Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 October 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 10 <<Sep | October | Nov>> October 12 >
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.


Contents


[edit] Tony Toni Tone

A freind of mine is a big fan of Tony Toni Tone and wants to get a copy of what he believes is their first album. There is a song and in this song is a line something like "just like chocolate she's so sweet" He thought that was the name of the song. I've been looking and cannot find on any of the albums including Who, their first album any song with that title. By any chance would anybody there know what song includes the line "just like chocolate she's so sweet" and which album that song first appeared in? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

                                             Andrew J. LaTeer
It's from a song called "Baby Doll" which can be found on this album. --Richardrj talk email 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana purchase benefit?

When an American citizen applies for dual citizenship in France, normally there are rules including having lived in France for five years. I heard if you were born in one of the states in the Louisiana Purchase, this is waived. Is this true, and where exactly does it say this?

I would strongly doubt that. In any case, actual French influence or control over most of the area was rather minimal... AnonMoos 09:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Our article on French nationality law says that the five year waiting period can be waived for "citizens of French speaking countries", so I can see where this comes from. However, a citizen of the United States is unlikely to be judged to be from a French-speaking country, and even if you could convince them to take Louisiana itself, not the USA, as your "country", I doubt there are enough French-speakers left there to convince them. (And the other Louisiana Purchase states would be even less likely — like AnonMoos says, there wasn't much influence there).
I believe the citizenship laws have been tightened somewhat in recent times, so I suppose it could once have been possible. I doubt they'd have deliberately opened the door to people from the Louisiana Purchase, but I guess they could have accidentaly created the possibility — if they had laws to assist French people returning home from the former colonies (eg the pieds-noirs), some people may have figured that Louisiana should logically count too, even if the law was actually intended for the colonies that obtained independence in the mid 20th century. Just speculation, of course. -- Vardion 09:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poison gas in WW2

Why was it not used on the same scale as WWI? I mean to say in combat against the Allies, not in the Final Solution. --The Dark Side 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Chemical warfare, the Germans were afraid of retaliation. Hitler was gassed in World War I, so that may have influenced his decision. Also, WWII was much more fluid than WWI; waiting for the wind to blow in the right direction works better in the trenches. Clarityfiend 03:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmmm...Hitler was gassed in WWI...might have influenced his decisions...you may be onto something there! Loomis 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
While we may never understand Hitler, it's quite clear he did have emotions. For example, he was a vegetarian and felt it cruel to animals to eat meat. Although he commited despicable acts against those he felt were sub-humans, there's no reason to assume he wouldn't have felt less willing to use gas on those he felt were humans because of his experience Nil Einne 11:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection that it was used by the Nazis on the Eastern front. Anyone got any sources? --Dweller 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was this [1] and it was a ship of the Allies carrying lethal gas who got hit by the Luftwaffe. Gas was used in the German extermination camps, but apparently not in battle. Flamarande 10:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Seriously (as opposed to my above post), I doubt that Hitler avoided something "out of fear of retaliation". It just doesn't go with his mentality. Perhaps there's a better explanation for it. For example, Hitler seemed to have the choice of having his scientists pursue either nuclear technology, or rocket technology (although he had enough scientists to explore both, so it still confounds me). In any case he seemed to strongly favour pursuing rocket technology, and was really on his way to developing missiles that could reach England from the continent (in fact I believe some early ones actually did). As for nuclear technology, thank God he was such an anti-semite that he actually seemed to have dismissed the whole idea as "Jewish Science", (after all, it was all ultimately based on Einstein's work,) not worthy of being explored. As to the original question, why he didn't use poison gas in warfare, he probably had his reasons. It was mentioned that he may have used it on the Eastern front. But, say, in the Battle of Britain, perhaps he felt it wasn't a proper way to conduct warfare against a fellow Aryan people. I don't really know. It's tough to get into the mind of a madman. Loomis 13:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that Hitler did pursue nuclear weapons and rocket technology and jet aircraft and decryption and radar studies and other technical areas and made huge advances in all of these. After all, when the war ended they were pursuing a rocket that would be capable of reaching the US. They had produced the world's first jet aircraft. They had tapped the submarine cable between the UK and the US and decrypted the traffic on the cable. They had serious radar capabilities. They had refined a large amount of uranium, some of which probably found its way into the bombs used against Japan by the US when it was confiscated by the allies. They were taking advantage of the heavy water facility in Norway, until Allied actions destroyed it. The head of the German atomic program, Werner Heisenberg had stated that the only way to make an atomic bomb was to turn the entire country into a chemical plant, and when he toured the US and saw the extent of the effort, he noted that the US had turned the entire country into a chemical plant to produce an atomic bomb. There are some reports that Heisenberg had overestimated the amount of fissionable material by orders of magnitude that was required, but I personally find this hard to believe. This just does not sound reasonable to me. I think that it was a fairly close call. I think that either Germany or Japan might have managed to produce an atomic bomb before the US, if the timing of various events was just slightly different. --Filll 15:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither Germany or Japan had the will or could afford the resources required to build an atomic bomb. Take a look at the Manhattan Project. "At one point Oak Ridge plants were consuming 1/7th of all the electrical power being produced in the USA." Also, Oak Ridge became "the fifth largest city" in Tennessee, and it wasn't the only facility. In the middle of a war, only the US was rich enough. Plus it didn't help that the Nazis drove away a lot of their leading scientists before the war started. Clarityfiend 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The article says Heisenberg calculated it would take 130 tons of uranium. Clarityfiend 16:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Being a physicist, I know what Heisenberg's capabilities were. It is very hard to believe that Heisenberg would have made such a large mistake, but of course it is still possible even for someone of Heisenberg's talents. I do agree that it took a substantial effort to produce the bombs that the US did. However, some of the production details and techniques remain classified and it is a bit difficult to make the blanket statement that it would have been impossible for Japan or Germany to do it. Germany had a head start, in some ways. Germany had some incredibly gifted scientists involved in the project. The scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were doing it under the impression that Germany might be able to produce an atomic weapon first. The Allies did not act as though they were certain that Germany or Japan could not produce at atomic bomb during the war, including multiple attacks on the heavy water facility and other facilities controlled by the Nazis, and capturing uranium being shipped to Japan from Germany in May of 1945 on the submarine Unterseeboot 234 (U-234). In spite of speculation, I would be surprised if the details about this cargo had been declassified; it is not public knowledge how much of the uranium was unprocessed and how much of it was processed.--Filll 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forget Heisenberg's (unsubstantiated) claim that he deliberately sabotaged the Nazi bomb program. Also, I didn't say that it was impossible, just that the Axis powers had too many other competing demands on their resources. Clarityfiend 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The claim that the Germans or Japanese couldn't have afforded to build a nuclear weapon is misguided. The US had two largely separate programs to make fissile material; the uranium enrichment process and the plutonium production and extraction process. If the US had abandoned uranium enrichment and concentrated on plutonium, they could have got the job done for a fraction of the cost. it was just that the imperative for getting a weapon as soon as possible was so great that both technologies were pursued, essentially regardless of cost.
Alternatively, it was captured Germans who built the Soviet Union's centrifuge uranium enrichment technology in the immediate postwar period. If they had done the same for Nazi Germany, the Nazis could probably have gotten the bomb that way at a reasonably affordable cost. --Robert Merkel 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Loomis, according to our article on Nerve agents, Hitler totally avoided it "out of fear of retaliation". Long story short, (there's a good quote in the history section), Hitler knew that the Allies had far greater ability to produce both mustard gas and nerve agents (like Sarin) in large part because of their greater access to petroleum. What he didn't know was that the Allies didn't know how to make the more toxic nerve agents -- the details had been released in technical journals and patents before the war, but the Allies hadn't noticed, and in fact the Nazis could have used them, if not with impunity (surely the Allies would have figured it out after the gases were used in combat), then at least to advantage. --ByeByeBaby 16:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also read books that have called the gas mask schemes in countries such as the UK the "greatest victory of WWII". He knew that the countries were already highly prepared, and so much of the effectiveness of gas (the fear and the mass casualties) would be massively reduced. Laïka 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To summarize the above, Hitler did a "cost/benefit analysis", and saw that escalating to chemical weapons wouldn't give him any advantage, as the Allies would have used them as soon as he did. The effect on the morale of his troops and civilian populations might have suffered from gas attacks, as well. As for the Nazis getting the bomb, Hitler correctly figured out that the war would be over before an atomic bomb could be developed by Germany, so those resources would be best used elsewhere. Hitler was generally an idiot in military matters, but managed to get those two decisions right. StuRat 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised it wasn't considered for the Battle of Stalingrad. Clarityfiend 23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Not only way posion gas used by the Japanese biological agents were also released. To this day there are several court cases pending in Japan, Chineese citizens who have been harmed by left over canisters are suing to recoop the cost of the life long after effects of their exposure. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changde_chemical_weapon_attack http://campcatatonia.org/article/1351/poison-gas-island

As for why it wasn't used in the same way, on the same scale and with the same openess, Also the 1925 Geneva Protocol Prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials" it was signed by 16 countries. Japan like the US signed but did not ratify till the 70's. On a related note there has been some allegations that the US used chemical weapons in some of the island hoping campaigns. I haven't researched those claims though.

[edit] economics

what are the constraints to monetary policy implementation in less developed economies

Generally, the constraints are that nobody has any. --Aaron 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Our article on monetary policy has a small section on developing countries. You might also get some clues from International Monetary Fund. Beyond that, a textbook on the subject might be helpful. Marco polo 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Those are good suggestions, but I'd go with the textbook that was assigned for the course. Loomis 21:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
A little expansion on what Aaron said. Money makes money. That's how capitalism works. If left unchecked, it will make the rich richer and the poor (at least by comparison) poorer. Nationally, socialism provides some compensation in more civilised countries (finding the right mix between the two is a major political tightrope walk). Internationally, rich countries tend to give poor countries little more than breadcrumbs. Some nice example of what would happen if they would make that more substantial are Ireland, Portugal and Greece. For the free market to work properly it has to be completely open (the first goal of the EU) and all sides need to have somewhat equal starting positions. The latter is done in the EU and jus see what happened to the economies of those three countries. Of course the rich countries have to bleed a bit in the beginning, but after a while they will also start to profit from the increased wealth of those trade partners. Another major factor is political stability and the EU is using economically open borders as a carrot (in stead of a stick) to change the stabuility of countries outside the EU (eg in the Middle East). It's a bit complicated, with many sorts of agreements, bu European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument#European Neighbourhood Policy gives a bit of an overview and European Union Association Agreement is more specifically about what I mean. DirkvdM 07:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Dirk's response is about development and trade policy, not about monetary policy, or the regulation of a nation's currency and money supply. If you look at the article on money supply, you will see that it is something very different from wealth. With regard to monetary policy in developing economies, I am not qualified to say much. This is a very specialized topic that is not well covered in Wikipedia. I can say that central bankers in developing countries (who determine monetary policy, albeit under heavy pressure from the IMF in developing countries) face some particular challenges, particularly their dependence on foreign investors, who may flee and cause the currency to plummet and interest rates to soar whenever there is the least shift away from risk in global financial markets. Also, much financial activity takes place outside the formal economy, which makes it more difficult for developing-country central bankers to control liquidity and the supply of credit. And with that, I have reached my limit on this topic, which is outside my area of expertise, and suggest that you turn to a reliable textbook. Marco polo 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't lack of money a major constraint to monetary policy implementation? DirkvdM 08:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name this swedish film

I'm trying to recall the name of this Swedish film I saw a while back. An elderly man narrates the story to a girl, perhaps she is imaginary. The story is of a married couple with a young daughter where the wife has an affair with the husband's best friend, about the passion of the affair and the tragedies of the aftermath. Spoiler: the husband eventually commits suicide. He tries to get the daughter to join him, but she backs out in the end.

I thought maybe Liv Ullman played the girl and Max von Sydow played the elderly man, but I couldn't find a movie matching that description in their filmographies. Can you help me? Ziggurism

  • Trolösa (Faithless). But that has Erland Josephson and not Max von Sydow, and Liv Ullman is the director. The confusion is understandable though, since they're all Bergman veterans, and Bergman himself was the screenwriter. --BluePlatypus 04:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one. Thanks blue

[edit] Sir Joshua Reynolds

Hello I have A picture that is titled " The Strawberry Girl" and signed by Sir Joshua Reynoldi. At least it looks like an "i" at the end. The closest I can come to it is Sir Joshua Reynolds. I am very curious about the picture, any info I can get would be greatly appreciated.

Is this the picture? DJ Clayworth 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was the Weimar Republic doomed from the start?

please discuss, im interested in German history, and would like to know if the Weimar Republic was as intensely disorganized as people perceive it to be

The Weimar Republic was doomed because it didn't do it's own homework. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well what are you on about? Im only interested, you big bully. Anyway, you ent much of a librarian if you dont help, and its not homework its independant study, and im allowed to use resources
Have a look at WP's articles on Weimar Republic and Dolchstosslegende for starters. This is a huge topic, and I don't know how you can measure the intensity of the WR's disorganization objectively in order to compare it with people's (including historians') perceptions. Moreover, even if DJ Clayworth's advice sounded a bit harsh , there's no need for personal attacks.---Sluzzelin 19:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Can i just say if he hadnt discredited the legitimacy of my question, i wouldn't have been so angry
The Weimar Republic may have had its weaknesses, and perhaps it should have been improved upon or even replaced. Nonetheless I can't see any of its flaws as playing any significant role in paving the way to the Third Reich. If it was flawed, but if the people were steadfastly dedicated to a free and democratic society, they would just keep trying and trying again until they finally came up with something that worked. The French are a great example (though I can't believe I'm actually about to pay the French a compliment!) Since the revolution they went through four failed constitutions, (as well as the restoration of the monarchy, Napoléon's system, the Vichy Regime etc.) but they kept at it until 1958 when they finally developed the Fifth Republic, which seems to have finally proven to stand the test of time (though I have heard some talk of a "Sixth Republic", but I'm not sure at all how serious it is). In any case, if the Weimar Republic was flawed, a society dedicated to anything similar to the French concepts of Liberté, Égalité, Fratérnité would simply try and try again until they come up with something that works. Yet given the circumstances, and the mentality, bitterness and distress of the German people at the time, even if 1930's Germany had a constitution tailored perfectly to its needs and as rock solid in its durability as the US Constitution, I doubt Hitler would have all that much trouble navigating his way through it and still winding up Führer, with all the circumstances that it entailed. Loomis 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Evidence for how weak the German commitment to democracy was at the time can be found when the Nazi's burnt down the Reichstag building, and blamed it on the communists. Rather than meet somewhere else, the Reichstag just disbanded. StuRat 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
DJ's response justified him calling him a bully, there is no indication that this is homework, and hes not even asking as to do it for him. Philc TECI 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support Philc, I appreciate it
I too agree that DJ made a mistake in assuming that the questioner was asking for us to do his/her homework. To me this didn't at all seem like a homework question. However, as I've said so, so, SO! many times, we all make mistakes, and some of us, (your's truly is MOST guilty of it!) are hot-headed reactionaries, who jump to conclusions before getting the full story. So while you're right, "anonymous questioner" (please get an account and sign your posts!) that DJ made a mistake, I've made similar mistakes too many times to count. DJ should be forgiven for this one, just like the rest of us, s/he's only human. Please. When it comes to minor stuff like this, I say forgive and forget. Loomis 22:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Such mistakes should be avoided by committing to the principle that "do your own homework" is never an appropriate response on this page. It's not helpful, and it's rude. It's certainly an inappropriate response at any reference desk, even a metaphorical one. - Nunh-huh 22:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Haha! Loomis! I know what your talking about!! But yeh I'm sure DJ is forgiven by all parties, but generally that response is pretty unuseful. All is well though. Philc TECI 22:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

When I see obvious homework questions, I try my best to be as subtle, and (hopefully) witty about it. I don't think I've ever uttered the phrase: "Do your own homework!" Rather, check out my response a bit higher up to a questioner who was asking an oh-so-obvious homework question under the heading "economics". Loomis 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • "Can i just say if he hadnt discredited the legitimacy of my question, i wouldn't have been so angry" — the question is perfectly legitimate, but when it is clear you haven't bothered to read any of the relevant articles first, and are just fishing for a thesis, we perceive that as being pretty rude. We are people who like to help but we don't have infinite amounts of time either. If you can't be bothered to articulate a question which shows you have already consulted the most easily accessible resources (type in "Weimar Republic" in the Search box at your left and hit "Go") I don't think you can expect anyone else to be terribly interested in taking the time to help you answer it. I'm always happy to help but I won't write your essay or your thesis for you. --Fastfission 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Fastfission, I have read the article, and there isn't any heading called weaknesses, thus i went to the reference desk, and im not expecting anybody to do my article for me, rather get help on how to navigate WIkipedia, get some information for my essay and cite the source as wikipedia, simple
This is a big question and one that is not that simple to answer, as there are so many imponderables involved. The first and most important point to consider is that German democracy was born out of defeat, and was always tarnished by this association. To make matters worse economic and political problems brought the young republic close to collapse, with the steady growth in political extermism-both on the right and the left-up to 1923, the year the French occupied the Ruhr when Germany defaulted on reparation payments. However, from the beginning of 1924 things began to change. The Dawes Plan stabilised the question of reparations, inflation was brought to and end, and German economic recovery fueled by American loans. Weimar now enterd a period of political calmness, noted by the growth in political moderation and in the decline of parties like the Nazis and the Communists, unremittingly hostile to the settlement of 1919. The apogee of this period came with the formation of Hermann Müller's Grand Coalition, following the Reichstag elections of 1928, in which the Nazis won only 12 seats. If things had gone like this on the Republic may very well have stabilised, and Adolf Hitler may have become no more than a footnote in history. It was not to be. In 1929 Wall Street crashed and the German economy crashed with it. American loans dried up and unemployment rose to the millions. In the Reichstag elections of September 1930 the Nazis, hitherto little more than a lunatic fringe, rose from 12 to 107 seats. In the summer of 1932 they became the largest party, by which time there were more political groups opposed to Weimar than those in support. The rest is history. As one British historian put it "In France the Republic is the form of government that divides people least; in Germany it is the form that divides them most" White Guard 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


Seems I owe the questioner an apology here. Sorry. We get a lot of homework questions and "discuss" quite frequently indicates that it is one. Anyway. I'm glad you got some good answers. DJ Clayworth 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Apology accepted, and I'm sorry too for being such a bad sport and over-reacting

[edit] Swadesh lists

I was wondering about the existence of printable versions of the swadesh lists found in both Wikipedia and in Wiktionary. Thanks.

Should I take it that the old "cut-and-paste-to-Word/Excel" method doesn't work for some reason? Loomis 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In what sense isn't it printable? Control-P should do the trick, shouldn't it? There is also a 'printable version' link to the left of each article. If you want only the list itself, just copy it to an application that gives you the print options you like. DirkvdM 07:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The font for the printable version is too big.

For a too big font, most browsers, as Internet Explorer or Firefox, offer a "print preview" where you can reduce the size of the page. Does that help ?
Personnally, I would have that list of mere short words in columns. Copy in a word processor and choose 'columns (five or six should do).
But maybe we have tools here to do the job . I'm looking at help pages. -- DLL .. T 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Almost done - see Talk:Swadesh list. -- DLL .. T 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Convicted pedophile"

My question is law related, but you'll be glad to know that it's not legal advice. Newspapers and opinion columnists sometimes refer to an individual as a "convicted pedophile". My instinct is that this is wrong, because pedophilia is not a crime per se in most jurisdictions. One can be a convicted child sex offender or something of the sort, but feeling attracted to children isn't a crime in itself as long as one doesn't possess illegal porn or abuse children. Am I right? Is there ever any grounds for using the phrase "convicted pedophile"? Also, while I'm on the subject, a friend tells me that in the UK "pedophile" means someone with a foot fetish, whereas the other kind is spelled "paedophile" and pronounced with a long E. Can anyone from the UK confirm this? --Grace 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The term should be "convicted sex offender". If you want to be more specific, I believe "convicted pederast", would be a far better description than "convicted pedophile" is. However it would still be an imperfect one, as for some reason the definition of pederasty seems to be restricted only to sexual relations between men and young boys. Still I think it would be a more appropriate term, as it's a description one who's actually performed a sexual offence related to children, rather than a pedophile, who is, as your correct in saying, merely one who has sexual desires for children, without necessarily acting on them or harming children in any way. Loomis 20:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Because a sex offender can be someone who assaulted an adult, it should be "convicted child sex offender". This came up in an argument on the Patriot Act article. A man was convicted of 100 counts of possessing child pornography and on trial on one count of child sexual abuse (awaiting trial for two others). So, what do you call him. Unfortunately, the main person in the argument was an idiot and I hadn't learned my lesson at that time: "Never argue with an idiot. They will lower you to their level and win by experience every time." --Kainaw (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's important to specify that the offences were against children as distinct from adults, you might use the term "convicted child sex offender". But in general, a person convicted of sex offences is correctly called a "convicted sex offender", regardless of the age of the victim. JackofOz 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but do you agree with myself and the questioner that the term pedophile in "convicted pedophile" is something of a misnomer? Loomis 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the original meaning of "pedophile" did not imply anything taboo or illegal, but I think it has come to mean anyone who commits any sexual offence against any young person. "Pederast" is becoming outdated; and as you point out, its technical meaning was restricted to goings on between men and boys, so it had no application where women and/or girls were involved. It could not be used as a generic term, whereas "pedophile" can. That's my take on the matter. JackofOz 23:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Note that the term "child sex offender" could mean a child who has committed a sexual offense. There are also many cases where two people under the age of 18 have sex, and in many jurisdictions they are both "children guilty of sexual offenses against children". StuRat 22:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
How lawyerly of you, Stu, to offer such imaginative semantic interpretations of the phrase "child sex offender". :) I suppose, in a twisted grammatical sense, you can stretch it even further. A "child sex offender" can be someone who acts offensively toward the idea of "child sex". For example, if I were to see two children having sex, and if I were to berate them for it, that would make me a "child sex offender", no? Ok...so that one's a bit of a stretch. Time for bed. :-) Loomis 22:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion is particularly relevant to the continued discussions about the PNVD in the Netherlands. The suffix -philia means "a liking of". Liking children doesn't neccesarily result in sexual abuse. They should only be punished if the act out their fantasies. The leader of that party admits to abuse because it's too long ago for him to be prosecuted, but appears not all the party members actually did anything illegal. There should definitely be a distinction made between pedophile and sex offender. Sorry for ranting. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a rant in my book. I agree with what you say, except it's a question of where the law draws the line. It's one thing to say "Oh, I only look at pictures of naked young boys/girls, but I would never touch them physically", but can the law, or politicians, afford to take such risks? Once upon a time, the mere possession of pedophilic pictures was not illegal, just as pictures of somebody murdering somebody is still not illegal afaik, while the act itself is. But times have changed, the churches' dirty work has been exposed, and the law now takes a much dimmer view in many places of pictures of sexualised children. There is a not unreasonable view that a salacious interest in such material could well lead to sexual activity, so better to nip it in the bud. I wouldn't want to be the government spokesman who had to answer to the parent of an abused child, for allowing people to own pedophilic material on the basis that "there's no harm in just having pictures". JackofOz 12:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The danger in the US is that anyone who attempts to develop a pic of their kid in the tub gets arrested and must register as a "child sex offender", leaving those who actually kidnap and rape children hidden in a massive pool of "child sex offenders". Thus, for fear of being labeled "pro-child sex offender", the politicians make the situation far more dangerous for kids. StuRat 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A pedophile is also a manifestation of mental sickness. When there are signs of abuse in the family history, this tendency develops as a consequence of lack of proper upbringing & an appropriate mindset or as a consequence of lack of education and high exposure to pornographic material.[kjvenus]

"The Reference desk is not a soapbox". --ColinFine 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
To answer the final part of your question: yes, here in the UK the usual spelling is "paedophile", with the first syllable pronounced with a long E. (It's pronounced like that here even when the American spelling is used, actually.) However, the volume of American media in Britain means that the US spelling is pretty much universally understood to mean the same thing. Anyone saying "I'm a pedophile" when they meant "I'm a foot fetishist" would be in for a very rough time indeed. Loganberry (Talk) 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edexcel

Is there any way in which A-Level students can obtain past papers and mark schemes from the Edexcel - Uk exam board - website. I rele need too look at some tests for my revision and seeing as our teacher only has a couple, was wondering if any of you guys knew how to access some old tests. Thanks! Ahadland 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the particular topic of the past papers you're looking for? Loomis 22:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Its for a GCE (AS (Advanced Subsidiary)) course in english literature
[2] here is an index of all Edexcel subjects, under each is a list of all of the courses in that subject, on each course there are past papers, mark schemes, examiner reports, unit tests, specifications, and various other documents of use. Hope this helps. Philc TECI 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)