Humanities desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk 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 on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 12[edit]

Murder, She Spoke[edit]

Person "A" tells person "B" something, knowing that by doing so they will cause person "B" to kill person "C". Has person "A" committed a crime, and if so, what? --67.185.172.158 (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's solicitation to commit murder. Corvus cornix_talk 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, solicitation means making a specific request, and does not cover things like "Joe slept with your wife". --67.185.172.158 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking into account special circumstances such as soldiers in war time or various psychological problems that persons A or B may have... How would person A know for a fact that person B would in fact kill person C? Dismas|^(talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably incitement to violence, but it would depend on the nature of what A tells B, and the nature of the killing. If A is an influential person who whips up B into a homicidal fervor against members of C's ethnic group, then A's crime would certainly be incitement. If, however, A tells B to turn on a trash compactor, knowing that C is inside it, then A would have committed murder, while B would not have committed any crime at all. If A tells B that he is being cuckolded by C, and B then kills C, then I'm not sure what crime A has committed. How can he know for sure that the information would lead B to commit a crime? Lantzy ^talk 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter how they know, so long as person "A" is speaking with the intent of causing person "B" to kill "C"? --67.185.172.158 (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, however it's a legal question (and no I'm not about to spurt out that we don't dish out legal advice, because nobody's advising you of anything, yet). Someone knowledgable on laws may be able to think of some possible crimes. I must say that it's difficult to think of a scenario where A would be sure that B would actually try to kill C, just by saying something. My layperson's answer is that first of all the police would have to find out, then it would be up to a prosecutor to try and charge A with a crime, and they would only do so if they felt a jury or judge would rule in their favour.
I can think of an example where A *tells* B to kill C, then that's conspiracy to murder, does that count? What if Mikkie Blue-Eyes the gangster king-pin, tells Vinny The Tulip that Charlie killed his father, knowing full well that Vinny will rub him out? What if Mikkie was lying? What if Mikkie was simply telling the truth? Rfwoolf (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In descending order of magnitude, you could have:

crime itself (here, murder)
attempt
conspiracy
incitement
accessory

(Not sure about the order of the last two)

This ranges from the theoretically possible but realistically highly improbable scenario of you saying things to another person, intentionally or recklessly knowing that that person has no will of their own at all and will act automatically to kill the other person or at least cause them grievous bodily harm (in which case there is an unbroken chain of causation so that you are guilty of the murder itself - and the wielder of the blade is a mere automaton acting solely on your command), to telling the person something, intending that they should go and kill the victim and knowing that they would have the necessary intention or recklessness of murder - that would be incitement to murder.

The articles on those inchoate crimes should have further details on the degree of mens rea necessary for each. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there's also the chance person A could have threatened person B.HS7 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~True - duress.~~

According to the article duress, it is not available as a defence to murder. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about a variation: Person "A" knows person "B" is preparing to murder person "C", but that person "B" doesn't know where person "C" is. Would telling person "B" the location of person "C" be a crime? --67.185.172.158 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. election primaries and conventions[edit]

Unless I misunderstood the story I was listening to on NPR today, when the Democrats finally get together in their convention to choose either Clinton or Obama to run for president they can go against all the primary results and things and just choose who they want. Do I have this right? If so, what's the use of having primaries if they can just choose whoever the hell they want without having to take into account the millions of voters who chose a particular candidate over another candidate? This may very well surpass my confusion over the point of the electoral system... Dismas|^(talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's due to the Superdelegates. They are not pledged to any candidate and can vote for whomever they want to. Even if Obama, say, has the most pledged delegates, if he doesn't have a majority, the superdelegates can turn the convention for Clinton. Or vice versa. That's why both sides are making lots of calls to the superdelegates to try to convince them. Corvus cornix_talk 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should really stop learning anything about the political process in this country. Every time I do it seems to be even more of a backwards and convoluted system. Thanks for the response though. Dismas|^(talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Most of the delegates are pledged to vote for a certain candidate based on the primary/caucus results. It's only if the race is close that the superdelegates can swing the decision. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the delegates are "pledged" but even that doesn't mean that they are required to vote for that candidate. Just like faithless electors in the electoral college, any delegate can break his pledge and vote for another candidate. This may even be required if there is a brokered convention. Rmhermen (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps worth remembering, Dismas, that the primary season is a function of the political parties rather than something constitutionally established like the electoral college. Because of that, I'll try to draw a private industry analogy. Consider television networks, which use ratings systems to evaluate what shows are highly-watched. Networks, though, remain free to make decisions contrary to ratings data. One popular show may be discontinued while a lesser one is retained. Similarly, the primaries really serve as a tool for parties to test their candidates' electability. The current trend is for the primaries to mandate a large degree of the process, but there's nothing about it that couldn't be overridden by the parties at their own discretion. — Lomn 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that even if a delegate's pledge is not binding, normally one would seek to become a delegate to the national convention on behalf of Obama or Clinton only if one were really, really committed to that candidate. Most of the pledged delegates are likely to stay faithful until they are released by their candidates (or unless the convention has to go to a second ballot). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The process by which parties in the United States select candidates is actually more democratic than the corresponding processes in most countries. In most otherwise democratic countries, there are no primaries at all, and the leading operatives of a party simply meet, wheel and deal, and then vote on candidates to lead the party in the next round of elections. The principle behind having superdelegates seems to me a sound one. These are people who are experienced in politics and who are probably better able to judge than many ordinary voters which candidate has the best chance of winning in the general election and advancing the party's interests. Also, they can wait to make their decision until relatively late in the election season and can respond to recent developments, whereas our front-loaded primary season forces many primary voters to choose a candidate nine months or more before the general election. Let's say, for example, that Clinton led in delegates at the end of April, but it was discovered in May that she was having an affair with Osama bin Laden. Then the superdelegates could swing behind Obama to save the party's prospects in the general election. Marco polo (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a giggle. It would take the Republican camp all of 5 seconds to encourage people to believe they'd heard "Hillary and Osama having an affair" (utterly unbelievable) as "Hillary and Obama having an affair" (only marginally less believable, but still within the bounds of possibility), as a way of doing damage to both their leading opponents in one go. :) ---- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: when one person has a wide majority of the delegates, it's common for the losing candidates to free their delegates so that the "floor vote" will look unanimous (or close to it), even though the actual result was not. That's just a bit of having fun for the TV cameras, and shouldn't be interpreted as a faithless delegate situation. --M @r ē ino 20:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering asking the Democratic National Committee if there is archival material relating to the superdelegate apportionment. This morning's New York Times states that the purpose of superdelegates is debatable. The Clinton camp is arguing their purpose is to nominate someone who will shore up the party elite and win the general election. The Obama camp is arguing that the superdelegates must shadow the will of the majority of Democrats who voted in caucauses and primaries. As an antiwar activist in the 1960's, I remember the battles on the floor and outside the convention. I am shocked - or perhaps angry - is more correct. The DNC is still in establishment hands instead of reflecting the reforms imposed b/c of the 1960s. People who take the time to vote, people who volunteer time and cash - we are the party. I am a lawyer. I cannot believe that documentary evidence of intent does not exist. If my vote is meaningless to the party establishment, I can certainly decide to become an independent. 75Janice (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable that, like the Electoral College, nothing like superdelegates exist for any other type of election in the U.S. Ordinarily, the winner of the primary is the party's candidate, end of story. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except in those states where the candidates for statewide office are chosen by caucus, not primary. Then, it's quite possible for the winning candidate to be someone who wins because of support from the "establishment" rather than the voting population as a whole. --M @r ē ino 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stalin the leader[edit]

why did stalin become communist leader when he was a grey blur and they were so many others like trotsky more inteligent and better than him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by P B S D (talk • contribs) 06:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does intelligence have to do with taking power? George W. Bush is President and Albert Einstein wasn't (of Israel). It's a matter of ambition, inclination and circumstances. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Israeli/Palestinian conflict[edit]

I would like to become better acquainted with the Israel/Palestine conflict. Could anybody recommend some good books that present an impartial introduction to the subject please? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Laqueur's "The Israel-Arab Reader" contains a large collection of historical documents which give both the Israel and Arab viewpoints. Simonschaim (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documents are a good idea. Another way to do this is to read partial histories from both sides' perspectives. At least that way the bias is up front and your reading will be instinctively critical. I'm guessing that you're a student of music, not history, but forgive me if I state the obvious; there are precious few secondary histories that are entirely impartial. Part of the skill of the historian when reading secondary (and, for that matter, primary) sources is in wheedling out the bias, so it's helpful if it's in your face. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of good books that I could recommend, depending how deep you want to go, but I will confine myself to two: Mark Tessler's tome-like A History of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict, and the more recent, and slightly less demanding, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History by David Lesch. I suppose you could also try Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents by Charles Smith. The documents and the maps are good, though the author finds if difficult to hide his bias. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Revolution and the working class[edit]

Hi, Clio!! Remember me? LOL. I have to prepare for a debate in my history class on the theme did the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 advance or hinder the cause of the European working class. I can't really find what I am looking for in the encyclopedia (Russian Revolution etc.) and would be grateful for any hints and leads to help me along the road. Thanx. Kathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathy Burns (talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, well, let's just say that's highly contentious. Basically you're asking if Communism in Europe actually helped the working class throughout Europe. It was always been my opinion, and certainly seems to be backed up by statistics even acknowledged by many far-left (i.e., Communist) sources, that Communism actually puts a dent in the economy, and hurts the lower class more than it helps it. When you end up robbing from the people who propel the economy, you bring the whole thing down. That being said, others might be able to argue convincingly that a socialist-ward movement in Western/Central Europe helped the lower classes in those regions. But to answer your question, the fact that communism was widely unpopular throughout Eastern Europe, even by the lower classes, should show it wasn't that effective. Even the Russians weren't that pro-Communism by the 1990s. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could make the argument (and the argument has been made) that the specter of a communist revolution was one concern that prompted the more progressive capitalists of Western Europe and North America to support Keynesian policies that improved the lot of the working classes through public works and social welfare programs, particularly during and after the 1930s. The existence of a revolutionary communist movement and the precedent of the Russian Revolution probably also made centrist and liberal politicians more wiling to "do business" with social democrats and to enact laws protecting the interests of the working class. Marco polo (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kathy, I remember you. I think this is a very interesting subject, and I'm sure you will be able to construct a good argument. I think you are probably best to look at it in the historical short term. To consider, in other words, the immediate impact of the Russian Revolution on the post-war history of the European left, rather than looking at the more widely based effects of Communism. Taking that perspective, think of it this way; the history of the inter-war period is, it might be said, the history of reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution; that the victory of the Communists-which Lenin and Trotsky believed would be the spark for revolution across the Continent-was only the first stage in a new civil war, a new class war, if you prefer, in which the left saw defeat, after defeat, after defeat. Not only did the Bolshevik victory cause a permanent division between the Communists and the moderate Socialists, but it was one of the most important factors in the shaping of Fascism and right-wing authoritarianism, first in Italy and then across the rest of Europe. Fear of Communism, in other words, was the greatest single force in galvanizing the right, from Horthy to Hitler.

So, you already have an international labour movement divided and weakened by the emergence of vigorous forms of right-wing reaction. To make matters even worse, a large section of the left looked to the Third International in Moscow for political direction, which most often results in a 'general line', regardless of local conditions. Looking beyond Europe, the United Front strategy of the 1920s obliged those loyal to Moscow to enter into alliances with so-called bourgeoisie liberation movements, which almost led to the ruin of the Chinese Communist Party in 1927, when it was purged by Chang Kai-shek. Having learned nothing from this, the Comintern then adopted the ultra-left Third Period line, favoured by Stalin, which insisted that revolution was immanent, and that the real enemy was not the Fascist right but the moderate left, the so-called 'Social Fascists'. It was against this background that Hitler came to power in 1933, bringing the destruction of the KPD, the largest Communist party in Europe outside Russia.

Now, with the whole of the European left in disarray, and Stalin in a state of shock, the Comintern made yet another rapid change, this time in favour of Popular Fronts, intended to unite all on the left, Communists and Socialists, with moderate liberals, in a common effort against the further advance of Fascism. But the Popular Front in France only added to that country's deepening political divisions, while the Popular Front in Spain led to the outbreak of the Civil War and the victory of Francisco Franco, yet another serious defeat of the left.

So, what is your conclusion? Simply this: that the Bolshevik Revolution created the raison d'etre for Fascism and, by dividing the left, weakened the capacity of the working classes to resist its advance. It was a disaster in whichever way you care to look at it, in Russia and beyond. That's it. Make of that what you will, and the very best of luck! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

emilian school[edit]

Reading up on Guido Reni I learn that he belonged to the 'Emilian School' of painters. Have found others in this group, mainly northern italian C17 period, but cannot find a clear definition. I gather there is a language or dialect called Emilano-Romagnolo in this area. Is there a connection? is it possible to define and clearly identify this school please? Namronwoh (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Namronwoh[reply]

Reni was born in Bologna, which is one of the major cities in the old Italian region of Emilia, an area now incorporated into the modern region of Emilia-Romagna. The school is also known as the Bolognese School (painting) and other important members were Annibale Carracci and Giovanni Lanfranco. SaundersW (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iliad and Odyssey[edit]

What are the best translated versions for American-english speaking readers? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you are looking for. If you want poetry, I recommend Alexander Pope's translations ([1], [2]; not exactly American English!). If you prefer a very literal prose translation, the Loeb Classical Library is probably the best choice. See also English translations of Homer. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for Robert Fagles. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own readings, and all my previous professors seem to endorse Robert Fitzgerald for literal translation, and beauty of language. His Aeneid is lovely. But please, resist the Dover Thrift Editions, their low price is not worth the translations they find.... Zidel333 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In university we used the translations by Richmond Lattimore. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson said of Pope's beautiful translation of the Iliad that it was "a performance which no age or nation could hope to equal", while Richard Bentley said "It is a pretty poem, Mr Pope, but you must not call it Homer." Xn4 12:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm quite a few differing opinions. I was considering Robert Fagle's versions when I asked, so I might go with that. Of course, Pope's version looks okay too...hmmm...ANyway, thanks for your help and time. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E V Rieu's prose translations in Penguin are very readable, and I am informed that they are not an awful betrayal of Homer. SaundersW (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, EV Rieu's Homer translations are fine. They have been amended in recent times by his son, who seems to have done a good job of it. For verse, Fagles is fine – despite the mixed and often snobbish critical reception. I have more than a dozen Homer translations in my collection, and I will often consult two, three, or more, depending on the importance of the task to hand. And for some purposes you simply have to go to the Greek originals.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've always heard that you have to read a text in it's original language/dialect to get the full 'experience'. What dialect of greek would I have to learn to be able to read the Greek originals? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try learning modern Greek first, then once you become comfortable and proficient in it, learn the ancient dialect which Homer has been preserved in. AllenHansen (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of like learning Italian if you want to read Latin...you should learn ancient Attic Greek, which was the Athenian dialect and basically what everyone means by "ancient Greek". Then you can learn the older epic style of Homer more easily. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal charter[edit]

In the Commonwealth, is being granted the royal charter the same or at least part of having the right to include the word "Royal" in the name of the organisation or corporation? --Kvasir (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not the same: many bodies (cities and universities, for example) with a royal charter do not use the word 'royal' in their name. I don't know if a royal charter is necessary for an organisation to call itself royal. Algebraist 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm looking for the word of the process that grant the right to use the word "royal". Also are there laws governing the use of the word in the name. Say, would i be allowed to incoporate an organisation called: "Royal Wikipedia Society of Canada" or build a hospital called "Royal Elizabeth Hospital". --Kvasir (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The granting of charters in the UK is done by Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, their FAQ gives information on the 'Royal' usage and notes that it's administered by the Department of Constitutional Affairs. It also notes that the use of Royal doesn't necessarily mean a company/org holds a charter but seems to give the impression to me that it's still a royal decree - "The use of the prefix 'Royal' does not necessarily denote the existence of a Charter, it can be granted at the prerogative of the Monarch, and the Privy Council is not involved in the process. For example, Queen Victoria gave permission for 'The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' to become 'The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' in 1840." Anyway, a number of Commonwealth countries have their own privy councils that may administer charters in their countries or enforce Royal usage. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What priveleges, if any, do these organisations have? Tax break? right to use heraldric arms? I see it's the same department that grant the right to use arms and the right to use the word Royal. On what merits are the decision based?

On similar note, what about these products seemingly endorsed by the monarchy like Worcestershire sauce, "By appointment of Her Majesty... etc" What does it mean? --Kvasir (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means Her Majesty has given them permission to use that wording. --Carnildo (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means Her Majesty has agreed to be part of their advertising in order to obtain a really good price on some generally high quality and otherwise rather expensive goods :) - Nunh-huh 03:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Royal Warrant. Foxhill (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oo thanks! and a list of royal endorsed products! --Kvasir (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my original question, sounds like letters patent is what I'm looking for? --Kvasir (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking whether letters patent grant "Royal" prefixes - generlaly letters patent are legislative instruments - and can even have constitution-like status. I thought "Royal" is granted by proclamation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal" is indeed granted by proclamation. A proclamation was made by Elizabeth II in May of 2005 allowing the Provincial Museum of Alberta to call itself the "Royal Alberta Museum".[3] --68.144.68.238 (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thannk you All! --Kvasir (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's opinion of Barack Obama for president?[edit]

Are there any polls or studys on Europeans thoughts about Obama as the next US president? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There sure are. Here's one such example, and many more can be easily found with search strings like "europe obama poll". — Lomn 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site offers a review of European newspapers: [[4]]. It appears quite biased, and seems to misrepresent the articles it quotes. However, I'd say it's essentially correct in that there's generally a (slight) bias for the Democrats/Obama. Random Nonsense (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, The Economist is officially undecided. In their most recent editorial on the matter, they stated, "a Democrat may yet impress us more, but first they must put their own house in order." --M @r ē ino 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, a last week study (from Radio-Canada / CBC I think) had the result that 95% canadians would prefer any Democrat candidate against only 5% for Republican 142.169.252.84 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama is without doubt favoured in the Netherlands, except some women, who sometimes favour Clinton for obvious reasons. User:Krator (t c) 21:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general feeling in Europe (perhaps with the exception of Italy and Poland) is ABB, Anybody But Bush. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Europeans are Democrats! The Spectator has come down firmly on the side of John McCain in its 9 February lead. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who said they were? The only comments I see anywhere close to saying that are Random Nonsense's 'generally a (slight) bias' and the anon telling us what Canada (in a rather generous extension of Europe) thinks. While most of us are democrats, I don't think anyone was claiming we were all Democrats.

On the subject of what Europe thinks, I have found the Times and the Guardian's coverage of the candidates rather amusing, as they give their own slants. Each time a result comes in, is the story that someone won or that someone lost? But generally they have been covering the Democrat candidates in more detail than the Republican candidates, even though they disagree as to which candidate they notice most. I suppose the Guardian plumping for a Democrat is no more surprising than the Spectory picking a Republican, but I've noticed much less coverage of Republican candidates in other news services too. Skittle (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a complaint of GOPers in America, too. But, quite frankly, the Clinton-Obama race is just more compelling than the Republican one. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(After quick search of encyclopedia) GOPers = Republicans? Skittle (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, short for Grand Old Party. — Lomn 15:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a european I can say I couldn't pick between them (though Juliani (sic) seemed like a joke .. but he's gone now) The most bemusing thing is that americans think that Obama is black? eh?87.102.114.245 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've got the one-drop rule. --Sean 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something out of apartheid south africa.. Still it's your country - you know best. Ron Paul doesn't even get mentioned over here. The candidates seem normal... 87.102.114.245 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I've got to say that Obama seems to lack the 'maturity' quality.. he's got that just married look.87.102.114.245 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama self-identifies as black, which is the important thing. Many mixed-race people (e.g. Tiger Woods) call themselves mixed-race, others (e.g. Vin Diesel) reject all labels, but some, like Obama, consider themselves black. I like what he said about some members of his family looking like Bernie Mac while others look like Margaret Thatcher, though. The image of Barack Obama, Bernie Mac, and Margaret Thatcher sitting around the Thanksgiving dinner table together is hysterical. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Clintons remove items from the White House that did not belong to them?[edit]

A mudslinging email came my way and one of the items was that the Clintons took things from the White House that were not theirs and damaged other items. How much truth is there to this? I don't find a definitive source one way or the other anywhere, not even Snopes. Thank you, Mooney12.146.184.9 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading about things like nasty messages being left in lipstick on computer monitor screens and trash being left around, but I do not think that it was much worse than that. Perhaps a few boxes of paper clips were taken from a cabinet. If it had been a serious matter, surely charges would have been filed. Marco polo (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should stress that I never saw any evidence that the Clintons themselves were aware of or involved in the adolescent trashing I have just described. My understanding is that a few staffers did it at the last minute, very likely without the knowledge of the Clintons. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, do you have any sources? Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an old article from the Guardian about the subject. A few things to note in that article: it says some of the information came from the Drudge Report website, referred to as "sometime uncorroborated." It also used the Washington Times as a source, the Times is not known to be the most impartial and reliable source. Most of the blame, such as it is, is placed on staff members, not the Clintons; and finally, it is mentioned that the incoming staff in 1993 found some surprises as well. --LarryMac | Talk 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article on the subject. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) While reading these articles, I noted that the GAO investigated. I've been searching for the report of the investigation (audit, inquiry) on their website but no luck. I do find several quotes regarding the staff vandalism of the offices in various news archives, but nothing on the alleged furniture, china, art, etc, that were allegedly taken. Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard at the time, that from all the computer keyboards, the letter 'W' had been removed ... 200.127.59.151 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Ow, my bad, it's mentionned in the linked articles. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually true. The Ws were removed from some, (not all), keyboards and there was some other vandalism. What was unusual about THAT was that the the incoming administration made such a fuss about it as it's apparently de rigeur for the outgoing staff to cause some mischief. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Salon.com article, about 95% was a hoax and/or media over-reaction. As Mooney said, the vandalism was pretty minor in the annals of White House practical jokes. --M @r ē ino 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I really need to learn to ask my questions better. Everyone here is extremely helpful and I should be more clear when I'm looking for answers.

I am specifically looking for sourced information regarding the allegation that the Clintons personally took items that belonged to the White House inventory to furnish their own personal homes and offices with once their tenure was over. Thanks for the help though, y'all are the cheese. Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some reference to this matter in Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary Clinton. I read a library copy so I cannot reference it now. There was a misunderstanding regarding gifts. He mentioned it. Even people who are as reviled as the Clintons do make innocent mistakes. There were more important insights into character, both positive and negative, than misplaced items.75Janice (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)75Janice[reply]

It occurs to me that Republican researchers may want our help in finding mud to sling at Democrats. Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting thought but other than helping kids with their homework why place restrictions on the type of question asked or limit the research performed to answer it? Where would the line be drawn? (I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm truly curious as to why you might be inclined to censor certain types of questions.) Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly possible, but then, who knows what our questioners do with any of the answers we give here? I think we must extend the assumption of good faith to our questioners, in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary. We certainly can't impose conditions like "We'll only answer if you undertake not to use the information in ways that we here at Wikipedia would not approve of". Also, an unknown number of people unrelated to the questioner read and use our answers in ways we never get to hear about. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm more or less neutral about it. I get emails from both (divorced) parents. One is a "big C" Conservative Republican, the other a "big L" Liberal Democrat, (Just one reason for complete and utter incompatiblity :). As you might guess knowing that tidbit, I'm smack in the middle and I tend to fact check the glurge that comes out of both sides. I couldn't find anything either way other than people who state, "Yes, yes! They took everything that wasn't red hot or nailed down!", without any source to back it up. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that the Ref Desk censor questions probing for dirt on candidates. I was just pointing out that campaign operatives might find the Ref Desk a useful resource. Whether an editor chooses to answer questions of that nature would be up to the editor. Marco polo (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True that, but if we're dealing in facts then we can only hope that the facts will ultimately speak for themselves.... Cheers, Mooney 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.184.9 (talk)

Republicans might want to put their own houses in order before they sling mud. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Habib Elmasry[edit]

Hello. I am a contributor (User:Dhatier) of the Wikipedia french edition, trying to translate the page about Iris Habib Elmasry. It is written in it that «...in 1955, she went to the London Gallery to obtain further materials and documents». What about this «London Gallery»? When searching or that name in Google or similar, I just find a store for antique furniture, or National gallery, paintings museum. Thank you 142.169.252.84 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked User:Ghaly, who added that piece of information. I'd assume it was the National Gallery, but I can find no reference to the gallery being called that, especially as late as 1955. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the original source of the statement. --Lambiam 06:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Macbeth's Sin[edit]

Hello. Was Lady Macbeth's suicide a Christian sin in Shakespearean times if she has done so? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC) moved from Language desk. Gwinva (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say probably so. According to Religious views of suicide#Christianity, suicide was considered sinful by the 6th century; those who committed suicide were denied a Christian burial. I don't know whether insanity was considered a mitigating circumstance, though; nor do I know if Lady Macbeth would have been considered sufficiently insane for such an exception (if it existed) to apply to her. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views of suicide#Early Christianity says yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See how Shakespeare treats Ophelia's suicide in Hamlet. And Hamlet himself remarks that God set "his canon 'gainst self-slaughter". Rhinoracer (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist[edit]

I'm looking at a sheet from the 1900 U.S. census, and a 45-year-old man in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, lists his occupation as "capitalist". What did that mean back then? I've looked in the OED and I've searched Wikipedia, but the closest I can come to an answer is that it meant something like "investor" would now. The trouble is that he had a job in the paper mill at the time. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be something in the realm of accountancy? A ecis^Brievenbus 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's someone who was employed solely to make sure capital-letters were used in the correct place for books???? I'm guessing capitalist would mean investor of some form - like a venture capitalist. ny156uk (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a dictionary quote: "the creation of the factory system by nineteenth-century capitalists" looks like he would have been an investor or entrepreneur. I guess it would have involved a lot of accountancy. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A capitalist is a person who owns and derives income from capital - i.e. money, plant, assets. From a modern perspective, we might think of this person as an active investor or owner-operator of a business enterprise - some of whom would also be called "industrialists". What was this person's job at the mill? If he is a director, chairman, managing director, etc, then he is probably at the same time a major shareholder. There is nothing stopping one from being employed by a company that one owns or part owns: e.g. modern-day employee stock purcahse plans. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that same census, an old lady I know of from genealogy research owned a small piece of farmland she rented for a small sum. She, too entered "Capitalist" as her occupation, just as if she were J.P. Morgan. Some may have enterd it half in jest, when "No occupation" or "Keeping house" might have been more accurate. It might have been a pretension to a higher status, or pure whimsy. It's not like one needed a charter or license or a certain amount of capital to purport to be a capitalist. Edison (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(And she *is* a capitalist in the truest sense of the word! She owns capital (land - as real an asset as you can get) derives income by allowing others to use it in production.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason to suppose he was labor and not management at the mill, and his holdings, if holdings he held, were not considerable. He did own a house, though. So it's starting to look like what I suspected, that people were fond of fancying themselves that at that time on the slightest pretext. I'd still like to be surer, though. Asking here was the last cyber-step before hitting the books. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think the word was coined by Karl Marx in Das Kapital (1867-1894). He often used it contemptously - for instance, see this passage in volume 1, part 2 - "Der Kapitalist weiß, daß alle Waren, wie lumpig sie immer aussehn oder wie schlecht sie immer riechen, im Glauben und in der Wahrheit Geld, innerlich beschnittne Juden sind, und zudem wundertätige Mittel, um aus Geld mehr Geld zu machen." (The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look or however bad they may smell, are in belief and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and, what is more, a wonderful means to turn money to make more money). I find it a little comical to see people a few years later starting to use the word capitalist to state their occupation. An almost equivalent standard term in use in England at the time (seen in censuses, for instance) is of independent means, which was understood to mean that the person concerned had enough income to live on from property and/or investments, so had no need to work. Xn4 12:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

astrology question!! yay!![edit]

hi guys...what does it mean to have a certain amount of 'aspects' (triunes, sextiles, oppositions, squares) in one's chart? if anything? what does it say about two people if one has 14 aspects and the other has like 10... who is better? or more complicated? is it better to be more complicated and to nhave more aspects to your chart? or is it better to be more simple and toghether with less opposing influences tearing you appart?.... if it has to do with evolution, who is more evolved? the one with more aspects? the one with less?

thank u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.188.77 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote goes to the chart that's simple and with less influences tearing you apart. But I guess there's more to it, especially when you add minor aspects, Uranian midpoints, Arabic parts and fixed stars, any chart can get pretty busy. Lots of blue lines are postive even enviable, and red lines or tough aspects are more challenging, but IMO it's hard to tell if the simper or more positive chart is about being more "evolved" or whether a complicated chart is a challenge to a person who's already evolved. Happy wandering through our Astrology articles. I tried to link to Soft aspect (Astrology) and Hard aspect (Astrology) but you'll have to enter them in the search box for them to work. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft aspect (astrology); hard aspect (astrology). But astrological aspect is a considerably more useful article. As a rule, the more aspects the better, as that person should find it easier to usefully integrate their various energies. However, it is really the type and strength (closeness) of aspect that is significant, rather than the number.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick pedantic note: the aspect is trine, not triune. [Tribunes > tribune > triune > trine > tine > tin > in > I!]

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again Noetica, this makes me smile: [I < ni < nit < enit < enirt < enuirt < enubirt < senubirt!] Julia Rossi (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]