Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 July 11

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.

< July 10 Humanities desk archive July 12 >


Contents

[edit] Eugene V. Debs

Was Debs an atheist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.199.245.249 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

  • I am not sure, but every socialist is not atheist. See Hugo Chavez.--Patchouli 05:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What you say means that there are no atheist socialists. You probably mean "not every socialist is an atheist". This is a very common mistake in the use of English. DirkvdM 07:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No it could just means that there is at least 1 socialist that isn't an atheist. AllanHainey 12:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, you've fallen into the same trap as the person writing it. it can't. --81.111.23.140 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • \exists {S}→not A. There exists a socialist who is agnostic/deistic/religious.


Contrapositively, \exists {A}→not S. There exists an atheist who isn't socialist.--Patchouli 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say 'there exists', but 'every'. So "for every socialist it is true that he is not an atheist" (don't know how to produce the symbol). So S → not A. DirkvdM 07:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL--152.163.100.72 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ehm, I know about the math tags. Just not the code for 'for every'. I tried variations of <math>\for every</math>, but none worked. DirkvdM 07:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] christianity exclusive?

I've heard a lot of people tell me the famous Jesus-quote which goes somethign like "no one can get to the Lord except through me". Why do people think this makes christianity intolerant and exclusive? It doesn't seem so to me because it doesn't proclaim Jesus as the only method to get to God, just that he is necessary.

THanks, Kyle.

As with many religious statements, ambiguity leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Without knowing the context of that particular line (I find context very important in interpretting things Jesus says), I would personally say that both interpretations seemed semantically valid (that is, just because on the word combinations), though I am not qualified to say which of them are more theologically valid (based on what Jesus was all about, considering him as a coherent thinker). I'd caution though that I doubt it is this particular line which people think makes Christianity intolerant and exclusive, and one should also probably draw a line between "things Christ said" and "modern Christianity", which in my mind diverge pretty heavily. --Fastfission 04:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The quote you are looking for is from John 14:6. Crypticfirefly 04:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't proclaim Jesus as the only method to get to God, just that he is necessary. These statements appear to be contradicting each other. Could you please clarify what you mean? BenC7 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the difference between saying "the only way to get to God is believing in Jesus" and "Jesus helps you get to God no matter what". In the first interpretation Jesus is exclusive, in the second he is not; in the first, he is setting up a condition to pass, in the second, he is just telling you how things work out. --Fastfission 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I see. I don't think the second version is an accurate interpretation of "No-one comes to the Father but by me". Jesus was saying that others - Buddha, Muhammad etc (to use recent examples; I know they weren't alive at the time) - won't help you get to God. He is also saying that you can't get to the Father on your own; you must come through Jesus. BenC7 01:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
yes, that is what I was asking. Whether or not other faiths are thought to have some supporting truth in them or not. -Kyle
No. Otherwise Jesus would not have said it; he would have been happy for people to come through whoever. He also said "Narrow is the way that leads to life, and few are they that find it". If all roads led to God, this statement would not be true. BenC7 11:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No. No.

I think the meaning is a bit less obvious. Who was Jesus? He was a man. The statement that "I and the Father are One," isn't necessarily exclusive IF one takes the view that the divine isn't transcendent rather...it's something to which everyone is knowingly (or unknowingly) entitled. Thus the statement under discussion (..."but by me") could actually mean "through self-knowledge or self-actualization." - PeeWee

Not in a million years. Please don't attempt to try to understand what Jesus was saying without reading the rest of the New Testament, or the Gospels at least. Following Christ is not about self-knowledge or self-actualization, it is about God. Jesus was also fully God and fully human, not just a man; He identified himself with titles that only belong to God - i.e., "I AM" and "I am the First and the Last". BenC7 01:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into any religious dispute with Christians. Jesus said what he said, and that sits perfectly fine with me. However, with all due respect to Ben, I don't understand your satement: "It doesn't proclaim Jesus as the only method to get to God, just that he is necessary". I'm confused. I don't see any logical difference between the two propositions. I'm at a loss as to the logical difference between "X is the "only" way to get to Y", and "X is "necessary" to get to Y". The two seem to me to be logically identical.

Actually, the more I think about it, if the statement were made in reverse, it actually may make logical sense: "X may be "necessary" to get to Y, but is not the "only" requirement to get to Y." In other words, "Believing in Jesus may be necessary to get to God, but other requirements must also be met, such as, for example, being a good person, making believing in Jesus a neccessary requirement, but not the only requirement". Still, the passage doesn't seem to read that way and I feel I'm making an undue rationalization. It would be great if someone would clarify this for me. Loomis 22:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement that Muhammad can't lead people to God is rediculous and incredibly historically inaccurate. Muhammad came to a race of idol worshippers and because of Him all of these people who didn't believe in God believe in both God and Jesus now. Not only that, but before they were lacking in virtue and refinement and respect for others, but after Muhammad came they built cities and created technologies that were previously unimagined in their innovation and virtue. While the Christians were forcing conversions on Jews and Muslims, the Muslims were allowing the Jews and Christians to live in their regions without being persecuted. The history of the Iberian peninsula shows this clearly.
I think the statement was about the time. It was about how following the current philosophers or previous teachers of His day would not guide people to God, but only He would. I think it has been taken out of context by many Christians to, with a simple phrase, disregard entirely a Teacher who has undoubtedly led and entire population to God. -LambaJan 19:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First, the statement that Muhammad or Jesus or anyone can or can't lead people to God is neither true nor false, factually speaking. It's merely a matter of faith; what you believe.

Second, I was always under the impression that Muslims believed that Islam was an ancient religion begun by Ibrahim and Ishmael but lost, only to be rediscovered by Muhammad, through divine revelation by God Himself. A race of idol worshippers? Don't you mean by that a race of people who had lost their birthright, the covenant their forefathers Ishmael and Ibrahim had made with God? Loomis 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, the statement that confused you was in the original question; I was asking for clarification, as it didn't make sense to me either. BenC7 11:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ooops Ben! I hadn't realized that by using italics you were merely restating the contradictory statement, not making it. That said then, I totally agree with you. The statement makes no logical sense. Loomis 11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Loomis, He led them to believe in God and Jesus. At the time the majority of them did not. The Kabaa, which they believe to have been built be Abraham and Ishmael, was full of idol statues until Muhammad came and destroyed them.
Removed part that was more heated than I generally like to be. You can find it in the history if interested. -LambaJan 03:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) -LambaJan 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can a footballer pick up the football with his feet?

Can someone playing Association football pick up the football and carry it around with his feet as in hopping around with the ball? If it's allowed, has anyone done this in play? Laws_of_the_Game only forbids carrying with the hands. --Kaasje 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so, but doing so without losing control of the ball, and maintaining a decent pace, is a lot harder than it sounds. --ColourBurst 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure, it's allowed by the rules, but it's also a really pointless move. It's not at all difficult for someone to just boot the ball free, and if you're hopping around like that, you're not exactly in a good position for any defensive maneuvering. I guess you could do that if you really wanted your teammates to hate you or something. Really, coming up with scenarios like this isn't too hard -- hell it's also legal to lie face down on the field, you your feet to somehow maneuver the ball on the top of your butt and try and score a goal simply by flexing your mighty buttocks, but that's not gonna do you any good either... -- Captain Disdain 06:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember a controversial incident in a major match about 20-30 years ago - I think it was a European club game, but I can't recollect any other details (anyone else?). A side had a free kick just outside the penalty area. One player stood slightly in front of the ball and, holding the ball between his feet, flipped it up behind him. His team-mate, standing just behind him, volleyed it into the net. There was a big hoo-ha as to whether this was a valid goal or not, and in the end it was disallowed, because of the rule that states that the taker of a free kick may not touch the ball a second time until it has been touched by another player. The referee came to the conclusion that the player who flipped the ball up must have touched it twice in order to flip it. --Richardrj 07:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A similar "flick" move occured in an Aston Villa FC match about 12 years ago. I seem to remember Andy Townsend was the "flicker" or the "kicker". I believe the FA outlawed this move post game

During the 2002 FIFA World Cup there was a Mexican player reknowned for avoiding tackles with bunny hops similar to the ones in the original question- I can't remember his name though--Downunda 22:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That was Cuauhtémoc Blanco. The "bunny hop" move is mentioned in his article.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk   22:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Watch it here. David Sneek 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm gonna have to eat my words when it comes to the move's usefulness, obviously. =) (Although a single instance of it, as seen in the video, is not the same thing as jamming the ball between your legs and hopping around for an extended period of time.) -- Captain Disdain 05:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Interesting concept. --Proficient 02:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of poem?

I suppose I should put a spoiler warning here. I thought this was an amusing poem when I first (and last) read it in a schoolbook about 45 years ago. It made fun of the type of woman who would keep trying out different religions, never happy with any. The last line was something like "God knows which God she'll worship next".

I kinda sorta remember it was written in the 1920s or 30s.

Google, Yahoo and, yes, even Wikipedia were no help at all.

Does anyone remember the name and/or author, and, if past copyright, where I could find it on the 'net.

Thanks Bunthorne 04:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It couldn't possibly be The Day after Sunday by Phyllis McGinley? (The last lines are: Benevolent, stormy, patient, or out of sorts. / God knows which God is the God God recognizes.) Crypticfirefly 05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Good try, thanks, but that's not it.

It may have had some outragous rhymes a la Ogden Nash. One of the lines named several of the gods ending with "Zeus or Zoroaster". Bunthorne 05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You could try asking the Poetry Library in London. Their website has a service where you can post half-remembered poems like yours. Chances are someone there will know it. --Richardrj 07:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Very longshot that it's a variant of The Vicar of Bray, but you might enjoy it anyway. Tyrenius 07:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Give us some more clues. So 1961. Do you remember anything else about the book or other poets/poems in it, or the subjects thereof? Tyrenius 07:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Richardrj, I'll give them a try after we give the Wikipedians a bit more time. Thanks.
Tyrenius, thanks for that link. I'm not sure if it's a variation of that, but I did enjoy the poem. When I first read it, I assumed that it was written by W. S. Gilbert. It sure sounded like his work.
The only thing I can think of about the book was that it was a textbook in New York state in either elementary school or Junior High. And it's more like (gasp!) 50 years ago. And I suppose it should be called "light verse" rather than a poem. Bunthorne 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depression

Any time I feel pretty or skinny I get depressed and I can't figure out why. If I'm around my Mom, this definitely happens. I'm 17 so I was thinking it could just be my hormones going crazy but I can't figure out why.

Sounds like hormones to me, as to why it'd be triggered by your mum I'd suggest that there is a whole lot going on psychologically as well as hormonally at that age & it will be related to your past experiences, sub-conscious, emotions, etc. One thought, is your mum of a different shape to you physically or more/less attractive/thin/fat? As you mention feeling pretty and skinny and the presence of your mum as causes of 'depression' it is possible that they are related. AllanHainey 12:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also society puts impossible pressures on women to be perfect.Don't be fooled by it,be true to yourself,you'll be happier in the long run.Wherever in the world you are,there is help there,not to get thinner/prettyier but to be more content and confident in yourself.Good luck!hotclaws**==(81.134.99.206 08:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC))
  • If you're going to use the wikipedia reference desk to try and diagnose a possible mental illness, at least use the science reference desk o: 152.163.100.72 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If you feel pretty or skinny, enjoy it. Be happy that you aren't ugly and fat, to be extremely blunt. :P --Proficient 02:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! You've got it all- only 17, pretty, skinny, and a girl! I wish I could be any of those things. Enjoy, princess!

[edit] new legal client

I have been badly hurt in a freak accident, I fell into a unmarked utlity slit trench and broke arms and shoulder in several places. The trench extended from a commercial store building site to the edge of a street where there should have been but was not a sidewalk. I am too badly hurt to see a lawyer yet but I have just started shoping for one on the internet. I recall hearing once that you should never hire a lawyer who is not willing to provide his clients with his tax payer ID number on demand but I can not remember why that is so. Anybody out there have any helpfull ideas for me? Thanks12:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)(Hobgoblin)

  • Isn't the taxpayer # same as the Social Security #? Also, shouldn't you instead want to be interested in the state bar #?

Moreover, I have heard car accident cases should be easy to handle. You need not a patent attorney.--Patchouli 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I assume you're in the USA. You should call your state's bar association. Just type in "Nebraska Bar Association" or whatever on Google and it should pop up. The state's bar association will provide you with the names of several lawyers, and you can be certain that none of those lawyers is subject to discipline for unethical behavior, and that all of the lawyers are at least competent in the area of the law that's relevant to you (which is called "slip & fall" tort). I would not worry about the tax payer ID number. What you really want is that lawyer's bar number -- that's the number that you turn around and give to the bar association if the lawyer tries to screw you.--M@rēino 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] where is this place?

Though relatively small in size, it's one of the most important, and one of the most used, and one of the most attractive ports on the entire continent.

Once great armies marched to the sea here - then boarding boats - they sailed east to conquer and pillage far away lands.

Where is this place?

Which is "the" continent in this context? — Haeleth Talk 13:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Don't know continent.

Sounds like it's going to be one of the Greek ports used by Alexander or one of the ports used by the Crusaders. That doesn't narrow it down very much, but going east to conquer suggests Alexander or Crusades. Geogre 13:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest a port, Geogre?

I'd have though that the use of the word east doesn't really give any help, after all the British, French & Dutch did do a bit of conquoring in the East. AllanHainey 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The question is really too vague, but if it's ports for sailing east to Crusade that you're after, it's difficult. For the mama of all Crusades, the First Crusade most of the soldiers went by foot. Some did embark from Italian ports, notably Bari and Genoa from memory. However, I think a better fit is with the Fourth Crusade, which set sail from Venice in 1202 and (spot the POV here) was a horrendous cock-up. Venice fits for "attractive"ness (most ports are pig ugly), it's "small" and "important". No idea if it's one of the "most used" though... mind you, if you count all the water bus traffic, it pretty much has to be the most used port in Europe --Dweller 18:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Venice would be my guess. 4th fits in a lot of ways, too. It is a tremendously bad thing, that Crusade, but it covers a lot of the really retched "conquest and pillage." The question has the armies doing "pillage," and the sacking that those Crusaders did would fit. Alexander did some pillage, but he was more Hellenizing, so I think Venice or Florence is it. Geogre 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Crusaders occasionally left from Marseilles, although I don't know how relatively small or attractive that is in comparison to Venice. Aigues-Mortes was built specifically to launch crusades but judging from the name it's probably not very attractive. At first I was thinking Durres but that can't be right. And if it's not for a crusade, maybe it's Aulis. Adam Bishop 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
4th Crusade is pretty unique in terms of the army departing as one from a single point, rather than converging via a proliferation of routes. Who knows how history would have developed had Byzantium been supported (which was the original purpose of the Crusades) rather than so drastically undermined. --Dweller 11:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe it's a trick question and the answer is "the shore".--M@rēino 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] most expensive?

What is the most expensive violin in the world? Please give date, model, and maker, preferably with a link. thanx

It'll be a Stradivarius. In fact, it'll be this one. --Richardrj 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's the Hammer, which was made in 1707. It's described further in Stradivarius#Named Strads and their Namesakes. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business or pleasure or should I mind my own beeswax (didn't want to use the word 'business' again...)

Why do airport staff ask if my visit is for business or pleasure? What's it to them? What do they do with my answer - do they treat me any differently either way? Is it the way that I answer rather than the answer itself? --Username132 (talk), UK or Netherlands 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I expect that they don't really mean it, they're just passing the time. If there must be a meaning, it may be that they want to see if you have a reason for going into the country (someone with no story may be an illegal immigrant or worse). —Daniel (‽) 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Also to see if your story matches up with your documentation - another way of checking that your reasons for visiting are legitimate. Natgoo 13:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Might it have something to do with the fact that tourist visas and business visas can work a bit differently? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think JPG is right again. If you're there as a tourist, you get a different amount of time in the country, and you are often travelling on a tourist visa. If you are there for business, you are expected to stay less time, and you have a different classification. Geogre 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I meant with my comment above - if you tell them you're there on business, but only have a tourist visa, you're likely to be dodgy. Natgoo 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
If this is immigration officials, rule #1 is be very polite, they can send you home again. If they ask this question, their might be a system of keeping count, because many countries would like this information for planning. Notinasnaid 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
If your passport shows your occupation as "international terrorist/freedom fighter" and you answer that you're travelling on "business" they may call security. AllanHainey 15:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, customs and immigration officials never make conversation to incoming passengers "just to pass the time", even if it sounds like it. As others have said above, many countries have restrictions for non-nationals working in that country, and require particular visas even for seemingly minor matters like journalism or business meetings. "Casually" asking if you're visiting for business or pleasure is a way of double checking your documentation is correct for the purpose of your visit. --Canley 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the Benny Hill sketch where Benny played an obviously gay character coming through Customs. He was extremely camp and had an outlandish hairdo. When he presented his passport, the official looked at his photo, looked up at Benny, looked back at the photo, and muttered "Hmm, been touched up". To which Benny replied, "Oooh, lots of times, darling". JackofOz 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If you're lying about your intentions the question might make you nervous. Even the slightest 'tick' might give you away to someonewho knows about body language. Are customs officials trained for this? That would make sense. DirkvdM 07:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Certainly it is not advantageous to like about the question. --Proficient 02:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Develop of Biblical canon

While this is a content dispute, the matter is regarding historical facts and thought that someone here could either put in a word regarding the conflict, or explain the history better. Please look at this diff:

The Roman Catholic Church officially recognized [1] the four gospels at the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397[2], where Pope Siricius approved a canon of the books of the Bible that were included in the production of the Latin Vulgate[3], an early 5th century translation of the Bible made by St. Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus I[4] in 382.

My understanding is that part of this information is factually inaccurate (and the supplied sources do not back up the statements either). First of all, the RCC didn't even exist in the 4th century. Second of all, the synods were not ecumenical, and it is wrong to say a church "offically recognized" canon based on those regional councils. I just want to know how factually acurate the above paragraph is, and what is right and what is wrong, and perhaps some sources to back it up. Talk:Gospel#RCC and canon is where the debate has been, but feel free to respond here as well.--Andrew c 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Synod of Carthage was recognized by the Christian Church, east and west, so far as I know. Therefore, it wasn't "ecumenical": it was all of the then-single Christian Church. Geogre 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is this that claims canon in the eastern parts of the Church was not settled for another 2 centuries. We have a number of sources (listed on the gospel talk page) all claiming the synods were regional councils, and did not have authority throughout Christendom. We have Metzger listing a significant number of synods and canon lists before and after the Synods of Carthage that recognize different canons than these synods. So do you have a source stating the scope of the Synod of Carthage (specifically regarding the authority of its decisions throughout the Christian world)? Maybe I am reading my sources wrong, or maybe there are a number of different views on this topic, but I've yet to find verifiable validity in your (or Simonapro's) claims. Sources, sources, sources! Thanks for your reply.--Andrew c 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I doubt the need for that paragraph in the article. I think it would only be worth noting if the RCC rejected the Gospels, which it hasn't. There is no mention of whether Orthodox or Protestant churches formally accepted the Gospels; so I don't think it is necessary to specifically state that the RCC has done so. BenC7 01:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Bhutan

Why does Bhutan not have any diplomatic exchanges with the United States? Is the relationship sour between the two nations?--Patchouli 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the CIA Factbook "informal contact is maintained between the Bhutanese and US Embassy in New Delhi (India)". I suspect that Bhutan is too small and unimportant to qualify for a full diplomatic presence, especially as building a terrorist-proof embassy in Bhutan would cost millions, perhaps billions, and the whole GDP of Bhutan is less than 3 billion US dollars. Therefore, it's just not worth it on a cost-benefit basis. StuRat 19:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Bhutan is largely represented by India in foreign affairs [5]. I've read that's why US relations with the kingdom are informal. Regarding what StuRat said, there are a bunch of little countries in which the US has no embassy, but the US is still considered to have diplomatic relations with them. In those cases, an ambassador in one embassy will also be credentialed to a country without an American embassy. -- Mwalcoff 12:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes there are several levels of diplomatic relations. Full embassies is the top level, consulates only is a lower level, and Bhutan is about the lowest level. StuRat 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The simple answer to the question is that India has historically and traditionally had suzerainty over Bhutan. This has carried on into the modern day. —Lowellian (reply) 07:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
India has existed for about 1/2 a century so I don't see where the "suzerainty" claim came from... It was the Tibetan Empire and then China. -- Миборовский 23:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Ector's wife

Did Sir Ector's wife have a name? If you answer, please add the original source for that name, if known.--Hun2de Correct me! 16:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, in any of the source texts (including the more recent adaptations of the story). She was good enough to 'nourish Arthur with her own pap' but not worthy of a name. Natgoo 17:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pub Kitchen Working Age

Does anyone know how old you have to be to work in a pub kitchen in the UK? And can people please provide links to their sources? Many thanks, --86.139.216.231 17:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a lawyer, but I would imagine that unless you are actually serving alcohol there are no restrictions other than the usual ones on child labour. DJ Clayworth 17:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I was told today at a pub you have to be 18, which sounded balmy to me; can anyone corroborate this? --86.139.216.231 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case right now it has changed from about 10 years ago. I think that any legislation governing this is likely to be local by-laws rather than any national laws (except those of child labour, working hours, etc). AllanHainey 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps the pub simply has a policy of its own regarding its employees. Or did they specifically state that it was the law or a regulation (in the "gee, we'd love to, but we can't" vein)? -- Captain Disdain 05:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Identify Latin American Author

I read a short novel about 30 years ago by an author from Latin America. The plot of the novel was about a man washed up on the shore of an island (escaped criminal?)where he sighted a villa. He bagan to observe the villa and its inhabitants and at some point relaized that they were film projections or holographs, memorized their repeated conversations, movements etc. and began to "interact" with them. Any ideas as to the author?

I don't know it, but it sounds an awful lot like the sort of thing Jorge Luis Borges would have come up with. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Bioy Casares and The Invention of Morel --Ghirla -трёп- 22:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1776

any informatoon anywhere on 1776 the musical? was made to a movie also

As so often happens in encyclopedias, the info can be found in our article on 1776 (musical) (which is also linked to from our article 1776) -- Ferkelparade π 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eritrea

At some point in the 70's or 80's, the U.N. attempted to deliver a massive food relief supply to Eritrea and the effort failed. I would appreciate any details about that incident, the date, the name of the group that created the food block and subsequent scandal, and the reason for preventing the relief to the starving Eritreans. Thank you. Marion

Did you read the article on Eritrea ? It doesn't go into much detail, but seems to indicate that Eritrea's war for independence from Ethiopia was the problem. Perhaps you can find more info at one of the links. StuRat 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ali

what is isomerric in musi c

See Isometre. --Canley 06:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheet music

I'm looking to buy some sheet music. The peice in particular is "Music For A Large Ensemble" by Steve Reich. There are some online stores that provide some of his other compositions, but not this one in particular. I was wondering if any of you musicians out there new if there was some kind of resource / organisation that sells sheet music of this kind, especially stuff that's hard to get hold of.

Or has it not been scored? :(

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005NSQT/102-9784041-8739324?v=glance&n=5174 --martianlostinspace 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


You linked me to a CD! %)

try sharmusic or lucks

sorry lol... was closest answer you've got so far, but.--martianlostinspace 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have a problem with it ethically, I'd suggest going to the music library at your local university or college and photocopying it. That's how I got a few arias from unknown operas whose sheet music was unavailable.--Anchoress 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Bankruptcy Bench Bar Conference

Hello, I was searching for information on the New Jersey Bankruptcy Bench Bar Conference online and was not able to find anything. Ideally, I would like to have a website that discusses this conference in detail, but if such is non-existent, I would appreciate any information on the history of the conference, when it takes place, who can participate, how to register, who visits this conference, etc. All responses will be appreciated. Thank you. ~Jenny~

[edit] Questions

Is there today in the world a country where torture is legal? And in the People's Republic of China is there capital punishment for opinion crimes? And for simple theft (after penal code of 1997)? --Vess 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For the second, try Capital punishment in China. Rmhermen 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of countries have de facto legalization of torture, just not de jure. The US Department of Justice actually redefined torture so that the stuff they did wouldn't be illegal. Emmett5 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of torture. If you defined imprisonment as torture then almost all the countries in the world. Ohanian 00:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The US? As in Guantanamo Bay. But I suppose that's what Emmett was referring to. Although they also redefined their borders (or something) to make this possible. DirkvdM 08:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ohanian's point is a crucial one. It depends on your definition of torture. It's been repeated over and over in the media that the US practices "torture" at Gitmo. Yet no particulars are ever mentioned. Without any further elaboration as to what practices they're referring to exactly, I'd have to reserve judgment as to whether the US is indeed "torturing" prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
Is electrocution torture? Of course it is. Are Mengele-esque practices such as placing a prisoner in a vat of water, and either increasing or decreasing its temperature until the prisoner provides the sought-for information, or otherwise boils to death or dies of hypothermia torture? Obviously.
On the other hand, is sleep deprivation torture? It's pretty damn close, but I'm not sure. Is 24/7 solitary confinement torture? In a sense, yes, but definitely not the kind of thing we think of when we think of torture. If, as Ohanian suggested, you consider mere imprisonment to be torture, especially imprisonment without the benefit of legal council for an indefinite period of time, then the US is certainly practicing torture at Gitmo by that fact alone, nevermind whether other forms of torture are also being used.
Is being subjected to certain forms of music torture? Well, it was for Manuel Noriega at least. Holed up in a church, American military forces finally broke his will and forced him to surrender to their custody by repeatedly playing Jethro Tull's Too Old To Rock 'n' Roll: Too Young To Die! on loudspeakers. Apparently, the excruciating agony of having to listen to that music (apologies to Jethro Tull fans) was too much "torture" for Noriega to handle. (If it were me, just play the same Celine Dion CD a few times and I'll confess to anything just to make it stop.)
I hope nobody sees the above paragraphs to be innapropriately flippant. Quite the contrary. Torture is an extremely serious issue, likewise, the accusation of torture is just as serious. I'm just trying to point out that the term torture can have a variety definitions ranging from absurd hyperbole (e.g. one saying: "that film was absolute torture to sit through") to very real torture (e.g. having electrodes attached to your genitals, and the power shut on).
At Gitmo, all we seem to have are vague claims of torture. (And, I must add, the vague claims of radical Muslims, for whom the knowledge of the mere existence of infidels is torture). Therefore, some actual detail as to what this "torture" indeed consists of would be extremely helpful before rushing to judgment. I'm not dismissing the possibilty that REAL torture is indeed being practiced at Guantanamo Bay. It's just that so far I have yet to come across any details as to what exactly is going on there. Loomis 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sleep deprivation certainly is a form of torture. Enough of it can drive someone insane. Which is more torturous, to mutilate someone's body or their mind?
The fact that international organisations like the Red Cross have a hard time getting into Guantanamo Bay is a dead give-away. What makes you assume those who compain about torture (if ever they get the chance) are radical muslims? You might have a look at The road to Guantanamo.
As a Jethro Tull fan, I grudgingly accept your apologies. :) DirkvdM 07:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and then there's the option of letting others do it for you. That is a (rather twisted) form of legalisation - you don't do it yourself. You just hand people over to others who you know will torture them. DirkvdM 08:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the Israeli Government didn't let the press into Jenin seemed to the world like a "dead give-away" that there indeed had been a "massacre" there as PLO propagandists such as Saeb Erakat had insisted, and, as it turned out, fabricated. Yet further investigation by the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch all came to the consensus that there was indeed no massacre whatsoever. Be careful what you assume to be "dead give-aways".
As for Jethro Tull, don't be offended, it was Noriega who couldn't stand them, not me. I'm ok with them, not my fave but certainly not torture. :) Loomis 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Event

Who put the bomb in Bombay? Ohanian 22:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny? It isn't. See 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. --Canley 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't get to declare something unfunny. You get to say "I don't find that funny" --mboverload@ 07:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was funny...I was going to say it was the same guy who put the dip in the dip-de-dip-de-dip. Adam Bishop 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Read the article and keep an eye on your newspaper. Last time I checked, no one claimed responsibility and the local police didn't know who did it yet. - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Who put the bay in Bombay? Who put the dam in Amsterdam? Who put the rich in Maastricht? And who put the shit in Shitay? (That's a place in China, it seems.) DirkvdM 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • "Bombay" is Portugese for 'good bay'. If the French had founded it, it would be called "Bonne Bay".--M@rēino 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] looking for a number one country songon a specific date

Are the number one song lists listed by week beginning or week ending? EX: If I am looking for July 26 1973, and the dates listed are July 20 and July 27, which one would be the one I need?

I am attempting to make a special cd of number one songs the day of a friends b-day and want to make sure it is accurate.

Thank you so much!!!

Assuming you mean in the US, I suggest going to a library and looking up Billboard magazine for the date in question. StuRat 03:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is they don't tabulate the results daily, only weekly. I'd say that July 27 is the closest, since it will be a summary of the previous 7 days' data.--Anchoress 03:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Edited to add: Although it could be looked at the exact opposite way; technically, whatever was the top country song on July 20 would still be on the 26th, kind of like how an outgoing public official is still in office even after an election, until the official changeover. So I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. If you travelled back thru time to that exact date and asked 100 people what the top country song was, anyone who knew the answer would say whatever had been true on the 20th of July; it's only after the data from that week is calculated that the new info becomes official.--Anchoress 03:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say on the 20th. The 27th records officially establish it. They 20th establishes what the top song was up until the 27th, including the 26th. But the above answerer is seemingly correct as well. --Proficient 02:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity project for learning German?

Does that exist... I'm very intereted in that :) Thanks.

Try adding your name at Wikibooks:Wikiversity:School of Foreign Language Learning, or reading wikibooks:German or wikibooks:BLL German. Ziggurat 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help w/Revels (images, audio clips...) A special plea to BOSTONIANS.

I've just cleaned up a messy disambig page, and turned it into a stub about Langstaff's Revels. There is urgent need for additioanl information, history, cities in which a Revels group is running, and so on. And, importantly, perhaps an audio clip? And some images from performances? Such an article is just the sort of thing WP can do well, while the paper folk can't. See the talk page for suggestions. Please help. Thanks. ww 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the best place to ask for help with articles. These should be directed to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, Wikipedia:Requests for expansion or Wikipedia:Cleanup as appropriate.--Shantavira 07:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Wilco. first time I've asked for this sort of help. ww 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)