Choose a reference desk

February 7

nudism religion

Is there such religion where people worshipped their god in nude?

Lots, probably, but Wicca and its sky-clad rituals pop most readily to mind. - Nunh-huh 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is a relative term. Nudists may claim religious inspiration if it is convenient. So any examples are fluid.

Early Mormonism may have had some devotees, though I doubt it mainstream. Sects like of Jonestown or Koresh had liberal views on sex/marriage. Thing is, religion is termed that because of certain laws guarenteeing freedoms, including tax relief. They mightn't exist in some cases if they were treated as mere corporate bodies. I have heard interesting stories regarding J Edgar Hoover. Sorry I'm not more helpful. DDB 10:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Mormonism does not include any example of worshipping nude (mainstream or otherwise). TK421 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many fertility religions would have involved sexual intercourse in their worship. See Dionysus (particularly the link to Livy's description of the Bacchanale) and possibly Astarte. --Dweller 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some early christian sects were synchretisms between christian doctrines and pagan or hedonistic traditions. Some of their rituals would end up in orgies to celebrate fecondity. I'll let you guess what such sects as the "spermatophages" got up to in order to celebrate their union to the god(dess) of fertility. Keria 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a religion or religious sect in India where large numbers of its worshipers, both men and women, take to the streets naked. Dont know what its called. And then there are many Indian holy men who live nude.

Some Finnish pagans made sacrifices to local spirit of household if they had made that spirit unhappy and tried to compensate. Normally they sarcificed with clothes on. 193.167.45.242 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War outcomes and troop levels

Of all of the large-scale international wars in modern history (let's say after American independence), what percent have been won by the side that committed the most troops to the conflict (with technological advancement, other resources, etc. ignored)? C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a large research project, which may be beyond the time that most Reference Desk editors have available for this sort of thing. The first task of such a project would be to determine what constitutes a "large-scale international war". For example, does the current Iraq War qualify? Once those parameters are determined, you might want to search for figures for each conflict in The Encyclopedia of Military History by Trevor and Richard Dupuy, though this covers only the period up to the mid-1980s. For more recent conflicts that meet your parameters, you might be able to find troop numbers in the relevant Wikipedia articles. Obviously, you would also need to record which side won each conflict. Then record the conflicts in which the side with the greatest troop strength won, tally the number that meets this criterion and compare it to the total number of conflicts meeting your parameters. Sorry not to answer your question directly, but I have laid out for you a way in which you might be able to find the answer yourself. Marco polo 02:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was some staticician, probably British, who studied this some decades ago, and came up with a mathematical law about this.

His name was Lanchester. His "law" is bullshit. Cf Dupuy, Numbers, Predictions, & War. Trekphiler 06:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of cultural reference in Love Minus Zero by Bob Dylan

Firstly, please note that this is not a question about a Bob Dylan song per se, in case someone wants to move it to the Entertainment desk. In the song "Love Minus Zero/ No Limit," there is a line that goes "Madams light the candles." What is this referring to? Do they place the candles in rooms where the prostitute is still available? The Mad Echidna 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it's sometimes fruitless to search for meaning in Dylan lyrics. A lot of it's just there because he thinks it sounds good. I have no answer to your actual question about candles and prostitution, though. Sashafklein 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love Bob Dylan. I agree that Dylan paints an overall picture using music and lyrics. People interpret the specific lines by what they want to read into the work. If Bob Dylan were to tell you--which is not very likely--I doubt it would be what he meant originally. My editorial comment is that is one great song. The Beatles frequently wrote word pictures that are almost meaningless. 75Janice

Macbeth help

So I'm acting out in my Shakespeare class tomorrow Lady Macbeth's famous "unsex me" soliloquy, which can be found halfway down this page. I've went through it to understand it fully, and had no trouble on anything except for the lines "you murdering ministers/Wherever in your sightless substances/You wait on nature's mischief!" I just don't get what/who she's referring to. What, do you think, could "substances" mean here? And "ministers?" I guess those are the two words that shake me up here. I just can't figure out what LM is literally getting at, and I want to understand the speech completely before I act it out. So any help to that end would be greatly appreciated. Sashafklein 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the sudden craziness of her ambition for Macbeth, Lady Macbeth is summoning up hellish spectres like the Erinyes to give her the nerve for her purpose. "Murdering ministers" here are "fell agents" who will "minister" to her in her plans, which are half-forming. Their incorporal "substances"— like ectoplasm— are sightless because they're ghostly, and because they are without reason or moral rightness. She is conjuring imaginary helpers to screw her courage to the sticking point. --Wetman 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. So she's in a way already hallucinating here, or going crazy? Sashafklein 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's in an extremity, on the edge. Others might scream the lines: why not try a hoarse whisper? --Wetman 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette syndrome in literary fiction

I'm looking for literary fictional portraits of people suffering from Tourette syndrome. The character doesn't have to be the protagonist, but should be a recurring character. Also, I'm interested in more recent fiction where the author was or could have been aware of the condition's existence. (Not Pushkin's Mozart and Salieri, for instance). Thank you in advance. ---Sluzzelin 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motherless Brooklyn by Jonathan Lethem. Maybe Icy Sparks by Gwyn Hyman Rubio. And Skull Session by Daniel Hecht. Lowerarchy 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thank you very much, Lowerarchy. ---Sluzzelin 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comic says it all. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it'd suffice, but there was a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode with a coprolaliac (is that a word?) chef. 惑乱分からん 13:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The victim in Minette Walters' murder-mystery novel The Shape of Snakes had Tourette's, and it's a major part of the story. Natgoo 11:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thrilling contrast makes three! Thanks, Natgoo. ---Sluzzelin 13:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I once wrote a kids' story featuring a character suffering Tourettes, but it was just a mild case, so his swear words were also mild - 'heck, damn, what the dickens' etc. Adambrowne666 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... link? ---Sluzzelin 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

common law marrige in ohio

if a couple married by common law in ohio took place before 1991 does a grand father law exist

vincent howard

"Common-law marriage (or common law marriage), sometimes called informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute is, historically, a form of interpersonal status in which a man and a woman are legally married. The term is often mistakenly understood to indicate an interpersonal relationship that is not recognized in law. In fact, a common law marriage is just as legally binding as a statutory or ceremonial marriage in most jurisdictions — it is just formed differently." A grandfather clause exempts people from a new law. For example if the legal age to drink is raised from 18 to 21, such a clause means people between those ages at the time it is implemented will retain their right. After explaining all that, I don't see why a grandfather clause would be needed. What would it exempt the couple from? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner asks this question because common law marriage was disallowed in Ohio after 1991. However, according to this site, common law marriages contracted in Ohio before October 10, 1991, are still legally recognized and fully valid marriages. Marco polo 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I have to ask: Whatever gave Ohio state the impression disallowing them was a good idea? - 131.211.210.17 09:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason usually given by states for getting rid of common law marriage is the government's need to have accurate records of who is married to who in order to keep track of who owns what and who is responsible for what. Crypticfirefly 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry (2)

I'm looking for a chinese poem about aging. I think it's titled "On Being In Your Sixties" & has a line "the time of quiet ears". I've done a Google search in several ways to no avail. Any help appreciated, thanks. tbone02e40Tbone02e40 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you I'm afraid, but are you sure that shouldn't be "quiet years"?--Shantavira 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it had to do with enjoying the finer things in life; hearing, tasting & seeing things through mature senses. I heard it, about six years ago, on a classical radio station in Washington DC & saw it on their web site. I questioned them, but they didn't have it archived. Does anyone in the DC area remember this? Tbone02e40 12:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty in finding a translated poem is that the one line you remember may have been reinterpreted by other translaters. 194.80.32.8 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

civics project

i need help finding out some info on geronimo for my reserch paper can any one help me thank you you can email me at <-email removed->

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Geronimo. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps over time

I have recently been reading history articles on Wikipedia, specifically the many nations existing in Europe over the last 500 years or so. I am interested in the maps that accompany these articles, and am wondering if anyone knows of a website where you can see the boundaries of world or European nations change over time.

I'm not sure if you are looking for animated maps. If static maps for different dates are sufficient, then Euratlas is a good source. Marco polo 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The field of Historical GIS is just getting started, it seems. Perhaps that page has links to something of interest. Pfly 06:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the early end of your stated period, you'll be interested in the Holy Roman Empire. There are some pretty good maps at our article. --Dweller 14:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find this website very interesting :) : [1]. Maps of France, Russia, Germany, United States, European Union,.. you name it!Evilbu 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool sites. Thanks, guys. Trekphiler 06:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian czar exploding?

I remember hearing about a Russian czar (or something of that sort) that thought so hard his brain exploded. I doubt that the story is true, but does anyone have any more information?

It's absurdly non-true. However, Tsar Alexander II was blown up (ie. exploded) by an assassin's bomb, if that's any help. JackofOz 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telekinesis? Oops. Somebody call Steven King. Trekphiler 06:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I know the feeling. Adambrowne666 09:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrases headbanging and Beyond Thunderdome... (Keeping up the good old Wikipedia tradition of bad puns... =S) 惑乱分からん 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding head syndrome? (not what you think) — Kieff | Talk 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

Stalin had formal power to enact, approve or change laws? What were formal powers of Stalin?--Vess 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Joseph Stalin-article you can read that he was:

In these article you can read that:

The first was an administrative office, which gave Stalin power over the party's bureaucracy.
The second made him head of government of the Soviet Union, its premier.

Note that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union formally also had their own legislatures the Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Supreme Soviet, to which the power to enact, approve and change laws is traditionally given

Formally this meant that Stalin by himself did not have the power to change the law and that he needed the Polit bureau (the party executive) and Council of People's Commissars (cabinet) to consent to his proposals. How this worked it practice, is another story.

So: No Stalin by him self did not have formal power to enact, approve or change laws. His formal power was that he chaired two influential councils.

To learn more about Politics of the Soviet Union please click any of the links in this answer.

- C mon 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wars and conquests

1. Could anyone supply a few obvious examples of wars in which the initial aggressor was victorious.. I notice that the aggressor often seems to be the loser.. Could this be an example of 'history being written by the victors'? (or is it just justice prevailling)

2. Also I notice that successful wars of aggression (with gain of land) are called 'conquests' eg Norman conquest.. Is there some sort of unwritten rule here that wars when won by the aggressor are called conquests, but when the initial aggressor loses they stay as wars? I'd appreciate your feedback, thanks.83.100.250.165 19:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting questions. For the second, I would have thought the reason conquests are called conquests is because someone was conquered! If nothing/nobody was conquered, you can't call them a conquest. 86.139.237.132 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first part of the question, the conquest of the Americas is a perfect example of justice not prevailing. And the aggressor definitely kept the upper hand in that conflict.65.94.5.169 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it's a good example of the second type - perhaps I should ask for a war which was won by the intitial aggresssor that has not come to be described as a 'conquest' - any suggestions/83.100.250.165 22:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on interpretation, World War II. The initial declarations of war by the major powers were Britain and France against Germany. People will generally agree that Germany was clearly the primary aggressor in Europe, but the Allied Powers could have watched Poland get carved up without intervention should they have chosen.

Additionally, the Vietnam War seems a good example, though this is an even messier initial situation than WW2.

Sticking to US history, the Mexican–American War easily meets your criteria: the US initiated the war, was victorious, and the conflict is not known primarily as a "conquest" in either country despite the massive Mexican Cession.

Similarly, the Spanish-American War sees the US as the primary aggressor, victor, and recipient of territory. The article does not, however, address whether it is viewed as a "conquest" by Spain or her relevant possessions. — Lomn 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with american history - but the mexican-american war based on my quick reading of the page seems to have been initiated by a mexican attack albeit provoked - followed by an american declaration of war, it seems muddied by the declaration of independance of the texans and the subsequent disputed territory.. The Spanish american war seems much more clear cut - thanks for the info.83.100.250.165 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Second Boer War between the British Empire and some poor south African country ("two independent Boer republics of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic" from the article). We were the aggressors and employed some miserable tactics to defeat some poor villagers or something. Don't know what spin could be put on that to make out like the Africans were in the wrong but I might not have fully read the article... --Seans Potato Business 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks - that is an excellent example. It's a clear case of an empire (in this case the british) flexing its muscles and getting away with it...

But who is "we" (we were the aggressors)? JackofOz 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who answered.83.100.250.165 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Determining who the "agressor" is in a war is difficult. You could say North Vietnam was the agressor in the Vietnam War due to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, unless you believe the American ship was a legitimate target or that the whole thing was fabricated. Nonetheless, here are some medieval and modern wars in which you might be able to say the "agressor" won:

-- Mwalcoff 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons aggressors often do quite well is because defenders have the "home court advantage" as they say. It is much easier to keep up the morale and anger needed to pursue and kill an enemy, and put your own life on the line, if you are fighting against an enemy invader or if you have the moral certitude of being "wronged" in one way or another. Often though that certitude is manufactured to one degree or another -- i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Grossman's book On Killing has an interesting discussion of this, if I recall. --24.147.86.187 13:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, the Boer Wars were not against "some Africans" but against Europeans living there, know as the "Boers" ("farmers"). The language they spoke and speak is Afrikaans, which is similar to Dutch (and, at least for me, in written form, mutually intelligible with Dutch) but with a considerable English influence as well.Evilbu 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More recently, the US invasions of Grenada and Panama. In general, as Mwalcoff points out it's normally hard to identify one side in any war as the aggressor due to the complexity of the causes involved, especially since open and avowed aggression has been out of fashion for a while now; even in fairly clearcut cases like the Second World War and the Spanish-American War, the instigators of the war claimed (in Germany's case not very convincingly) a cassus belli other than outright aggression. Algebraist 16:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Demon?

What is meant when referring to people wrestling with personal demons? Could a drinking problem be a personal demon? Or something they regret or are afraid of or anything rooted in their mind that adversely affects the way they live their lives? --Seans Potato Business 22:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's about it. Anything like that. --Anonymous, February 8, 2007, 01:42 (UTC).

There is a biblical story of Jacob, later renamed Israel. He wrestled an angel, and hurt a rib. On his death and burial, his bones was the foundation of the land. The dismantling of Jacob's tomb a few years ago was provocative. Anyways here is a theology link. DDB 09:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The injury was to the sinew of his leg, not his rib and the renaming to "Israel" was his reward for the struggle (rather than it happening on a future occasion, as may be inferred) --Dweller 14:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Demon" is rooted in the Greek word "Daimon." One's daimon is not necessarily an evil entity, as we tend to think of a demon, but rather a guilding aspect of the self, one that tends to impel us in certain directions. For example, the Greek philosopher Socrates claims he had a personal daimon which told him when a certain course of action was a poor one (although it never told him when an action was good). One's daimon is thus kind of like one's conscious -- one may wrestle with one's daimon when one has a difficult decision to make, etc. Ernst Cassirer, in his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, discusses the ancient notion of a personal daimon and how it relates to the self.

Fiances and Fiancees

What is the difference in the way you are supposed to pronounce fiance(the man) and fiancee(the woman)? The dictionary phoentic makes no distinction.

What is the address?

I don't think there is any difference, if the general rules of French pronunciation apply. What do you mean by "address"? SFinamore 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]