Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 July 24

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 23 Humanities desk archive July 25 >


Contents

[edit] Flip Wilson joke

I found the following joke in the Wikipedia article about Flip Wilson. I don't get it. Could someone explain the punch line for me?

This is a story about a Roman. His name was Herman. His name was Roman Herman. The fad of the era was berries. People collected berries. They were a status symbol. One day, while Roman Herman was roaming the outskirts of Rome, he spied a berry. It was the most beautiful berry he had ever seen. He took the berry and brought it to his wife, who loved berries. She saw the berry. She praised it. She said "That's an awful nice berry you got there Herman!" Pretty soon, word got around about the berry. People came from all over Rome to see the berry, and to praise it. One night, there was a menacing knock on the door. It was late. Herman opened it. He said "Who are you?" They said "We've come for your berry." He says "It's not my berry, it's my wife's berry. Have you come to praise her berry?" They say, "No, we've come to seize her berry, not to praise it."

I bet it makes more sense if you hear it out loud. I've noticed that "seize her" sounds a bit like "Caesar." Perhaps that is part of the joke?

Also, does this question belong here, in the Humanities Reference Desk? Should I have asked on the Flip Wilson article discussion page, or maybe somewhere else?

--66.67.106.36 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is more appropriate than the Flip Wilson talkpage. Talkpages are for discussing article content.--Anchoress 03:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a great place for your question! The joke is a long setup, to the final quote from the mob: "We've come to seize her berry, not to praise it." This is a pun based on the famous speech from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar by Marc Antony:
   Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; 
   I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The whole speech is in Act 3, Sc. II; for instance readable here. --ByeByeBaby 03:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For more on this type of humor, see Shaggy dog story (third paragraph). --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Aw, that's disappointing. I hate Shakespeare, I don't know how anyone can understand his writing. Its like that language from the Darmok episode of Star Trek, The Next Generation.

--66.67.106.36 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a lame joke, it's way too long and it's only for a small group of insiders. But then, what can one expect from someone named Clerow? DirkvdM 08:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that you describe a joke based on one of literature's most famous lines as "for a small group of insiders". You'd need to think about what audience the joke was aimed at when written/performed. I can think of comedy venues in the UK where it would bomb and others where (if someone other than me made the gag) it would go down very well indeed. Most humour has a large slice of cultural/educational elements that help or hinder them. Even silent slapstick. --Dweller 10:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
And, of course, the overlength of the joke is half the point of this particular genre of humor. As in the famous joke "The Aristocrats", you want to make 'em wait, and then wait some more, and then laugh and/or groan at the punchline, which verges on the anti-joke. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 11:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The set-up was incredibly long. o.o --Proficient 12:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Holistic Living

American Holistic Health Association (AHHA) promotes and explains what is holistic approach to health. I tried to find definition or meaning for the term ‘Holistic Living’ as we plan to organize a Symposium on ‘Holistic Living’. I could not find clear meaning or definition in Wickipedia, Google or Yahoo. However, www.vyasa.org states that ‘Yoga is Science of Holistic Living’ (Editorial, Yoga Sudha, July 2006). Understanding the Yogic way of life, as described by sage Patanjali on three principles namely Ahhaar (food), Vihaar (exercise) and Vichaar (thinking). I define ‘Holistic Living’ as follows:

  1. Holistic Living may be defined as simple and spiritual living with moderation in food intake, adequate exercise and positive thinking and attitude to life. Yoga is Science of Holistic Living.

OR

  1. Holistic Living is an art of living in harmony with Nature and concern to the whole universe.

Prof. B. C. Harinath, Director, JB Tropical Disease Research Centre & Coordinator, Arogyadham, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences Sevagram (Wardha) – 442 102 Web: www.jbytdrc.org, www.mindandbodyhealth.org

Holistic living means living in a holistic manner and as your quotes show different people have different opinions on what that entails. As there is no one description of what holistic living is, you are better off reading the holistic article and drawing your own conclusions on what a holistic lifestyle should be. The simplest definition of holistic I know is "an awareness of the interconnectedness of all things" from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. MeltBanana 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Fundamental interconnectedness, I believe. JackofOz 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Living as a whole and not overly concerned with the parts. --Proficient 12:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Street names

I would very much like to know the reason why the following two roads were named.

Rosemary Lane, Pett and Fairlight, East Sussex

and

Peter James Lane, Fairlight, East Sussex.

Can anyone help? Thank you

I would suggest you might have your best luck for getting these questions answered by calling the local council office for the area (I'm not sure of the organizational structure in England, but here in Canada, street names are given by the city or town council). Looks like that would be the East Sussex County Council office, actually, from some quick Googling. Chances are, they have a naming scheme of some sort, and will probably have some idea on these names. Good luck! Tony Fox (speak) 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battles won against overwhelming odds

Is there such a list on Wikipedia? I tried looking at [[1]] but no joy.

I can think of a few candidates, mostly won by various forces against forces which were vastly technologically inferior.

I wondered what was "the most extraordinarily long-odds against victory" won by a side battling another with reasonably comparable arms technology?

The Battle of Thermopylae (a few thousand vs 200,000 at a conservative estimate) would be a great contender, except that, erm, the Spartans ended up losing. :-) --Dweller 11:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems would be that each "won against overwhelming odds" is also a "lost due to terrible planning/incompetence." I mean, if you put on there Battle of Secessionville, you have a great victory or a great fiasco. If you put on Battle of Shiloh, the same. Isn't Kaison one of the greats? Well, depends on who you are. Geogre 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they meant the battle of Marathon. Rmhermen 17:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of planning/incompetence, if the Spartans had won at Thermopylae with an army of roughly equivalent technology, but outnumbered c. 100:1 (conservative estimate) and possibly much more, that's a pretty extraordinary achievement. The two examples you give (I can find no info on the "battle of Kaison" on Google) roughly equate at 2:1 and 1.25:1, which aren't stupendous odds to overcome. Can anyone come up with victories overcoming odds of 10:1 or more, without overwhelming technological superiority? --Dweller 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
By Kaison Geogre may have meant the Battle of Khe Sanh AllanHainey 07:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I did, and the numerical difference was around the 10:1, but I knew that my spelling would be ludicrous, so I didn't put much effort in it. Geogre 12:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Battle of Agincourt. Unless you count the longbow as an overwhelming technological superiority. (It may not quite have made it to 10:1, but not far off). DJ Clayworth 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The longbow definitely did constitute an overwhelming technological superiority. Being the only one able to fight at a distance helps cut down the enemy's strength before they reach you and can start to fight themselves.
Two examples I can think of are the defeat of the Spanish armada, partly caused by the bloody English weather (which for once was good for something), and a Germanic tribe against a bunch of cocky, overly self-assured Romans. I can't remember which tribe that was, though. Somewhere in Belgium I believe. Of course, the Romans came back a bit later, less cocky, and wiped them out. DirkvdM 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to Battle of the Teutoburg Forest? It took place in southern Germany, and after that the Romans never did properly 'come back', but left Germania alone. — QuantumEleven 05:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he meant the slaying of 7,200 of Caesar's men by Eburon leader Ambiorix. According to Caesar of course, who also claimed it happened through treachery - some say Ambiorix never existed and Julius needed somehow to explain how he lost all those men. Whatever really happened, it did not stop him from exterminating the Eburons afterwards. Ambiorix himself is supposed to have fled across the Rhine. The Eburons were a Germanic tribe, not a Celtic one, as one may have guessed from the location. The odds of this "battle" (and that is the problem - Caesar at least suggests it was not really a battle) are unclear, but must have been high. --Pan Gerwazy 01:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The crusaders won the Battle of Montgisard against Saladin, both sides were about technologically equal, but Saladin had maybe 5 or 6 times as many troops. In the First Crusade, the crusaders defeated a Muslim alliance at the Siege of Antioch, with far fewer troops (although I suppose an army of saints and angels counts as a technological superiority...). Adam Bishop 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Now hold on - I wouldn't say they were technologically equal. The famed mounted Turkish archers were very surprised to see their deadly arrows bouncing off the heavy metal armor of the Frankish knights. Granted, the surprise might have worn off since the last crusade, but militaries often are very conservative and resistant to change. It was common for the Frankish knights to wade through many times their number while suffering few losses. The armor made a huge difference --Bmk 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
True but the majority of crusaders were not heavily-armoured knights. That probably helped at Montigsard, since the army was small enough that the number of knights was relatively large. But in the First Crusade, those that were had often lost their armour and horses by the time they fought at Antioch. The mounted Turkish archers were more of a technological superiority than heavy Frankish cavalry, in some ways (heavy cavalry could not chase them, for example). And the crusaders often fell for the Turkish trick of feigning retreat, so they might end up surrounded, or they trusted too much in religion and relics when they were otherwise outnumbered and outsmarted (like the Battle of Hattin).
By the way, back to the original question, what about the Battle of Chateauguay? Canadian militia defeating American regulars, or so we'd like to believe :) Or the Battle of Ain Jalut, if only because the Mongols were (up to that point) apparently unstoppable? Adam Bishop 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
For battles where one side had an overwhelming technological advantage, Rorke's Drift, at 35:1 odds, was pretty impressive, as was the 1:35 casualty ratio. --Serie 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The great battle of Munich on September 1, 2001, England fought germany, and won, conclusively. Philc TECI 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
A single game is not that important. In 1966 they also won against Germany but you don't mention it. I wonder why, because the referee helped them alot? Face it: the English only won the World Cup~a single time under dubious circunstances, while Germany won it 3 times (being 5 times in the finals). Remember the 1996 European Championship "it´s coming home" :)? Flamarande 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ man, take a chill pill. It was a joke (you might want to see the article, particulalrly the section on spotting them, if there is one). And more to the point, we won 4 - 2 thats right, 4 - 2 even if you take away that goal we still won, because it was 4 - 2. Got that (4 - 2). God man, chill out, and get over it. Philc TECI 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not mad and I am chilled, I found it rather amusing :) The English national football team won that time, but they never won any major cup since. :)Flamarande 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but did they play with only 5 players or something? Or am I just being silly thinking there should be at least some relation to the original question? :) DirkvdM 08:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah the english team that was heavily expected to lose to a stronger german side in germany in 2001, came away 5 - 1 winners. I thought it was a pretty low odds victory, especially considering the margin. But Flamarande took it a bit to heart. Philc TECI 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Try the Battle of Watling Street, aka the defeat of Boudica, in AD 61. Ten thousand Romans beat nearly a quarter of a million Britons, if you believe the Roman accounts. --Nicknack009 18:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Date

Common Date,what does it mean?

Are you thinking of Common Era? —Keenan Pepper 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Israel hated in the Middle-East

Why does the middle-east nations hate Israel, so much? 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC) by a user from 66.87.95.91

Because it drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land, and has since 1967 occupied the West Bank, where millions of Palestinians live under a military regime and are ethnically cleansed to make space for settlers. David Sneek 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You'd be lucky to get a buck an acre for that crappy land. It's a desert. It all sucks the same. =D--mboverload@ 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
See Arab-Israeli conflict. Nowimnthing 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's reverse this: why do Israelis hate Arabs so much? DirkvdM 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Six-Day War, and Yom Kippur War Nowimnthing 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...the problem is more complex than bodies of people unified under nations interacting uniformly. Most of the rulers of the middle east, perhaps Iran excluded, would rather just do business with Israel than fight. Unfortunately, public opinion and armed Islamic militias operating partly within government organizations prevent them from making peace and getting on with their lives. And as for the Palestinians, I think the Arab governments are more irate that they've been driven onto their lands, rather than from their homes. Palestinian refugees are a major economic and political problem; they tend to be unskilled, well armed, and pissed off (not without reason). For an example, see Black September, an unpleasant but historically interesting event. I might also note that there really is no historical enmity between Arabs and Jews. They have coexisted relatively peacefully for millenia. --Bmk 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with David Sneek's comments. To avoid turning this into a never-ending argument, I'm going to avoid refuting his accusations about Israel. But regardless of whether Arabs have justifiable grudges against Israeli behavior, I don't think the issue is Israeli tactics. After all, it's not like the rest of the Arab or Muslim world really gives a damn about the Palestinians. Look at how the Kuwaitis treated Palestinians. The 1982 massacres in Palestinian refugee camps were committed by Lebanese, not Israelis. Egypt does everything it can to keep the Palestinians in Gaza from entering Egypt.

So if the Arab countries (and Iran) don't care about the wellbeing of the Palestinians, why do so many Arabs and Muslims hate Israel? The answer is a mix of nationalism with old-fashioned antisemitism. Consider the following comment from Brigitte Gabriel, who was raised in Lebanon and later lived in Israel and the United States:

"From Television programs, to national songs, hourly radio newscasts and newspapers, our citizens were fed a steady diet of lies poisoning our attitudes towards the Jews. Israel - Aaesrael , Israel is the devil. Al-Yahud shayateen, The Jews are evil. Sarakou Al-Ard Al Arabiyah. They stole Arab land. Al Wakt al wahid allazi yassir endana salam huwa lamma naqtul kul al yahud wa narmihum bil bahr, The only time we'll have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea. Every time Israel was mentioned it was attached to the phrase, Al adew al Israeli. The Israeli enemy."

Arab textbooks portray Jews (and Christians) as evil infidels. The Arab media is full of antisemitic libels like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (serialized on Egyptian television) or the claim that Jews or Israelis were responsible for 9/11 (created by Hezbollah's TV station).

This religious bigotry mixes in with a nationalist component. Radical Muslims don't like having a state not under Muslim control so close to the Islamic heartland. In a recruiting tape, Osama bin Laden says "the crusaders and the Jews have joined together to invade the heart of Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam): our most sacred places in Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina, including the prophet's Mosque, and the al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (al-Quds)."

So even if Israel withdraws from every inch of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, it's still going to be surrounded by millions of people filled with murdurous hatred for the country. That isn't going to change anytime soon. I can't imagine a peace between Israel and its neighbors similar to, say, the peace between Germany and France in the foreseeable future. The best we can have is a cold peace maintained through the balance of military power. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Mwalcoff- so what is the Israeli analogue to the Arab sentiments? I've seen what you've stated repeated in other media many times now, that Arab portrayals of Jews are very negative, with the Hamas and Hezbolla missions being to wipe out Israel at the extreme end of the spectrum of Arab feeling towards Israel. So my question is what is the Israeli attitude? It seems to me that they employ palestinians, they trade with arab countries, and they do not have similar organisations like Hamas or Hezbolla that are shouting for wiping out all Arab countries.

-- Drunk Cow, 03:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are some extremist Israeli organizations like the banned Kach movement. But they remain on the fringe and don't have a lot of support like Hamas and Hezbollah do among Palestinians and Lebanese Shia, respectively. I think that Israel has always tried in some ways to be accepted by its neighbors as one of the gang. The founders of the state asserted that Israel would be a felafel-eating Middle Eastern country -- that's why they chose the Middle Eastern-sounding adjective "Israeli" rather than "Israelian" or something. Every public-school student in Israel learns Arabic. There's a lot of Arabic words in Modern Hebrew slang. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs brags about its peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt and low-level relations with other Arab and Muslim countries, even as those countries act as if they are embarrassed they ever made peace. That said, goodwill can only last so long. I remember reading about a teenager who had been hurt and lost several friends in the 2001 Dolphinarium massacre. She spoke to an American audience and really touched them with her story. Then someone asked what she thought about the Palestianians, and she said something to the effect that she has no sympathy for them and that they can go to hell for all she's concerned. It was obviously somewhat shocking for an American audience to hear, but you certainly can understand where that feeling comes from. -- Mwalcoff 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a personal anecdote to perhaps add some context: My uncle was born in East Jerusalem in the '20s, while the Brits were in control. Then in 1948 Jordan "occupied" the West Bank and East Jerusalem, forcing all Jews in the area to flee from their land. Why is so little spoken of the Jordanian/Arab occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the "stealing" of land that was occupied for centuries by Jews? Loomis 06:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Mwalcoff, I saw something similar in a documentary about Israel, where Israeli kids spoke of Palestinians being an evil that needed to be wiped out, or something along those lines. The media are extremely important. Not only do people get fed lies on both sides (as is normal in a wartime situation), but in other countries the media will generally tell the people what they want to hear. So if the general attitude is pro-Israel, then so will the major media be. And if there are opposing views on different 'channels' then people will only look at the ones that support their view. But even if you try to avoid that, there's a regional link. For example, I read Dutch newspapers and watch Dutch, Belgian and English tv stations (BBC). Not CNN. And that is bound to colour my view. Also, the relevancy of what someone like Bin Laden says depends on how seriously he is taken where it matters - not in the west, but in the Arab nations. And I doubt there will be many Arabs who take his words seriously. DirkvdM 08:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You also pointed out an important aspect, something I heard when I was a kid, that among the Arabs, the Palstinians are regarded as 'an inferior caste' or something like that. As a result they didn't get any support from the oil-rich Arab nations that could have stopped Israel. But just now I saw in a documentary that the Palestinian in Lebanon, who were originally fugitives themselves are now welcoming Lebanese fugitives in their homes. Funny situation - you're a refugee in your own country and get help from immigrants. Also, there was this Lebanese woman on tv who said that at first they were not associated with Hesbollah, but have become suporters since the Israeli attacks. A common enemy is a very strong unifyng force. So far, Israel has had the upper hand, but if it keeps this up the Arabs could decide to unite after all. And if the foreign support falls away (which it loks like right now) then they could be in for some very serious trouble. DirkvdM 09:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusionary rule

Could someone please provide me with some examples of American criminal court cases in which the exclusionary rule was used to clear the defendant of his charges?--208.100.200.142 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In Weeks v. United States, the earliest example, a conviction was overturned on appeal. Or do you mean cleared in the original trial? NeonMerlin 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That was the case in which the rule was first established. Could you provide notable examples of cases since the establishment of the exclusionary rule in which the rule was used to prevent convicting evidence from being used in court?.--208.100.200.142 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
See Miranda v. Arizona. StuRat 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LGPL

The Nuvola icons were released under the LGPL by author David Vignoni. Does this mean that he is required to provide the source files for all the icons? Presumably, all of these icons were based on vector drawings, but some of them are available only in bitmap form. NeonMerlin 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Keeping the vectors does not restrict the usage of the bitmapped files in a way comparable with loathed DRM approaches. It is clear from the intent of the LGPL that the clauses requiring a lack of restrictions mean special restrictions that would prohibit re-use of the copyrighted work. To interpret that as requiring the source files for all images would have ridiculous consequences—a photoshopped file would require release of the PSD file with all layers available, and any cropping or resizing of a photograph would be verboten. The obvious intent of the LGPL is to prohibit someone from encrypting their code or their data, which is clearly not what is going on when something is rasterized. --Fastfission 16:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with Fastfission's analysis. I'd say that the LGPL doesn't work very well for image data of that type. The LGPL requires releasing source code, which is defined as the preferred form for modifying a program. IMO, source code would indeed correspond to the vector drawings, layers, etc. for an image if those existed. However, of course, as the author, David Vignoni is the only one in a position to enforce the license, and he's not likely to enforce it against himself. So he can release files as bitmaps or vectors as he chooses. But if someone else gets vectors and modifies them, I'd say they're obligated to release the modified vectors if they publish bitmaps made from the vectors. These days when I upload pictures to Commons, I use the GFDL (which isn't that great for pictures either), and try to upload the closest thing available to "source code", i.e. the original image out of the camera in addition to any cropped or adjusted versions. Phr (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
"...David Vignoni is the only one in a position to enforce the license...." Why is that? It sounds to me like a weakness of the licenses, if it means they can be applied to works that don't comply with them. Also, if only the original author of a work can enforce the license, that creates the problem if the author is incapacitated without a power of attorney, or simply too busy to go after violations. NeonMerlin 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel vs. Arab

Hi:

Who is right? -- Israel or Arabs?

The Bible says Israel people lived where they are now at least 3000 years ago.

But medieval and modern history shows that Ottoman empire owns the lands before 20th century.

So who is the true owners of Jerusalem?

L33th4x0r 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The bible is nonsense. History is interesting, but not every historical claim can be rewarded - too many things have happened in the past, not every injustice can be set right. So it's up to those who live now to solve this. Most of the people in the world feel that Israel should withdraw within its 1967 borders, and there should be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as a capital for both states. But unfortunately the Israeli settlement policy is aimed at preventing this, and supported by the most powerful country in the world, the USA. David Sneek 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But I thought Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel, no? L33th4x0r 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No.
It's Jerusalem. --Dweller 09:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to sound like a hippie, but the whole concept of owning land (let along being the true owner) is kinda weird. Imagine what it was like the first time one person told another, "Hey, I own that part of the ground. You can't walk there." It's like the old sitcom plot of drawing a line down the middle of a room. I saw we treat Isreal like a toy two children are fighting over and just take it away from them until they can calm down and be adults! :) 128.197.81.223 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea, but who are "we"? --Bmk 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That thar's a good point. The UN? Not that it would actually work... (Tempted to say the US is "we", because well.. y'know.. pronouns). Digfarenough 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a fantastic idea. You're about 50 years late, though, because that's what was done in 1947/8. "Palestine", as ruled by the British, was divided into territories for Jews and Arabs. It was the surrounding Arab states that destroyed the plan in 1948 by invading Israel and seizing Gaza and the West Bank for themselves, instead of for the Palestinian people. Not sure why it would work second time around. --Dweller 09:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well "Who owns Jerusalem?" is not really the right way to phrase the question. It's owned by the landowners who have title to the land. The real question is what state it should be in or who should govern it. History doesn't really help settle the question. It was Ottoman for centuries, but no one thinks it ought to be given back to Turkey. The 1947 UN Partition Plan, had it been implemented, would have put Jerusalem under some sort of international control. Instead, it was split between Israel and Jordan in the 1948-49 war. But the international community by and large did not recognize that division. In 1967's Six Day War, Israel reunified the city. Yet most countries, including the United States, continue to abide by the legal fiction that Jerusalem, or at least the eastern part of it, is not really part of Israel and is instead some sort of diplomatic no-man's land. So I don't really know if you can say "who is right" using history as a guide. I think if you look at most borders in the world, you'll see they were adopted either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table (sometimes after a war). Presumably, what we'll see eventually is a division between "Jerusalem" and a Palestinian city called "Al-Quds." That's certainly not going to happen in the near future; I don't think the Israelis are going to put an international border 2 or 3 miles from their Parliament building while a terrorist group opposed to Israel's existence controls the Palestinian government. -- Mwalcoff 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If it was easy to determine who is "right", this whole mess could have been nipped in the butt. Unfortunately this is something that has been talked and fought over for ages, so there's no easy answer to this question. - Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Flood Isreal: First nation to evolve gills wins. Digfarenough 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Two comments from me...

    1. The historical argument is a bit of a nonsense. Where do you draw the line... with any country? Should Australia be handed back to the Aborigines, USA to the native Americans? Read the bible and you'll find that the Jews under King David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Want to try handing it back to them? You'll be hard-pressed to find one. The state of Israel is a fact on the ground. It doesn't matter who owned what in history.
    1. Unfortunately, Israel handing land back is a nice idea but also won't (on its own) bring peace. Israel withdrew a couple of years ago from Southern Lebanon and some months ago from Gaza... the current problems emanated from exactly those two (no longer occupied) territories. The sad fact is that while Hizbolla and Hamas (among others) are supported by an official line from Iran that Israel should be wiped off the map, the violence will continue for ever, whatever concessions Israel could possibly make. --Dweller 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A joke I saw on the Web: The Israeli Ambassador at the U.N. began, "Ladies and gentlemen before I commence with my speech, I want to relay an old Passover story to all of you ...

"When Moses was leading the Jews out of Egypt toward the Promised Land, he had to go through the nearly endless Sinai desert. The people became thirsty and needed water. So Moses struck the side of a mountain with his staff and a pond appeared with crystal clean, cool water. The people rejoiced and drank to their hearts' content.

"Moses wished to cleanse his whole body, so he went over to the other side of the pond, took all of his clothes off and dove into the cool waters. Only when Moses came out of the water, he discovered that all his clothes had been stolen. 'And,' he said, 'I have reasons to believe that the Palestinians stole my clothes.'"

The Palestinian delegate, hearing this accusation, jumps from his seat and screams out, "This is a travesty. It is widely known that there were no Palestinians there at that time!"

"And with that in mind," said the Israeli Ambassador, "let me now begin my speech." Bibliomaniac15 00:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The U.N. is right, ask them as they are the ones resposible for such things in this world.

[edit] LAURYN HILL FANS...I NEED LYRICAL HELP!!!

To anyone and everyone that listens to Lauryn Hill: At the beginning of Doo Wop (That Thing), does anyone know the SPOKEN WORDS that she SAYS, not sings, before the singing/rapping begins?

All the websites dedicated to lyrics start off with "It's been three weeks since..." and not "Yo, remember back..". I know the song pretty much by heart but the first 30 seconds or so is pretty confusing.

If anyone can help, please post what they think is the lyrics. Thanks! -Andrewia 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I can figure out -
Yo, remember back on the boogie when cats used to harmonize like...(woo woo). My men and my women, don't forget about the (not sure). It's about a thing. If you feel real good wave your hands in the air and (can't understand the rest).
The only website I could find was one that had to be translated from Chinese, but I disagree with some of the lyrics [2]. --Joelmills 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's one, don't know how accurate it is:

Yo, Remember back on da Boogie when Cats used to Harmonize like: woooooowhooohooo (check out the situation) My men and my women dont forget about the Dean The Sarat-al-Mustakeem, Yo its about a thing, If you feel real good Throw your hands in the air! (MUSIC STARTS) Admit two shots in the atmosphere! Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah
--Anchoress 03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, thanks for the help, but the first suggestion was no help because the (not sure)s are exactly what I need to find out. And the "Dean" thing doesn't make much sense either, unless someone can elaborate on the "Dean" and how they're relevant to the song.-Andrewia 05:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I just listened to it, and it's exactly as Anchoress quotes. I've always taken "Dean" as referring to James Dean. Sarat-al-Mustaqeem is the good life, the straight path to God in Islam, so I thought it was a bit of a warning - don't live life too fast and hard and forsake the good life ("don't forget about the Dean/ the Sarat-al-Mustaqeem"). In the context of the rest of the lyrics, this makes sense. To be honest, though, you are being a bit rude - you asked for the lyrics, not an interpretation, and the lyrics were provided. Please read the section at the top of the page, the part headed "Be specific" in particular - if you wanted an interpretation you should have asked for one. Your tone is quite snippy to volunteers trying to help you. Natgoo 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sorry I was unclear/impolite. I understand the lyrics fully now, so all the help was welcome. Thank you, everybody!-Andrewia 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If it includes "sarat al-mustaqeem", perhaps the preceding word is "din", pronounced just like "dean", which means "religion" or "faith" in Arabic. Adam Bishop 05:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that makes sense. Thanks! Natgoo 07:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Lauryn Hill a Methodist?-72.78.185.75 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] folio incognito: E. F. Schumacher

I think it was E. F. Schumacher who wrote something like the following, either in Small is beautiful or in This I believe:

A person with faith(?) strides with a certain confidence. He may love the Encyclopaedia Britannica for "she knows more than he", but ....

Web search rendered no result; I went to the library, checked out cursorily This I believe, and could not find the quote; someone else checked out Small is beautiful so I could not consult it. I would appreciate the exact quotation and citation. Cheers. – Kaihsu 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Education can help us only if it produces "whole men". The truly educated man is not a man who knows a bit of everything, not even the man who knows all the details of all subjects (if such a thing were possible): the "whole man" in fact, may have little detailed knowledge of facts and theories, he may treasure the Encyclopaedia Britannica because "she knows he needn't" but he will be truly in touch with the centre. He will not be in doubt about his basic convictions, about his view on the meaning and purpose of his life. He may not be able to explain these matters in words, but the conduct of his life will show a certain sureness of touch which stems from this inner clarity.
~Small is Beautiful, p. 100 (paperback edition)
Ziggurat 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Israel attacking Beirut? Or Lebanon for that matter?

Ok. I am not biased on this subject in any way, I am not trying to provoke anger/flames with this question, but this is really confusing me. I understand (if not condone) the reason why Israel is attacking southern lebanon, Israel allegedly is trying to move hezbollah back from the border to secure its towns near the border (e.g. to make a "buffer zone").

But my question is why attack Beirut? This city is in the center of Lebanon, and by looking at a map, very far from Israel? Right? How could anyone or anything in this city be of a threat to Israel?

Hanez --216.211.78.176 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is headquartered there. Israel is not attacking the Christian parts of the city. See this LA Times story. -- Mwalcoff 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Plus, they're doing theit best to destroy any means by which the two Israeli captured soldiers can be whisked off by air to an even more awful place, like Iran or Syria, while at the same time closing off all supply routes for the Hezbollah to rearm and resupply. All this involves destroying or at least incapacitating all airbases and airports, destroying the main land routes to Damascus, and blockading all sea ports.
You're right, it makes no sense for Israel to intentionally destroy anything or anybody that has no strategic value to their enemy, the Hezbollah, least of which the targetting of civilians, which if not simply for purely humanitarian reasons, would be against Israeli policy if anything because it would cause them to look like barbarians and thus lose even more international support
You don't have to condone what Israel is doing or even to trust Israel's commitment to humanitarian values to recognize that the targeting of civilians is, strategically, and tactically, both counterproductive as well as downright stupid. Israel hasn't established itself as such a successful military power by utilizing strategically and tactically counterproductive and stupid measures to win its wars in the past, and whatever your position on the issue, it would be illiogical, in my opinion, to assume that they'd start now. Loomis 06:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's analyze the situation coldly and with a bit of care. Lebanon has a alltoo weak goverment and Hezbollah has a lot of influence (indeed some might say that it is a state whithin the state) in the south of Lebanon with arms depots, fighters, bases etc. Israel was certainly not happy by this situation but aslong the raids were neglegible they tolerated it. The Lebanese goverment could not expel Hezzbollah because of the later's popular support (and I really believe they would do it if they could). If they attempted it they would be branded as traitors and would pay with their lives for it.
Hezbollah in its "great wisdom" decided to kidnap some Israeli soldiers to force Israel to release some convicts/prisoners. This tactic had worked before and Israel is widely known to do almost everything to garantue the return of Israeli soldiers. But this time the Israeli govement realized that if they keept doing it, they really are reinforcing Hezzbolah's prestige (Hezzbolah presents it like this: "the valiant Mujadhin captured evil invading Israeli soldiers and their weak goverment released our innocent brothers" - this is not my POV by the way but how Hezzbollah sells it). To release any convict/prisoner is therefore impossible.
At the same time Hezzbollah has been stockpilling hundereds (perhaps even thousands) of rockets generously provided by Iran (perhaps also from Syria) (something which doesn't reassure noone in the nuclear plant issue). It was becoming quite dangerous and powerful.
Israel decided to show its own strength (they can't show any weakness) and attacked Lebanon. Israel is interrested in 4 things 1) kill as many Hezzbollah personel as possible. 2) Find the kidnapped soldiers, preferably alive but even dead. 3) Destroy as many Hezzbollah bases, arm depots, etcetera as possible. 4)Make the live of the Lebanese ppl so miserable so that the Lebanese goverment is really forced to expel Hezzbollah from Lebanon (or can believably claim to be forced to expel it). The last point is quite cruel but nevertheles true. The whole situation allready happened before, did you know that? With the PLO (in the 1982 Lebanon War) which was in the same country (Lebanon) and Israel invaded the south of Lebanon. The PLO went to Tunis.
This can backfire: the Lebanese ppl can decide to support Hezzbollah even more. This has been carefully weighed but the current situation is intolerable. Again: Israel can't show any weakness.
Meanwhile Syria threatens to attack Israel, I rather think it is mainly an empty threat, but who knows? Israel would win though. It is the regional power of that area. But the whole situation could escalate even further.
I will go even further: If Hezzbollah wasn't playing "Holy warrior" from safe havens in Lebanon Israel wouldn't attack that country. My arguments: Jordania and Egypt. Jordania and Egypt don't like Israel at all, but their goverments don't allow anyone to fire rockets from their national soils (or the contruction of any safe havens). And Israel returns the favour and doesn't bomb them at all. DA big disclamer: This is my only personal opinon - mainly an educated guess. Feel free to disagree. Flamarande 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to link to an opinionated but intelligent article on the subject, if that's alright with you: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10627 Sashafklein 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, not bad at all. Notice however that the PLO did indeed leave Lebanon in 1982. According to this article the real enemy is Iran (the major backer of Hezbollah) but somehow I don't see Israel attacking that country (too powerful and too far away - and "officially" Iran hasn't done anything yet). And NO, the US aren't going to attack Iran it for them. The US military is spread way too thin these days. The Israeli goverment is trying to force (or trying to offer an excuse to) the Lebanese goverment to expel Hexbollah in the name of the victimized Lebanese ppl. What else can Israel do? Sit tight and leave Hezbollah fire rockets at will, and make the occasional raid, taking IDF soldiers as prisoners? Ransom these prisoners for Arab prisoners, strengthening Hezbollah's prestige? It is a rotten world and noone has easy answers and solutions. Flamarande 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) please sign your statements

Yeah. I was talking with my brother about that article, and it does seem that, like all the others, it offers no feasible alternative. I hope this has my signature. I tried to change something Sashafklein 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to the post above. Yes, Israel is targeting Christian areas and not just Muslims, and that was the great surprise among Lebanese and drove the foreign nationals to evade. If you don't believe me, here's a list of targeted christian areas: Jounieh, Sannine, Amchit, Batroun, Rashaya al-Foukhar, Ras Baalbeck, Baabda... and the list could go on. And why did it target Lebanese army positions while Olmert posed as a condition its deployment in the south? CG 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

4)Make the live of the (whole) Lebanese ppl so miserable so that the Lebanese goverment is really forced to expel Hezzbollah from Lebanon (or can believably claim to be forced to expel it). The Christians in Lebanon are Lebanese to. Notice however that the bombardment is relativly "lighter" in these areas. Flamarande 19:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Flamarande makes some very good points. Israel doesn't act on passion, it acts wisely. During the entire gulf war, with scud missiles raining in on Tel-Aviv (for no apparent reason, Israel was not at all involved in the war in any sense,) Israel held back, as it knew that if it were to join in, most if not all Arab coalition members would pull out (think of it, Israeli and Syrian soldiers fighting side by side to kick Saddam out of Kuwait!) In any case, for much the same reason, Israel kept out of the war in Iraq. It's been often said that the UK was the US's closest ally in the Iraq War, but that's not strictly true. The US's closest ally here was again Israel, perhaps too close an ally for them to have gotten involved.
In any case, what I really want to write about is Iran and its development of nukes. Trust me. Israel is trying it's best to remain aloof in this standoff, because they know that if they joined in, many Arab states would pull out of putting pressure on Iran.
I sincerely hope that the international community will disarm Iran of its nukes. But trust me, and mark my word, Israel and the Mossad is keeping an eye set on this problem. Perhaps it's even influenced their decision to go into Hezballah controlled Lebanon, a strong ally of Iran.
Although, and I hope it doesn't come to this, if need be, the IAF is ready and capable of destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities..."international law" notwithstanding.
Hopefully, though, the world will wake up and do its job and rid Iran and its insane government of these WMDs. Loomis 21:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)