Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 1

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.

< June 30 Humanities desk archive July 2 >

A Place for Political Questions

This reference desk is the place for asking encyclopedic questions. Humanities is a broad set of subjects including politics and personal opinion. One would expect to get some unusual questions, and sometimes for them to break down into debate. But is this the place for wikipedians to place questions designed to illicit political debates? --Dumbo1 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if they are illicit political debates :) Warofdreams talk 00:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

i.e., the word you wanted was "elicit". - Nunh-huh 00:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I must've been tired to make that mistake.--Dumbo1 11:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Most people have stated in the past, "Wikipedia is not a message board." There are the few that say, "Why not turn Wikipedia into a message board." The generic response is, "If you turn Wikipedia into a message board, then it won't be Wikipedia anymore. It'll be just another message board (as if there aren't enough already)."

As for asking political questions - if you are asking about a fact, this is a great place to ask. For example, you can ask, "I saw an ACLU commercial that said the Patriot Act allows anyone in government to search my home at any time without a warrant and without telling me if I'm not at home at the time. Is that true?" You'll get a factual answer (which is "no" - that is an exaggeration). However, there are things that won't provide you with any benefit, such as asking a loaded question ("How long until Bush kills everyone in Congress and declares himself dictator?"), asking an opinion question ("Why would any sane person vote for Bush?"), or just rambling with no question at all ("I am tired of wife-beating, bible-thumping, deer-hunting, oil-burning.... Republicans ruining our country!!!"). Sure, you get to scream and yell, but all you get in return is negative comments. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, wikipedia isn't a messageboard, rather a soapbox for complaining about and/or mocking the ACLU! or other people you don't happen to like--71.249.29.10 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The ref desk should abide by the basic spirit of WP's rules, but it seems to me there has always been room for considerable latitude, given that these pages do not contain "articles" that purport to be authoritative about a particular subject. That's not to say the answers provided here are not correct; however, the debates seem to have a much shorter life span than a general WP article. Once a particular discussion is finished here, we all usually move on to the next question, and old ones are rarely updated - precisely the opposite of what happens with our general articles. There is a lot of room here for POV statements that would not be tolerated elsewhere on WP. If it's not taken to excess or done gratuitously, I don't have a problem with people expressing political points of view here. As long as they always agree with me, of course. Mind you, I do not regard statements such as "XYZ is an arsehole" as a political point of view; that is a judgement about an individual, not about his/her politics. :--) JackofOz 02:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dumbo1. When an incendiary, troll-food political question comes along (like the one on gay marriage, below), my first response is to ignore it. This is a reference desk. If there is a specific answer to a specific question that can be found by research, we should offer it. The political and religious questions ("how can anyone believe that junk" or "why are all the heathens allowed to run free") are way out of bounds. Every time I have expressed an opinion on one of them, it has been because someone "answering" the question has gone off with a soap box announcement, and every time I've regretted it. This is not a web forum. This is not a message board. This is supposed to be a research wing of an encyclopedia. Geogre 03:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Really.. because I try to give sarcastic and/or off-topic reponses to incendiary political questions, different strokes and all that--71.249.29.10 03:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Philanthropy to Corruption

Let us say that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation goes to Lesotho, DRC, or Swaziland and spends money to provide immunization, vaccination, HIV/AIDS testing, and hospitals that provide basic medical care for the needy.

The money is spent by these non-profit organizations without any involvement with the host rulers.

Next, the leaders of these poverty and disease-stricken countries, which typically don't have governments framed by philosophers and experts like the U.S.A., Europe, and a few other places, see this as an excellent opportunity to not spend money on the aforementioned areas and engage in embezzlement.

So what measures would this philanthropic organization take to not engender corruption?--02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Patchouli (fine-tuned)Patchouli 21:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, they don't and thats why africas still in such a mess, they all think that they're doing such a great job sending bucketloads of money over, they dont know where it goes. Philc _T^E_C^I 02:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

They do know where the money goes to a degree. There are still many warlord areas of Africa. In those areas, the warlord takes all the money, medicine, food, clothing... and either keeps it or sells it to get money to buy more guns, explosives, ammunition, light-armor vehicles (I don't think they have tanks yet ... yet). --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? From reading the article, I'm not aware that they're doing anything of that sort (plopping the money in countries in Africa and saying "here you go" - I think that's silly. They'd probably send expertise to do infrastructure type stuff, like engineers, doctors, etc.)... I haven't followed up on what they do in the news, so I may be wrong, but it looks like that the money mainly goes towards research and minority scholarships (and some of it goes as aid, but in material goods). Foreign aid is probably what you're thinking of more, that's more of a government to government type deal. --ColourBurst 07:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am leery against all philanthropic organizations. (I opine that the Gates Foundation and HALO Trust are good and transparent ones in a world where thousands such organizations operate without transparency like churches in the U.S. that don't have to reveal the donations received.)

Not a single organization that I know is willing to provide even a one-time handout to any other individual human — they always give it to other organizations or spend it on projects. I was an orphan (not like Roberto Madrazo who inherited a huge sum from his PRI father at 17) when I was 12 years old for a little over a year; the only institution that provided housing and food was the government and no other human or organization; at that time I was in Germany and had no relatives.--Patchouli 02:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"I was 12 years old for a little over a year". I think the mathematicians might have to rethink the calendar. (sorry, couldn't resist)  :--) JackofOz 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems possible, if you had your 12th and 13th birthdays in different time zones. StuRat 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• The conjuction when makes "I was 12 years old [pause] for a little over a year" a dependent clause and radically different from your humourous culling out a context of a group of words. I should have written, " I was an orphan for a little over a year when I was 12 years old."Patchouli 04:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Live Aid, most reputable funders will send their money via Non Governmental Organisations rather than through governments, reducing or preventing embezzlement by governments. --12:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

How? Why?

I recently watched a show on ABC about political views and it got me thinking. How can a state or the country (The U.S.) outlaw Gay Marriage when freedom to do what you want is what the country is based on? I understand that some people think it's "immoral," but why do the countries leaders who feel that try to make their feelings a law. I personally don't care. And even if it were outlawed (Gay Marriage) throughout the country, wouldn't it be declared unconstitutional by the (US) Supreme Court? Or would the religious beliefs of the judges interfere with their political duties? Thank you for helping me comprehend the incompetence in the U.S.'s leadership. schyler 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• cuz..--71.249.29.10 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• "How can a state or the country (The U.S.) outlaw Gay Marriage[?]" The country can't because you need 2/3 of House and Senate to support the ban + 75% of all two legislatures in each state in order to preclude any SCOTUS decision striking down the outlawing statute. The framers set up the country in such a way so as to make it impossible to deprive a minority of its rights without the consent of the supermajority.

"...countries leaders who feel that try to make their feelings a law[?]..." Well, those particular legislators need to get elected so they must pay a little attention to the constituents in their districts. In addition, they have memorized The Prince.--Patchouli 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Which by the way is one of the finest books of the western civilization, and should be mandatory reading for everyone in the scholl. Look believe it or not, US politicians which oppose Gay marriage will win many votes, particularly from the Bible Belt. Open-minded ppl can support the equal rights for (almost) everyone, but the majority of them won't really fight for the rights of the LBTG community. But ppl which are uncomfortable (and a bit scared) with the issue will vote on a politician who screams that he is against it. Therefore many politicians oppose it, simply to gain votes. It is a bit like the history of Racial segregation, until the public really changed their mind, politicians were all in favour of it. As the political clima (the masses - and their votes) changed so did they. Flamarande 09:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Any activity can be banned if it can be framed as an encroachment upon something sacred or important, and therefore "special". Abolition of slavery, which we today regard as a cut-and-dry issue of personal freedom, was once a fairly contentious issue. Many people were convinced that abolition was an encroachment on their all-important right to own property, and widespread racism certainly made it easier for them to present that argument with a straight face. Supporters of slavery simply framed their position in a favorable light: they were supporting property rights, and they had the Bible on their side. As reflected in Dred Scott v. Sandford, many accepted this argument. Today, Americans opposed to gay marriage frame their argument as a "defense of marriage". In their view, marriage is threatened by the prospect of its "redefinition". This argument is contingent on the tenuous and anachronous notion that marriage has gone unchanged since the beginning of human history, with men and women of roughly equal ages joining in a consensual union inspired by mutual romantic feelings. This is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the undeniable fact that virtually all marriages in the pre-Romantic era were cutthroat business deals in which young girls were sold to men as personal servants and engines of procreation. Our notion of marriage has already undergone repreated, albeit incremental, redefinition. The current opposition to gay marriage will wither away, to be remembered as an embarassing historical fad. Soon most of the western countries of the EU will legalize it. Soon California, New Jersey, and New York will legalize it. When people notice society not collapsing and marriage not being destroyed, the issue will become fully mainstream. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Asset Registration Before Marriage

I have heard that all the earnings of a married couple gets divided 50%-50% after the marriage in the United States. But the initial assets are not divided should a dissolution occur. What is the legal term for registering one's assets?Patchouli 03:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is it the prenuptial agreement?--Patchouli 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Division of property is different from state to state. Some states are community property states, in which all of the couple's assets are divisible when they divorce, but many of them are not, and the assets after the divorce are divided based upon what each partner brought into the marriage. A prenuptial agreement is useful when one partner enters a marriage with considerably more assets than the other partner. It isn't mandatory, though. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

soccer

I notive in the fifa website where it lists the scores in the world cup it lists it X : Y 1:0 (0:0) - what I would like to know is what are the numbers in the brackets? Xtra 04:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The half-time score. --Robert Merkel 05:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom Halls of Jehovah witnesses

Why are there only windows in the frony lobby or entrance, but never in the meeting areas?

• Are you nitpicking and splitting hairs? Perhaps the ministers are scared of the imminent armageddon and the current global instability they typically hash out.Patchouli 05:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well I know from personal experience because my mother is a J/W and when I'm at her house she insists I go with her to the meetings. I was in a meeting when there was a rock thrown in the window with some bible scripture written on it and a 6 yr. old girl got hurt. I would imagine the reason is purely fear of vandalism. schyler 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that JW meetings are 'closed', in the sense that outsiders are not permitted, so presumably they don't want people seeing what goes on there. DJ Clayworth 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

history and facts about st. josephs (all girl) academy in st paul,mn.

I would like to know about St Josephs Academy, for girls, in St. Paul, MN. The address was on Western Ave. and is now closed. I think since 1971. As much information as possible would be apprrciated. Thank you very much.....

Try doing a google search. St. Joseph's in wikipedia isn't the one you're looking for, so I have to believe there isn't any information in wikipedia about it. --ColourBurst 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I doubt anyone on the Reference Desk can help you directly, and I doubt a google search will help. Was it run by some part of the Catholic Church? If so, I'd consider contacting the Catholic diocese responsible for that area and asking them if they have any records (the Catholic Church is pretty good at long-term record keeping...) - or, if it was run by a specific religious order within the church, such as the Society of Jesus, you might enquire with them.

If not, the usual place to start is checking the local papers (particularly suburban papers) for any articles written when the school closed (libraries in the area will probably have collections of these newspapers on microfiche), as well as contacting libraries and historical societies in the area. --Robert Merkel 07:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the city itself will know exactly when it went out of business. The local school board probably won't know, but the tax and business offices will. The school would need to file for a tax-exempt status, and therefore the tax offices, both state and federal, will know when it went "out of business," as it were. Geogre 12:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alaska purchase a conspiracy?

Here's the deal... My mom tells me that when she was in school (she went to school from about the 1970's-1980's and she lived in Poland at that time) they learned in history class that Alaska was not actually 'purchased' by the Americans from Russia, but rather, Russia bet Alaska in a poker game with America. It was the leaders of Russia and USA that met, and played poker over Alaska. And Russia lost Alaska in the poker game, and USA got it. She says that it's just a conspiracy that USA bought Alaska for $7.2million, and that USA just made up the 'purchase' claim so that it would sound good. (It would sound bad in American history if they were playing poker over some land mass, apparently). Anyways, Russia was betting Alaska and USA was betting something else, but I'm not sure what; if at all; either I forgot or she never told me. OR they were just playing poker and Russia's leader bet Alaska because he was sure he'd win.

Could there be any truth to this?--Valuefreeperson2 06:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There couldn't be any truth to it, because no one in America at the time had the ability to bet land masses or anything owned by the US of equal value to Alaska. Assuming it was the president who agreed to that, if he lost congress would still have to agree to the "treaty," which it certainly would not do. So there is no reason that the Russian leader would accept whatever the American leader placed to meet that bet. If the American president lost the hand, he wouldn't have been able to give up whatever he bet. Crazywolf 07:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your mother went to school in communist error poland. As part of the communist block, the government was enemies with US and friends with Russia. As such the government ordered teachers to teach history in away which made the US look bad and Russia look good.

It is highly unlikely that the President of the United States traveled to Russia, or that the Czar of Russia traveled to the United States during that time period. Unless they played poker by mail, such a game is impossible to have occurred. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• She says that it's just a conspiracy that USA bought Alaska for $7.2million, and that USA just made up the 'purchase' claim so that it would sound good. Actually, wouldn't this be more of a conspiracy to make the Russian leader look less stupid for gambling with his land? Anyway, kind of a moot point now. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Russia as an idiotic government" motif is not surprising given the context (Poland in the 1970s-1980s), and so I can see the appeal of this sort of fable. But no, it is almost certainly not true. The circumstances behind the purchase of Alaska as well known and well documented and are far more plausible than a far-fetched story about a poker game. --Fastfission 22:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, in this morning's newspaper, there is a mention of a book called Our Documents, compiled by the United States National Archives which in their estimation, are the 100 most important bits of paper in the History of the United States. One of them is a copy of the check written to Russia for the purchase of Alaska. IMO, it's ironic that, although this is a book produced under the purview of the United States Government, it's published by the Oxford University Press. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard a conspiracy theory that the transaction wasn't an outright sale but only a long-term lease that was about to expire. Rmhermen 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that houses in USA deteriorate faster?

Hi,

I live in Flanders (Belgium), and it is often said that a Flemish is born with a brick in his stomach : eventually he wants to build a house. Bought or built by himself, usually a Flemish person continues living in that house until his death (or until the time he goes to a retirement home).

Anyway, my family in the USA move a lot more. They say it is because the "neighbourhood goes bad".. and if you want to sell your house at a reasonable price, you have to hurry up to go along. One of the reasons for this would be that other materials are used in the USA to constructs, which are less durable, so their houses don't stay 'good' that long.

I was also told that the taxes in the USA on selling and buying houses are much lower than here (in Belgium, but perhaps that can be generalized to most of Western Europe).

Is this correct?

Evilbu 10:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When people say the "neighborhood goes bad" they are not usually referring to the quality of house construction. They are talking about the other people in the neighborhood. David Sneek 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. That phenomenon exists here too...but what causes the first person to sell, what makes his house less valuable, and THAT is what my family in the USA explained by less durable construction material.Evilbu 13:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

They may be referring to a falling income level, rising crime rate, or changing ethnicity of the people in the neighborhood. When it changes, the old residents usually see a drop in the equity level of their home. Thus, they want to move before this process takes full flight. There are some articles on it...like White flight.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a drop in equity - several areas in New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, Vancouver - North American towns with good amounts of Asian immigrants - have either had their equity stay the same or even risen (in which case the other people complain instead that the house value, and therefore the property tax, is rising instead. There's no way to win with these people.) --ColourBurst 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah... the opposite of white flight in a sense is gentrification, where wealthy people move into an area, drive up the price of the area and drive out the often low-income former residents due to increases in property values and rent. --ColourBurst 22:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the quality of the houses...Suburban sprawl has caused a lot of companies to build many houses quickly and badly in a new development, so they inevitably deteriorate faster than the carefully built houses of Europe because less time is taken in making sure they are strong and secure.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The first person to sell is almost always a racist or paranoid person who wants out because someone of a different race moves into the neighborhood, and the existing resident fears the neighborhood is going to become a ghetto. If more people join the first emigrant, housing values drop, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Eventually, even the most-liberal middle-class residents, irrespective of race, feel they have to move because the schools are full of troubled kids and the crime rate is high. Historically, neighborhoods in some cities have gone from upper-middle-class to lower-class in a couple of generations. This is a major reason for suburban sprawl in the US, since the wealthier people are always trying to move farther away out of fear of the inner-city residents. Fortunately, I believe this is changing, and most white people no longer freak out when a black family moves onto their street. -- Mwalcoff 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of other reasons people sell their house; they may get a job in a new city or on the other side of town, they may have kids or their adult children may move out, they may marry or divorce, they may experience a rise or loss in income/wealth that makes them move to a nicer or a more modest home, they may retire and move to Florida, and so on. North America in general has a higher degree of mobility than Europe does, I think, so most neighbourhoods, particularly in cities rather than small rural towns, have a certain amount of turnover. The first people to sell might have been laid off and want to move to a more economically prosperous region, so they sell their house cheaply and some sort of undesirable neighbour moves in, for instance. Yeah, the quality of construction is fairly low in the North American suburbs, but the average American moves (depending on who you ask) once every five years or so. In contrast, this report suggests that the average British household moves every 15 years. So the high mobility enables the people in a neighbourhood to change much faster than the buildings could ever decay. --ByeByeBaby 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, typical house construction in much of Europe is brick or stone, whereas in North America it tends to be wooden frame with plastic or aluminum siding. So yes, houses in North America tend not to last as long. DJ Clayworth 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had many conversations about these sorts of things with my dad (a master plumber). He says that, considering the materials, houses in the u.s. are built to last an estimated 40 years (yes, 40) before needing extensive work. Often they're built with wood from young fast-growing softwood tree plantations that were hastily dried and chemically treated. Needless to say, they're not going to settle as well as better constructed houses. There's a good chance with a lot of these developments that, depending on the ground and some other factors, many of them will develop cracks in the walls and other related problems much quicker and to a much greater degree than other houses that were built in the same area, of similar size and floorplan, but were built at least 50 years ago when the materials were generally, but not necessarily, better. -LambaJan 03:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wild Thing

This song was a big hit for The Troggs in 1966, and is often heard today. But does anyone else remember a version done in spring 1968 by "The Senator"? The song was more spoken than sung by a man with a distinctive Boston accent - obviously, Robert Kennedy. It was pulled from the airwaves after his murder in June. Thanks for your help. 66.213.33.2 15:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sure! I can even do it in the RFK voice! The flip side was Everett Dirksen. The record was made by "The Hardly Worthit Players"; "Senator Bobby" was James Voight, brother of John Voight. Allen Klein owns the rights and refuses to release them. (I don't have good sources for any of this.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hussein of Jordan, a 'good' ruler?

When Hussein of Jordan died, it was told here in the media that he was so important for the peace process, that he had a very positive influence. My mother told me the same.

I am not asking whether or not he was 'good' as that is so subjective, but why do western media do this? I mean, he did go to war with Israel several times, wouldn't you except them to focus on that??

Evilbu 20:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Much as Anwar Sadat led Egypt to war with Israel, but later was influential in starting the peace process, Hussein also gets "graded on a curve". This is versus other Arab leaders, like Sadam Hussein of Iraq, who continued to attack Israel, and Iran and Syria, who finance terrorism against Israel. StuRat 22:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think part of it has to do with the fact that his fourth wife was American. --ColourBurst 22:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hussien was consider a good leader for many reasons. After Egypt he was first leader to seriously pursue peace. Furthermore, unlike other leaders such as Assad and Hussien, he did not support terrorism. Furthermore throughout his career he was a friend the US. Finally he ruled Jordian with a great degree of pluralism. (That edit by user:68.112.242.121, I presume.)

One of the reasons that the west has seen him as positive is that he had a generous immigration policy with regard to Palestinian refugees. That displaced population was/is very much of a problem in the peace process. Because he welcomed displaced Palestinians, he essentially relieved some of the pressure that would have otherwise been dealt with by something much, much worse. This is in addition to his relatively economically liberal (in the economic sense) policies that western corporations like, his moderate stances, and his willingness to sponsor and endorse a European/American line on the peace process itself. Geogre 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why noone has mentioned his (then) secret links to Israel yet. He secretly meet with Golda Meir and cutting a uneasy deal with Israel, crushed the PLO in a event called the Black September. King Hussein turned against the PLO because they were becoming "a state whithin the state" and dangerous for his regime and his country. After that Jordan never attacked or supported any violent action against Israel. De facto, Jordan (like Egypt - and Anwar Sadat paid with his life for that action) acknowledged Israel and turned against terrorism. Flamarande 09:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping someone would mention Black September. Could one say Black September, sending many Palestinians into Lebanon, is one of the causes of the Lebanese civil war? And is that completely correct about no violent action against Israel, weren't there some troops in the Yom Kippur war from Jordan fighting in Syria against Israeli troops?

Anyway, what you people are saying is that he had two chapters : one in which he opposed Israel (like participating in wars against it) and one in which he turned to the west and fought terrorism?Evilbu 12:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The article Yom Kippur war says that Jordan also attacked Israel. Notice however that As for the issue that "sending many Palestinians into Lebanon, is one of the causes of the Lebanese civil war" well, King Hussein is only responsable for his own country and not for the mess in Lebanon. You can argue that he is morally responsably though. To answer your last point: Everybody will be judged differently by several viewpoints. Hussein was no innocent, but at least he didn't too many mistakes. He seems to have been a cunning politician (read the The Prince if you want to really know what a leader should be). Flamarande 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You presume that being at war with Israel is by definition a bad thing. That's taking sides. Anyway, Israel started the war. Flamarande, you do something similar by implicating the opponents of Israel are terrorists. Who you call terrorists is taking sides. Better to avoid the word because it is so ill-defined. DirkvdM 15:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Which war are you refering to that Israel started? Israel has NEVER startd a war. Yes, when the armies of Lebabonon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt all mobilized at Israel's borders in June of 1967, Israel took the hint and pre-empted their attack. But the fact that these countries were on the verge of attacking Israel is not fantasy, it's a fact that all sides wiil ackonowledge today.

You say that [To] presume that being at war with Israel is by definition a bad thing is taking sides. Are you pro-war Dirk? Shame on you for that. No reasonable human being actually prefers war to peace. If you believe that to start a war with Israel is not necessarily a bad thing, I'm afraid that our views are different to ever be reconciliated. Loomis 21:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold it right, boys. First of all, Israel also clearly started a war, read Six-Day War. I never said that the Arab nations are terrorists. One thing is a recognized country waging a clean war against another country. Thereby, I mean that military forces fight against military forces in the field of battle. Terrorists are non-military ppl who do not target military opponents. They are unrecognized by almost everyone and target mainly civilians. I had hoped that you could understand my English: "this a relativly "clean - legal" war between recognized states against (mainly) military targets. It is not the same like unrecognized organizations making terrorist attacks against (mainly) civilians." but I guess the phrase is badly written. Flamarande 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that Israel "started" the Six-Day War? Are you aware of the circumstances? In that case, you might as well say that the US "started" a war with Germany in WWII, because, after all, the US declared war on Germany earlier than Germany declared war on the US. Take this absurdity to the extreme, and you can conclude that the US turned what was up untill then a "regional" European conflict into a "World War". Shame on the Americans! Loomis 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Under a purely legal point of view Israel started that particular war (I agree with their reasons though, and would have done the same). Read Military history of the United States; Germany declared war upon the US after Pearl Harbor, not the other way around. Get your facts straight. Flamarande 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Under a purely legal point of view", if I point a gun at you, and you respond by shooting me, though you have fired the first shot, I am clearly in the wrong and you are clearly acting in self-defence. Please get your "legal" facts straight. Loomis 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing with a gun in the first place? Israel was the first to purchase the guns, point them and fire. First there was no Israel and then there was. Assuming no original inhabitants gave land to Israel (and the country didn't buy it either), all wars between Israel and neighbouring countries were ultimately started by Israel. The whole notion of Israel was a very bad idea, asking for trouble. Just like Liberia and Sierra Leone.

Flamarande, saying that an army has no right to fight because you don't recognise it is circular reasoning. Why are the Palestinians terrorists and Israel not? I don't see any basic difference. They're all murderers, be it for a good cause or not (and then who decides whose cause is the right one?). The word 'clean war' sounds horrible. War is filth. And who is to say who the soldiers are? As I understand it all Israelis are armed and trained as soldiers. So the whole Israeli nation is a 'clean' target by your definition (excepting babies). Palestinians, on the other hand, don't all have guns, which is why they still use bricks. If you're faced with an overwhelming invading force you do what you can. Anything you can.

Loomis, Germany declared war on the US right after Japan did. Only after that did the US enter the war officially. DirkvdM 09:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have read my statement backwards. I'll repeat it then, taking you through it step-by-step. If I (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt) point a gun at YOU (Israel,) and YOU (Israel,) respond by shooting ME (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt,) though YOU (Israel,) have fired the first shot, I (Syrian, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt) am clearly in the wrong and YOU (Israel) are clearly acting in self-defence.

With regards to the statement: "Israel was the first to purchase guns", again, this is a simple case of taking the chronology of events and looking at them in reverse order. Of the five countries mentioned, Israel was the last to be established (or I should say, re-established). Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt were all established (re-established in the case of Egypt) in the aftermath of WWI, when the Ottoman Empire finally lost control of the entire area. The modern state of Israel was actually the last of the five, being created in 1948. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt certainly had armies, which purchased guns, which were pointed and fired, long before 1948. Therefore the statement that "Israel was the first to purchase the guns, point them and fire", is, quite simply, dead wrong. It's actually a totally upside-down assessment of the chronology of events.

With regards to the statement: "First there was no Israel and then there was": again, a misreading of history. The only true "artificially created" nations of the region are actually Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, which were "created" (or shall I say "invented") as a result of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Israel and Egypt, on the other hand, are two nations that were conquered by outside powers, and were only "re-established" once their controlling "outside power" (the Ottoman Empire) was defeated in WWI. If you really want to talk about "artificially invented countries", Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are clearly much better candidates.

With regards to the statement: "Assuming no original inhabitants gave land to Israel (and the country didn't buy it either), all wars between Israel and neighbouring countries were ultimately started by Israel": First off, the original inhabitants of Israel are in fact Israelis. Nonetheless, even if you disagree with recorded history, your argument remains absurd. No original unhabitants gave land to the United States either. Further, European-Americans never even had any sort of claim whatsoever to the land. It's not like the European explorers set out to rediscover a land that had been taken away from them 2,000 years ago, in fact, they simply outright took the land, yet your reasoning, even in the case of the US remains absurd. It would stand to reason, therefore, according to your argument, that any attack on the United States by any neighbouring country was ultimately started by the United States. Huh???

While I agree that ancient Israel predated the Palestinians, they were not the original inhabitants. The Canaanites, Philistines, and others were there before the Jews, and likely there were others there before them, as well. Interestingly, though, the Philistines, who appear to have come from Greece (before it's peak), may have become the Palestinians, after their successors were converted to Islam. StuRat 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As always Stu, you make good, valid, historically accurate points. It's true that ancient Israel displaced the Canaanites, but now you're going beyond historical records and relying on the Bible for your information! Nothing wrong with that though! I'd be more than glad to debate and discuss the whole issue as far as you'd like, as I respect your dedication to truth and honest debate.

I trust that the Bible didn't just manufacture entire civilizations. Remember that the people alive at the time those parts of the Bible were written would have known if the Philistines existed, so they couldn't have just made it up and got away with it. Also, much as recent archeological evidence seems to show that Troy, from the Iliad, actually existed, there also is evidence that a rather primitive civilization of Greek origin existed in the place and at the time identified as the site of the Philistines StuRat 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Dirk, however, his statements, in particular the statement "The whole notion of Israel was a very bad idea, asking for trouble" was rather inflamatory and, (though I've gotten in trouble for saying this in the past!) dare I say, downright anti-semitic. I only wish Dirk would explain to me why a Dutch homeland is perfectly acceptable, not to mention, worth the sacrifice of the lives of quite a few of the youngest and most promising of my fellow Canadian countrymen to rescue it from the Nazis, yet a homeland for the Jews was "a very bad idea". Really? "A very bad idea"? Thank God for Israel with such altruistic, fair finded Dutchmen as Pim Fortuyn to flee from! Perhaps I've shamed him so that he can't bring himself to defend his original outrageous statements. Hopefully, Dirk will have the courage to explain his comments, and explain to me how I took them out of context, and that Israel was in fact a very GOOD idea. Loomis 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me argue that a Jewish state should NOT have been created. I see the world not as a battle between Christians, Jews and Muslims, but as a battle between all religions and the secular world. As such, I see any religious state as dangerous, whether Jewish, Muslim, or Christian (although I doubt if Vatican City will be launching any Holy Wars anytime soon). Thus, a single secular state should have been formed to include all Semitic people in the region (perhaps named Semitica ?) and any other ethnic groups as well. This would have avoided the whole Arab-Israeli conflict and hopefully could throw all the extremists, of any religion, in jail where they can't hurt anyone. StuRat 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Stu, I'm afraid you've fallen victim to a common misconception. It's actually an honest mistake, because the term "Jew" has two VERY different definitions. The best word I can compare it to would be the word "Anglican" yet even that one fails to be a true analogy. Let me put it this way, imagine if an atheist Englishman were to refer to himself as an "Anglican". We'd assume he'd be referring to the "Anglican" religious faith, but what if the English language had no such term as "Englishman" and that the only way that he could describe his English ethnicity would be to call himself an "Anglican"? Alright, I should, and with a bit of effort probably could come up with a better analogy, but I hope you get my point.

Most nationalities are able to be described without any religious connotations, such as French, Irish, Russian, Dutch etc....However most languages are unable to distinguish between the Jewish nationality and the Jewish faith, which is unfortunate.

It may surprise many, but the bulk of the founders of the State of Israel were actually socialist, atheist Jews. My own grandfather was both an ardent Zionist, as well as an ardent atheist. Israel was never meant to be a theocracy, and to this day it is not. Yes, it's true, the leftist, socialist founders have lost favour in the eyes of the electorate, but Israel remains a COMPLETELY secular state. About 20% of the Israeli CITIZENS are not Jewish, yet they enjoy every civil right that their fellow Jewish Israelis enjoy, including, the right to vote (in fact, before the American invasion of Iraq and the recent Palestinian "election", Israel was actually the only place in the middle east where Arabs have always enjoyed the righ to vote,) the right to run and be elected to the Knesset, the right to be chosen as members of the government cabinet, and yes...the right sit as an associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Israel!

With regards to religious freedom, Israel is governed by a democratically elected prime minister, not by any Rabbis or any other clergy. Quite the opposite actually. According to Judaism, any sort of possible "theocracy" must be preceeded by the coming of the Messiah, therefore, the religious themselves refuse to recognize Israel as any sort of theocratic state. The idea of Israel embarking on any sort of "Holy War" is absurd, as not only is Israel not the "theocratic" homeland for the "Jewish religion" as many seem to believe, even if it was, Judaism, be a non-proselytizing religion, never has and never will have any designs on conquering any territory outside the ancient land of Israel. The idea that Jews want to take over the world is pure projection on the part of Christians and Muslims. We're not missionaries. We're not interested in converting any "infidels". We're not interested in buliding empires. I seriously wish Christians (perhaps not the Christians of today, they seem to have evolved beyond the goal of converting the world to Christianity) and Muslims would quit projecting their own designs on world domination on us. All we wish is to be left alone. And, if possible, to develop friendly, mutually beneficial relations withour neighbours.

In addition to offering safe haven for the Jews, Israel also happens to be a safe haven for many other persecuted religious groups:

One group are the Samaritans. Truly a fascinating group of people. I recommend the article to anyone with a basic curiousity with regards to comparative religion. Unfortunately for the Samaritans, their holy city (which one it is escapes me for the moment, I believe it's Nablus, but I'll have to check to make sure,) being in the West Bank, was seized and occupied by Jordan in 1948. This forced many of this extremely tiny group of people (they number only in the hundreds) to flee their holy city, and settle in Israel, in Cholon, a suburb of Tel Aviv, where Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, developed a strong affinity for these people. Hopefully now, finally safe from persecution, this fascinating people will once again thrive.

Another are the Bahai. Though originating in Iran, the Bahai people have established their "headquarters" in Haifa, a city in northern Israel. Again, free from religious persecution in their native Iran, the Bahai people have begun to finally enjoy the religious tolerance they deserve.

I'm therefore bewildered why anyone would say that "Israel was a bad idea". Look at all the good it's done, not only for Jews, but for Israeli Arabs, Samaritans, Bahai, Druze, Armenian Christians, and pretty much every persecuted minority in the region.

Finally, many may take issue with Israel's controversial "law of return", basically giving ethnic Jews the benefit of a "fast-track" to citizenship. First, as I've tried to explain, this is a fundamental requirement, if Jews are to have a safe haven from persecution. Second, though, it's odd that nobody ever brings up the dozen or so other "laws of return" in various other countries in the world as being racist. For example, if you're a member of the "Irish Diaspora", the Republic of Ireland has laws set up to get you "fast-track" citizenship into Ireland. Same goes for Russia, for those who exiled themselves during Soviet rule. Same goes for a whole handfull of nations.

In any case, here I am bewildered as to why anyone would be against one ethnic group, (the Jews) having a state, while it's perfectly alright for pretty much every other ethnic group to have a state.

To finalize, it has been said that a civilization can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Though I by no means wish to compare Jews to animals, I believe an even better judge of a civilization is how it treats its Jews. By this measure, the US is the most civilized nation on the planet. The idea that a tiny homeland for Jews in the middle east is a "bad idea" as it may "upset the locals" speaks extremely poorly of the people of that region. Loomis 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The terms "secular Jew" and "religious Jew" work to distinguish the two cases for me. I can't agree that Israel treats all religions equally, however. This "right of return" excludes Muslims who used to live in Israel, doesn't it ? And the "religious Jewish" settlers who built homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip had no legal right to do so, but were nonetheless protected by Israel and some (in the West Bank) still are, leading to a precarious and indefensible position for Israel. What do you think would happen if some Muslims from Gaza decided to start a settlement in Israel ? It would never be permitted. Also note that the last assassination of a Prime Minister was from a Jewish fundamentalist, not a Muslim, showing the world that the problem of Jewish fundamentalism does exist, and must be dealt with. I believe a plot by Jewish fundamentalist to blow up a Muslim school was also foiled. I see Christian fundamentalist as just as dangerous (people like Pat Robertson). The only reason they aren't much of a problem at the moment is that they have little power. If countries were controlled by them, then we would see The Crusades all over again. StuRat 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the statement: "The whole notion of Israel was a very bad idea, asking for trouble. Just like Liberia and Sierra Leone". If I were you I'd defer to Israelis and the world Jewish community on that one. Are you aware of the possible attrocities against Jews that were averted due to the existence of a Jewish homeland? No, I'm not talking simply of the Holocaust, that would be too easy (though the best possible example). I'm talking about all those other instances of anti-semitism, that, whenever and wherever they seem to rear their ugly head, Jews have an option they haven't had before, that is, to pick up and head to the safety and protection of Israel. With the fall of the Soviet Union (which, for all its evils, was exemplary as a repressive regime, repressing EVERYTHING, including anti-semitism,) the ugly head of Russian anti-semitism actually thrived with the new "freedoms" handed to it. Think of such figures as Vladimir Zhirinovsky for one, who was finally able to spout his ridiculous garbage with his newfound freedom of speech. Fortunately, Jews now had the option of fleeing to Israel, and so they did, numbering in the millions. Even in western Europe, figures like Jean-Marie Le Pen and his counterparts, such as the recently assassinated Pim Fortuyn, have begun to spring up once again. No problem. No need to once again hunker down and accept what miserable fate their "hosts" have to offer this time. This time, all the Jews need do is flee to the safety of home.

Finally, "Why are the Palestinians terrorists and Israel not? I don't see any basic difference. They're all murderers, be it for a good cause or not (and then who decides whose cause is the right one?). The word 'clean war' sounds horrible. War is filth. And who is to say who the soldiers are?" Interesting. So is it your position that you don't see any "basic difference" between those brave soldiers from my native Canada who risked their lives to free your beloved Netherlands from their Nazi occupiers, and the Nazi's themselves? I suppose we were all murderers, be it for a good cause or not (and besides, as you say, who decides whose cause is the right one? Perhaps the Nazis were right after all!) In this case, I wholeheartedly apologize to you, Dirk, for my country having the arrogance to risk our lives and enter the Netherlands and free it from Nazi occupation. I only hope you can find it in your heart to forgive us, for such a terrible misdeed.

Just a word to Flamarande: It seems that with all the fuss I mistakenly attacked one of your arguments. My apologies for that, I find myself in agreement with most of what you say. I suppose the confusion of it all just had me attacking the wrong argument! All the best. Loomis 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank all contributors, but it was never my intention to once and for all solve the Israeli dilemma. I just wanted to know why Hussein was portrayed here as a good peaceful leader the world will miss (almost like Gandhi etc.) while the west does tend to choose the Israeli side.Evilbu 13:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering how much threads can move in directions totally unrelated to the original subject, this one wasn't too bad. :) DirkvdM 13:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Help linking an orphaned article about culture

Does anyone know of any articles that Black American Princess can be mentioned in? I recreated it as a stub, but it's orphaned, and not really linked to any other article.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why would you recreate it? Adam Bishop 21:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I recreated it because I hear the term often....so I figured it's notable. The reason it was originally deleted was because the first version was a single, angry sentence directed towards blacks. I'm surprised no-one had recreated it earlier.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There's always B*A*P*S. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would fall under WP:NEO would it not? --ColourBurst 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think Jewish American Princess would be the place, since that was the original term from which yours was derived. StuRat 22:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I already listed it there. I just don't want it to only be linked to two articles.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also a neologism that entered at about the same time as Yuppy and Buppy (or maybe Yuppie and Buppie) and is supposed to be a sign of an emergent Black middle class. The problem there is that it's one of those lies that the US told itself in the 80's that the Black middle class was emerging (there had always been one, since the 1880's) and was emerging (that the corner on equality had been turned). Geogre 01:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

New North Wales

In Australia, why the New South Wales exist but the New North Wales doesn't exist. If the New North Wales exist, where is it? Maximini1010 23:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Was their ever just a 'South Wales'? Oh wait... Vitriol 23:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was named after South Wales. I suspect nothing was named after North Wales as South Wales had the major ports in those days. See History of New South Wales.--Shantavira 08:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was taught that the cliffs off Sydney Head reminded James Cook of the cliffs in South Wales. If some feature had reminded him of something in North Wales, presumably he would have named it New North Wales. But that just didn't happen. JackofOz 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And I was taught that it was named "south" simply because it WAS in the south, and reminded Cook of Wales in general (not any particular area of Wales). Battle Ape 05:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Who do you think are scarier, Cybusmen (sic) or Daleks? I actually think the Cybermen are scarier, as I cannot 'relate' (which is the wrong word, but the best one I can think of) to a Dalek in any way (them killing people is normal for them), but the Cybermen are like... scary dudes (who used to be humans, but now have no emotion, which is sad, but they kill people and they don't really know why. Well they do, but purely in an intellectual way). Vitriol 23:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit earlier there is the question about using the Reference Desk to debate political topics. The overwhelming concensus is that the Reference Desk is for getting answers to factual questions, not debating opinions about topics. So, try this again and I'll sic a Dalek on you - and not one of the Tom Baker "I'm a cheap plastic robot being pulled on a string Dalek". I'll get one of the Christopher Eccleston "I can chase you down through all of space and time on my rocket powered jets Dalek". Just try and get one of those puny Cybermen to defend you. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think they're equally scary. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they really exist. Therefore I am not afraid of either. No, really. DirkvdM 15:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be due to the uncanny valley. As a side note, I would personally be more scared of the daleks, because cybermen have one glaring (or should I say glittering) weakness. The daleks of old seemed to have the weakness of only being able to roll, so stairs would stop them, but the whole rocket powered jets (btw, this also seems like a weird but kind of cool retcon to R2D2) make them more plausible. --WhiteDragon 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are in doubt about who packs more punch, I recommend watching the latest episode. --82.207.234.77 22:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Cybermen = Dalek Fodder--71.249.9.254 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)