lambiam^Talk 18:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanity: Extinction of Indegenous Languages

Sometimes, I wonder why people are afraid of loosing their indegenous local languages. What do we really stand to gain by holding tide to a language that can be understood by only a few people? ---196.3.61.3 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Humanity looses much when one person dies. Much more with a language ? A language holds rich data about the life and ideas about the world and civilisation and ways of thinking of plenty of people. Even if those people were relatively few, there is a kind of original thinking that was alive in their tongue. The idea that it is a great loss is quite new : the same goes with extinct plant or animal species and we try not to reduce biodiversity. --DLL 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it would be a great thing for humanity if we all spoke the same language. Many of the misunderstandings between cultures could be eliminated if we did. StuRat 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true sci-fi aficionado. People from Mars always speak "Martian", so why shouldn't people from Earth all speak ... why, English of course. :--) JackofOz 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Or Esperanto. That would eliminate even more misunderstandings (and thus wars?). But the 'richness' of natural language, which I used to think was a load of bull for poets and the like, does have value, as illustrated by the different languages. The fact that a word for something (or expression or grammatical construct) exists in one language but not in others says something about the people who speak/spoke that language. A 'world language' would have the ability to express all those things, so it would have to be a very flexible language, and I don't know if something like that is possible in Esperanto. It certainly isn't in English, as several issues at the language ref desk show, such as a word for this decade (noughties?) or people in their twenties (twenagers?). There are better examples, but I can't think of any right now. DirkvdM 11:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "twentysomething" for a person in their twenties ? Two of the most obvious missing words in English are for "male cousin" and "female cousin", which each have their own word in most languages, even American Sign Language. StuRat 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting theory. People need no encouragement to neologise, as the burgeoning of tech-speak demonstrates. If separate words were really needed for these terms, how come nobody's come up with ideas yet? JackofOz 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Every word has a meaning, and no two words are ever quite the same - they have a subtly different shading to them, a different emotional weight. People with a wide vocabulary will choose the word they want to exactly reflect their meaning - sometimes they'll want to say they are thoughtful, other times pensive, other times contemplative. The same broad concept, but with different shades, each one describing a different thought, a different feeling. Because we 'think' in language, using the different facet of any given concept means you're talking about a different aspect, a different thought process. Now imagine that magnified over all the languages in the world. Whenever a language dies, a whole method of thought, a way of viewing the world is lost, and can never be regained. The ability to communicate is important, but the multiplicity of world views is far more so, and whenever we lose one of those thought processes, it is a tragedy that can never be undone. Mnemeson 14:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is related to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis: that language informs and determines knowledge of the world and behaviour within the world. Lose the language, and you lose that aspect of knowledge. You could think of it as the linguistic equivalent of encouraging biodiversity. It uses many of the same arguments. Ziggurat 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As an utter History geek (or "nerd," I'm told is the proper term), I think the loss of a language makes a lot of History basically disappear. If no one knows the language, all of the knowledge held in that language is lost forever. If you were to find your great-great-great grandmother's diary, would you want to read it? If your grandfather had a favorite fairytale as a child but forgot details of it, would you care to know what the tale was like? Everything could be translated to another language, but we'd still be missing something very special. Russia Moore 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic

Having seen the 1997 movie several times, I've wondered: Why didn't many more people survive by jumping into the sea with floating objects? I would have used a wooden door, a desk, a chest of drawers, a table or a chair. How about a bathtub? Yes, the north Atlantic was cold, but these objects would have prevented immediate drowning. What am I missing here? Roy

You're underestimating hypothermia...

do a google search of "temperature of water titanic sank" and you'll see the water temp was ~32-34F, perhaps colder.

it's easy to survive for a long time in water without drowning. Just lie limp and float, sticking your head up when you need to breath. The water temp is what'll get ya, even in "warm" waters.

To illustrate the problem, I once had a head full of shampoo when the hot water stopped completely (broken pipe, it later turned out), so I attempted to rinse with cold water, around 40F. I nearly passed out immediately. Now imagine trying to survive for hours in even colder water. StuRat 05:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In the sea your head would be above water, which would certainly help. The thing to do (but then most passengers on the Titanic wouldn't have known that) is to put on as much (layers of) clothing as you can. You might think that the clothes getting wet would make that pointless, but it isn't. In stead of air, water would be trapped between the clothes, reducing convection. And if the clothes are woolen, that would mean air trapped in the clothes as well and extra material-to-material boundaries (what is that called?), also reducing heat conduction. Still, it is best to keep as much of your body out of the water, so something to climb on would certainly help. A bath tub sounds good, but I don't see anyone undoing the plumbing and dragging it onto the deck. Deck chairs tied together or anything made of wood sounds better. I suppose most people would have been in such a panic (or, conversely, blindly trusting those in charge) that they wouldn't have thought straight. Even when you know what to do it can be difficult to remember it when you're in a panic, as I once noticed when our house was on fire. DirkvdM 11:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the book accessible right now, but one of the classic mountaineering books has a listing of how long you can expect to survive unprotected in various cold conditions. For someone treading 32F water with their hair dry, the expected survival is 50 minutes. If you've got a life vest or other flotation device so you can curl up to minimize surface area, you gain another 15 minutes. Someone with a thick layer of body fat (50+ pounds overweight) gains another 20 minutes.

The other big hazard from cold exposure is improper first aid. The obvious treatement for extended immersion in cold water is to warm them up as fast as possible, but this just sends a flood of cold blood into the still-warm body core, likely leading to death. --Serie 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you ever remember what that mountaineering book was called, please let me know! It sounds fascinating. Ziggurat 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity also plays a role. Inuits can survive much longer in those conditions due to their short frames and the thicker layer of fat under their skin, and possibly some other, yet unknown, biological adaptations. StuRat 10:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• People did and survived if they could get to a lifeboat but the cold not drowning was the killer.hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 08:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
• According to Titanic a full two hours passed between the final sinking of the boat and the Carpathia rescuing the first victims, so I don't think holding on to a scrap of wood could have helped much.

If we're talking causes let's not leave out greed and reckless disregard for human life. Nowhere near enough lifeboats on that ship. And when the crew of the Titanic's sister ship, the Olympic, went on strike to demand more and better lifeboats in the week after the Titanic went down, the White Star Line had them prosecuted for mutiny. Not wanting to drown in the freezing North Atlantic with half the men in your family for £5 10s a month was a criminal offence, you see. Can't locate the figure for the number of crew that died, but I can tell you for certain that they had they suffered worst proportionately. Working-class Southampton was decimated. Sorry - I do have a bee in my bonnet about this subject! Mattley ^(Chattley) 09:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WAR AND HUMANITY

Its really funny but serious that world leaders willingly creat a conflict situation, refuse to resolve it, fight a war over it, then meet to resolve it after enough damage and monumental losses have been incurred, and finally vote in or donate enormous sums of money to repair the damage, thereby denying the needy by natural happenstance the resources/aids. Why do the security council of the United Nations met only after the damages have been done? Why do they not meet when prior notices/warning have been issued? Did they not know of the activities of the hezbullah or the warnings of the IDF? Or do we say the world is unipolar, headed by just one country? By passing resolutions condeming wars and other uninforceable resolutions, the UN security council should not think they are doing anyone a favour; it is only deminishing its relevance. We now know that Might is Right. Dont we think so?

Despite the fact that I likely agree with many of the political views of the above anonymous questioner, I can't help but ask him/her to rephrase the above paragraph in the form of a question, (apologies to Alex Trebek!) Despite its formally innapropriate and only partially intelligible form, there does indeed appear, in my opinion, to be quite a lot of truth hidden deep within it. It's understandable, though, if the above contributor is new to wikipedia, to be not entirely familiar with the format of the RefDesk. Loomis 22:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I take the question to be "Why can't the UN do more to prevent foreseeable conflicts, like the one caused by leaving Hezbollah armed and on the Israeli border ?". I would add other examples like the failure of the UN to act in Rwanda and Darfur. I give two reasons:

1) Many countries within the UN simply don't care how many innocent people die. China, for example, always votes for their own economic interests, no matter how many must die. They have a veto on the UN Security Council, so nothing can happen without their approval.

2) Many other countries within the UN care about how many innocent people die, but are not willing to use force to prevent it from happening. This includes most of the countries in Europe. In the real world, it is often necessary to use force to prevent genocide, terrorism, etc.

StuRat 05:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The UN made a decision a long time ago, with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, and many times after. But the competing parties took turn in not accepting them. At first the Palestinians didn't accept it because they, in stead of the newcomers, had to migrate. But then Israel started taking even more. Just compare the two maps to the left. On top of that, Israel has moved even further, taking the Golan heights from Syria. Then building a wall in Palestinian territory, destroying much of the infrastructure in that land. And now they are invading Lebanon. Will they retreat this time? As for why the UN don't act here, the major reason is that the US are using their veto power in the UN Security Council, as long as Israel has the advantage. At least, according to a US correspondent on Dutch tv. A core problem is indeed that the UN tries to rely as much as possible on consensus and a that is something that is hard to reach worldwide. If they didn't, they could find themselves at war with specific countries, and that would go against the UN goal of uniting the world in peace. DirkvdM 11:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

DirkVDM, you took part in answering my questions here [3] It was discussed there that the UN in 1947 proposed democratic rule in both parts and forbade expulsion of Arab people from the Jewish part and vice versa. If you say different things here, why didn't you disagree there? Evilbu 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That I said something somewhere doesn't mean I follow the entire discussion. Anyway, it doesn't take official expulsion to get a people to move. Give them a hard enough time for long enough and they will leave of their own accord. Pretty much the reason Jews went to Israel, by the way. Except that, ironically, things only got worse there. DirkvdM 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews under Romans for dummies

Hello,

I have been going through Wikipedia but I can't seem to find an answer for these questions:

1. When did Roman occupation of Israel end (roughly)? Now I know this is probably gonna be a hard question with all those provinces like Samarie and Galilee. My teacher told me long ago : the Romans occupied it from 70 BC to 70 AC. Is that correct??

2. If you ask a random Zionist (thus I am asking for their perspective) when was the bulk of Jews expelled from the land they claim now as Israel. I mean that is basically the Zionist claim : Jews lived in the current nation of Israel and where expelled by the Romans? What date would you give? 70 AC? 110 AC?

Thanks,

Evilbu 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Roman occupation merged seamlessly into the Byzantine Empire. They lost the area to he Persians for a short while but regained it at Battle of Nineveh (627) but lost it promptly to the Arabs at the Battle of Yarmouk. As for the average Zionist, who knows, but it was never quite a complete process. MeltBanana 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The expulsion of the Jews from Israel actually happened in many stages spanning many centuries, and involving not just the Romans, but other conquering peoples as well. It's generally understood to have started as early as 586BC by the Babylonians, to about 136AD by the Romans. But even then, some Jews remained, so it's really hard to put a single date for this event that actually spanned many centuries. I don't think many Zionists would point the finger at the Romans alone.

You refer to this as the Zionist "claim". I'm not saying that Zionism isn't an extremely controversial subject, I just don't think that much, if any of the controversy involves a questioning of whether these events are true. They're pretty much regarded as undisputed fact by pretty much all historians. That's not where the controversy lies. Most of the controversy, from what I understand, lies in the fact that all these events happened so long ago, and in the meantime, other Arab peoples (basically what are referred to today as the Palestinians) settled in the land and called it home for centuries. It seems to me that the controversy is centred mainly on that fact, that is, do a people who were kicked out of their homeland so long ago have the right to come back after such a long absence, during which other another people settled there? The argument has its merit, which is why most Zionists are willing to accept the "two-State-solution" idea, recognizing that though the Jews may have been unjustly expelled, it can't be ignored that the Palestinians, having lived there so long, have something of a claim to the land as well. Loomis 10:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And Evilbu, I just have to say that I admire your self-deprecating attitude -- by indirectly refering to yourself as a "dummy" on several occasions. But just to be sure, I find your questions to be very intelligent and thought provoking. Most of all, I admire the fact that you have the self-esteem to be open and honest about subjects where you feel lacking in knowledge. You're no dummy, Evilbu, and I tip my hat to you. Loomis 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother UK question...

As an avid (rabid?) Big Brother fanboy, I've noticed in the past couple of weeks, as the series draws to a close that several of the housemates (inmates?) have been making comments about how they're dreading having to leave the security of the Big Brother house at the end of the series and how the outside world now seems big, scary and uncertain to them. When the thing started, most of the HMs were saying the exact opposite. Anyone know if there is a name for this particular psychological effect? I seem to remember reading something about a condition along those lines somewhere, sometime... --Kurt Shaped Box 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Stockholm Syndrome? Skittle 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss as to the proper term for it, but what I'm pretty sure of is that the phenomenon you're speaking of played a very essential element in that excellent film The Shawshank Redemption. In the film, (based on a book by Stephen King,) the inmates in a maximum security prison have a discussion about that very phenomenon, where they call it "institutionalization". Unfortunately that term doesn't seem to really capture exactly what you're speaking of. The wiki article on it barely touches on that aspect since the term "institutionalization" has so many other, more commonly associated meanings.

In the film, one inmate named "Brooks", released after spending a lifetime in prison, simply couldn't psychologically handle his extremely unfamiliar and terrifying newfound freedom, and commits suicide as a result. In the book (but not in the film) this phenomenon was underscored in a scene where a bird, raised in the captivity of the prison, is later found dead after being released into the wild.

In fact as a child I had a parakeet. At first the young energetic bird couldn't stand to be in her cage and got all excited when we'd take her out. She'd fly all around the house flapping her wings in an apparently ecstatic display of her freedom. After a time though, we'd open the cage door, but the poor little thing would show little or no interest in leaving the familiarity of her cage.

In any case, I strongly recommend the film if you haven't seen it. At the very least, the wiki article on it does an excellent job at exploring these concepts. Just be forewarned that it contains a plot "spoiler" in case you haven't seen the film yet. Loomis 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Stockholm Syndrome is where captives sypathise with their captors, as far as I can see it is not a result of the isolation. Philc _T^E_C^I 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that whatever it is called has the word "dependence" in the name. I tried searching for "institutional dependence" which brought up a hodge-podge of related pages, though none which clearly indicated that it was an established term. There is something called "Post Incarceration Syndrome" which one guy online seems to be promoting as the term for this (see [4]) but the guy's page makes him look like a crank (when you have to use selective quoting in order to establish that you are well-established, then it usually means you are not well-established). --Fastfission 01:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

in the case of Brooks in The Shawshank Redemption, it wasn't just that he was institutionalised - it was also that he'd been in prison for over 50 years or something like that and technology had progressed so much that the effect was even greater on him. he'd never seen a motor car and suddenly he was surrounded by them, so he didn't even know how to cross the road. of course there are still similarities but the BB housemates spend only 3 months in there, not 50+ years. --Alex.dsch 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sure it's all relative. I'm not saying that the housemates would go about hanging themselves. They'd probably just feel a bit disoriented and anxious for a day or two, after which all would return to normal. They just had a very tiny dose of what Brooks had. Loomis 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lines from Literature

I've had a phrase stuck in my head for a while and I can't remember where I read it or if I am remembering it correctly; does anyone recognize the statement "We live in a old calamity of the sun"?

I found it; if anyone was curious I was thinking of the line "We live in an old choas of the sun" from Wallace Stevens' "Sunday Morning."

[edit] RECALL OF A MAYOR

--192.231.128.67 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)How do they recall a Mayor and how do they start and numbers needed to recall a people? Do they combine total votes for person? The Mayor that won only garnished 688 and the other person 630 only. At first election commission said the community must have 459 signatures for the petition to start the recall and to meet the numbers. Two day before the recall election, the election commission change the number to 907. After the recall election yes to recall garnished 583 and no garinish 307. But they declare the present Mayor the winner because they didn't meet the 907. Due to the changeed because they added both the present mayor and the other person total votes, but only one person is being recall. Also can you tell me the meaning of official office, can it mean the current mayor now or because both ran they total both votes for that office that the number when up and they said they just following the 9th circuit Supreme Court law. I thought that who ever comes out with the highest number is declared.

1) Nobody knows what specific case you're referring to, since you forgot to specify the city and state.

2) In the U.S. (as far aas I understand it), it's generally state law which governs. A state may or may not allow cities the power to specify their own recall election regulations, while the federal courts would usually only get involved if there are general voting-rights violations. AnonMoos 04:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Recalls are a tricky process. To recall a mayor, you generally need to do some things, such as:

Organize a petition drive (the petitions have the charges against the person). The number of signatures needed is calcuated in some areas based on how many people turned out to vote the last the recalled person was elected. If the number of signatures is vaild, a vote is taken. If a majority of the voters vote 'yes', the mayor is recalled. If a majority vote 'no', the mayor stays. In some places, the mayor is replaced by the President of the Council or by a deputy or vice mayor. For more read this article from Spokane, Washington: [5]. I hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie | 11:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rastafari and views on masturbation

Is masturbation forbidden by the Rastafari faith? --81.76.114.239 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)