Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 6

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.

November 6

S.M.O.M.

Here's a question I haven't been able to answer by reading the Wikipedia article. A few months ago, I saw a program on The History Channel, which explained about S.M.O.M. (Sovereign Military Order of Malta). It is, according to the program, the smallest country on earth, and is located in Rome (like the Vatican). This is what Wikipedia has to say, but it doesn't even say it's a country. I know it exists, because they even gave the adress and showed license plates; besides, the History Channel wouldn't lie (would they?). No one believes the existance of such a place, and to convice people, I have to repeat everything in the program, while I would normally just cite Wikipedia. I'd apreciate help. Thanks | AndonicO Talk 01:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Our article does not say it is a country, because it isn't a country. SMOM claims sovereignty under international law and "has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations. (Its claims of sovereignty are disputed by some scholars.) ... However, unlike the Holy See, which is sovereign over the Vatican City, SMOM has no sovereign territory since the loss of the island of Malta in 1798. The United Nations does not classify it as a "non-member state" but as one of the "entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers"." Until and unless other states recognise SMOM as a sovereign nation like the Vatican City, it is wrong to claim that it is "the smallest country on earth", or indeed, a country at all. JackofOz 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. I believe that Vatican City is still regarded as the smallest independent nation on earth, but I found this (randomly online here:)

The S.M.O.M. is an ancient organization founded under the aegis of the Roman Catholic church during the Crusades to protect pligrims on their way to the Holy Land. It now functions as a Catholic charitable organization (running a number of hospitals throughout the world), and enjoys limited diplomatic status as a "sovereign entity", complete with passports, coinage (via the world's smallest national mint), license plates (via a special contract with the Italian government), an (unofficial) amateur radio license prefix (1A0) and a post office (Postage stamps are a major source of income). The S.M.O.M. headquarters, consisting of a building and courtyard in Rome, Italy, is officially the world's smallest self-governing sovereign territory (roughly twice the size of a standard tennis court, small enough to have a mailing address*), and exchanges ambassadors and diplomatic representatives with over 80 countries.

To quote the website: "After the loss of the island of Malta, the Order settled permanently in Rome, Italy, in 1834. Its two headquarters, granted with extraterritoriality, are the Palazzo Malta in Via dei Condotti 68 - where the Grand Master resides and Government Bodies meet - and the Villa Malta on the Aventine. The latter hosts the Grand Priory of Rome, the Embassy of the Order to the Holy See and the Embassy of the Order to the Italian Republic."

On August 24, 1994, the S.M.O.M was granted Permenant Observer Status in the United Nations, allowing them to participate in the discussions of the U.N. General Assembly.

It wouldn't serve as a good source for a Wikipedia article, and the link it provides is to a website in Italian. But I think you might be somewhat right -- the distinction is is whatever the difference between the "world's smallest self-governing entity" and "the world's smallest independent nation." I expect the distinction is important somehow. Cheers. Dina 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Knights Hospitalers#International Status of the Order you will see that the order does not claim to be a 'country', but a 'sovereign entity', quite a different concept altogether. It enjoys a certain extra-territorial status in the Vatican City, but has no direct authority. The status is a residue from the time the Knights controlled Rhodes and then Malta. The Order exists in international law a little like a 'government in exile'; though this is purely honorary and formalist in practice Clio the Muse 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there it is, serves me right for going straight to google...Dina 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but would being a sovereign entity make it a government? And would a government with some territory be regarded as a country? | AndonicO Talk 11:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, and no. No large tract of land, no country. Citing the Vatican as a country just shows it is mislabelled due to clout, and should not be considered a country either. Edison 14:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What are the minimum dimensions of "a large tract of land", and who sets such limits? Like it or not, almost every government on earth recognises the Vatican City State as a sovereign nation separate from Italy, and the Pope as a head of state. Best of luck with informing all these governments they've got it wrong and they should rescind their recognition. JackofOz 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Which nations are the ones of equal or less area than the Vatican? From [1] I see Holy See has 0 sq km of area,(0.44 sq km per Wikipedia) and Bassas da India also with 0 sq km per the CIA and 80 sq km per wikipedia, but uninhabited so I don't know who to contact. Edison 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican City is the smallest independent nation in the world. See List of countries and outlying territories by total area. JackofOz 00:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. Each country's government makes its own decisions about recognizing other countries, so you'd need to contact them all separately. There are over 200 national governments, so start immediately. I'd try the Italian government first and see how you fare.  :-) JackofOz 00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ice age?

Someone told me that the pentagon was interested in the results of a report about an upcoming ice age. The thermohalen conveyer is supposedly going to stop, and create another ice age. The person who told me heard this on the radio, so they didn't get the name of the report. As in the question I asked a section above, I saw this on TV (The Science Channel), so it's a scientific possibility. I'd like the name of the report if possible. Thank you! | AndonicO Talk 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If the Pentagon is preparing for an Ice Age it is clearly, and perhaps typically, moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the human race. Clio the Muse 02:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the report was named, but you might want to look at Thermohaline circulation. And from what I've heard, Europe may well see significant cooling after enough ice in Greenland melts. The fresh water flowing into the northern Atlantic might stop the global ocean currents that bring warm water north to Europe, which keep the continent warmer than it would be otherwise. Maybe ask your question at the science reference desk. Philbert^2.71828 05:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll ask the question over there too. | AndonicO Talk 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Lambiam gave me a good link at the Science Reference desk. Shutdown of thermohaline circulation It's close enough to what I wanted, thank you too. | AndonicO Talk 13:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

India Export Tax

Where can I find articles regarding export tax of India on Portland Cement? Do they have an export tax? --Transit1 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Export taxes are one of the stupidest taxes ever invented, I would think India would be smarter than that. They just damage their own industry, exports, and economy. Import taxes, on the other hand, can help protect native industries. StuRat 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually stu, I have to disagree. Export taxes do have their use, because selling in the foreign becomes more expensive selling in the homecountry somewhat more interesting. usually this also discourages the settlement of low-wage factories which usually are BAD for the health standard of a country. also the extra effect is that the production of cement in this case which is pretty highly polluting (at least with the techniques used in india). Graendal 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes no sense. They should aim to sell in both foreign AND domestic markets. Cutting off one market won't help the other. As for environmental protection, the way to do that is with tough environmental protection laws, not by destroying industry. That way, if it's possible to produce cement without breaking the laws, they will, and if not, they will go out of business. StuRat 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's not the presence of low-wage jobs that are bad for the people, it's the absence of high-wage jobs. Adding low-wage jobs to an economy never hurts anything, unless it comes at the cost of high-wage jobs, and there's no reason to think that high-wage jobs would be destroyed by exporting goods. If anything, a few high-wage jobs would be created (engineering, etc.). StuRat 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On a semi-relevant note, the U.S. constitution bans export taxes, brecause the drafters of the Constitution were afraid of future political favoritism between the exports of different states... AnonMoos 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with "selling in the foreign becomes more expensive selling in the homecountry somewhat more interesting". JackofOz 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to translate into English:

"When selling a product in a foreign market becomes more expensive, the producer turns his interest toward selling the product in his home country."

I don't agree that this is good, however. If there was a domestic market with unsatisfied demand, the company would have already sold the product there before exploring export opportunities. If forced to dump their product on the domestic market, the excess supply will cause a price collapse, which will harm that company, as well as any competitors. StuRat 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You should all love reading The Wealth of Nations. -THB 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, no flashbacks to 1987, thank you. (Love? Shudder.) --Charlene 23:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholic response to Calvinism

Are there any specific Catholic documents that contain reactions or refuations of Calvinism? (paticualry the 5 Points of Calvinism)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.163.95 (talk • contribs)

To begin with have a look over the page on the Counter Reformation. If you do not find some general outlines there we can try some finer tuning. You should also read the page on John Calvin. The chief Catholic accusation against Calvinism seems to be that innovation in theology inevitably leads to degeneration and moral decay. Clio the Muse 07:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Reformation got going with Martin Luther in 1517, years before Calvin entered the fray.Edison 14:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pish posh. There are dozens of attacks on Calvin from other Protestant churches as well as from the Roman Catholic Church. The chief Church of England counter came in Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, but the main attacks were on the extreme form of Augustinianism that Calvin endorsed and what the English theologians called "enthusiasm" or "phrenzy," which they had a great deal of trouble with. Direct inspiration and the rejection of theology set the Calvinists in England directly at odds with every other group, including the "Independents" (Baptists) and Quakers. Remember: Calvinist in England = Puritain. Geogre 18:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Children

If there was a child who starred in a movie that was rated R, would they be permitted to watch the movie?

If you're referring to the U.S. "R" rating, yes but being in the film isn't required. Any child under 17 years of age can watch an R rated movie so long as they have a parent or guardian accompanying them. Dismas|^(talk) 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about a film under the Australian "R" rating, where you do have to be 18 or over to see it? --Grace 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

An "R" rated movie is not generally a collection of scenes all of which are "R" rated. Remember that someone could be "in" a movie and only be in very innocuous scenes, and never see anything controversial during the filming, so there is no sense in which they would have already seen the scenes which generate the "R" rating. Edison 14:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In Australia, persons under 18 cannot see an R-rated movie at the cinema, whether or not they're accompanied by an adult. Babes in arms might be an exception, I'm not sure. I remember the case of the 1970s Australian movie Libido, which starred a boy of about 14. He could participate in the making of the movie, but couldn't see it till he turned 18. That was in the days before video, so he just had to wait. JackofOz 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I remember Thomas Sangster having the same problem with Love Actually. He wasn't allowed to watch it in theatres. Made no sense. He saw it when he did the commentary for the DVD... - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • With the advent of home videos and DVDs, these restrictions have been undermined. People can't take young children to see non-G movies at the cinema, but there's nothing stopping them (apart from their own conscience) from obtaining the video or the DVD and showing it to them at home. Same goes for liquor consumption, drugs, etc. But governments feel they have to at least defend the public honour in public places. There would certainly be voter backlash if 7-year-olds were suddenly permitted to see R-rated movies. JackofOz 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Compulsive Lying

me and my mates are finding it impossible to remember the single word term for a compujlsive liar. can you help us?

It's called Mythomania. Next time, make sure you make a "new question" when you ask it. The link is at the top of the page. ;) --AstoVidatu 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have though that the more standard expression would be Pathological liar. Clio the Muse 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the question asked for the single-word term. -THB 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mythomania is the condition. The person is a mythomaniac. JackofOz 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. -THB 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. JackofOz 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Clothing and housing in 13th century Christian Spain

What clothing was worn in 13th century Spain, and what types of houses were built? Mo-Al 04:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a trawl through the History of Western fashion. You will find some general category indicators at the bottom of the page. However, a word of caution: beware of illustrations of 'typical' fashions. You will find that they are anything but typical, showing only what the more affluent would be able to wear. Most of the peasantry and urban poor would use the most basic forms of clothing, usually a simple gown, shirt and doublet, if even that. Housing is more problematic, and will range from castles to hovels, hovels being more typical, but less enduring, than castles. Medieval Spain is little different in this regard from the rest of Europe. Clio the Muse 08:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our article on the history of Western fashion doesn't go back any further than the 16th century. However, here are a few web sources on fashion from the 13th century: this from About.com, this from a site of uncertain reliability, and this from a site endorsed by the Annenberg foundation. The Annenberg site also has a section on housing. Clothing was probably fairly similar across Europe, with greater differences between classes than between regions. Peasants tended to wear rough woolen hose and tunics. Nobles wore finer and more colorful woolens, more linen, fur, jewelry, and perhaps some silk. Housing, on the other hand, would have varied from region to region depending on materials available locally. Peasant housing was often built of wattle and daub, though in Spain, adobe was often used. Peasant cottages typically had thatched roofs and only one room, with perhaps an attached stall for animals (though in one-room cottages, animals often slept with the family). Noble's manor houses were more often built with timber framed walls and slate roofs. Marco polo 14:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What's more, we only know what the affluent wore to have their portraits painted - a different matter completely than what they wore on a regular basis. The affluent were also a much smaller percentage of society than they are now - maybe one in a thousand persons was well-off enough to follow fashion in the 13th century.

With respect to Spain, you also have to ask yourself whether you're interested in Moorish Islamic Spain or Spanish Christian Spain. They probably wore completely different clothing on either side of the border. --Charlene 23:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An odd question for The Stranger

First, I'll admit, this is a homework question. I have read The Outsider (English translation of The Stranger, by Albert Camus), and I have a bunch of questions to answer. This particular question is: "Is Meursault a 'person'? (a human person, a true individual, to be contrasted with a cliché, a stereotype or one sadly reduced to common sense)." What do you think this is asking for? How should I go about answering it? What I'm thinking right now is to say Meursault is more a metaphor than a real person... but that seems a bit weak. Thanks much in advance! 154.20.206.99 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Read over, but please do not reproduce (it is too obvious!) the article on The Stranger (novel). As a character Meursault is real enough, but he suffers from the weakness of all novels written to illustrate a point in philosophy-he appears little better than an epiphenomenon, rather than a complete human being. The best kind of novel should convince you that the character exists independently, if you like, from the author's creative imagination. Meursault does not. He only exists to give life to Camus' notion of the absurd, and becomes, in himself, 'absurd' in more senses than the author intended. I once heard Camus described as the 'bargain basement of modern literature'. I can provide no better summary than that. Clio the Muse 09:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not bargain basement, though flat, of course. Absurdist literature has at least the advantage of wanting characters to be transparently fictive and philosophical (Beckett's plays, Brecht's "Epic Theater"), but Camus isn't part of the absurdist literary movement, despite ostensibly being a founder of it (just as Pirandello cannot manage to be unbelievable). That said, Camus's novel has some virtues. Many have found its sense of isolation and disenfranchisement intriguing (though I never did), and, on the completely other hand, he makes it easy to reject absurdism by pointing out the actual implications of an Absurdist life. (He showed how bankrupt the philosophy was, if you put it into action, in other words.) If one wants a philosopher novelist with some believability or usefulness, I'd recommend Hesse. Geogre 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The original French title was not "The Stranger", but "L’Étranger". JackofOz 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A few interest rates questions

Wasn't really sure where to put an economics question...but seeing as economics is meant to be a 'social science' and 'society' is listed in the humanities desk...figured this was the best place to try.

1. Basically, i've got in my economics textbook that "A common 'rule of thumb' is that monetary policy should be tightened when nominal interest rates are lower than nominal GDP growth".

Why? I figured if nominal interest rates were lower than nominal GDP growth, then people would have little incentive to save, since they'd get more return from investing than interest from saving. That would mean increased aggregate demand, since investment is a component of it, which leads to inflation. So therefore, increased interest rate would be the logical thing to do since increasing interest rate reduces consumption and investmnet, therefore reducing aggregate demand, therefore cooling inflation. Is this the only reason?

2. I've got, in the same book, that "if nominal interest is zero and inflation is below zero, there is a negative rate of real interest."

I don't really understand this. For a start, real interest is nominal interest minus inflation. So if nominal interest is zero and inflation is below zero, then shouldn't the real interest be above zero? Since zero minus a negative number gives you a positive number.

Also, i don't really see how it would work. Let's just say the economy is deflating at 2% (so an inflation rate of negative 2), and i have a $100 bill in my hand. If i just hold onto it, i'd still have a $100 bill in my hand one year later. If i put it into a bank at 0% interest, i'd also end up with just a 100$ bill after one year. Of course, after a year, the 100$ is worth more because things are becoming cheaper, but whether i hold on to it or if i put it into a bank at 0% interest, i'd end up with the same.

I admit this is sort of a homework question. For the record, i've already (tried) reading the relevant articles here, and they really haven't helped much. Would really appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me here. --`/aksha 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Science would be the right place to post this. On number 1, you seem to have figured it out on your own. An overheated economy can lead to an oversupply of goods and satiated demand, causing a recession or even a depression, so it's best to "put the brakes on" before this happens. I agree with you on number 2, they made a mistake. StuRat 14:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I do not claim to be an expert, but I would say to your question #1: The reason that you have given is the main reason for keeping interest rates at or above the rate of nominal GDP growth. Another reason is that low interest rates can cause destabilizing asset inflation. As for your question 2., I agree with StuRat that you are correct and your textbook is in error. Marco polo 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll third that, with regards to #2. The first time I read the question, it seemed to me that the textbook got it backward, but I wasn't 100% sure and didn't want to simply throw in a "guess" in an area I'm not expert in. But after hearing from Stu and Marco Polo, yes, seems like you've got it right, and the textboook is wrong.

As for the first question, I can't say that I have an actual answer to the particular question, but I have to disagree with Stu about this question being more appropriate for the Science RefDesk. (Sorry Stu for always disagreeing with you about RefDesk categories! It isn't personal!) Economics, if it can be considered a science at all, is the "softist" of possible sciences, more akin to political "science" than to "hard" sciences such as physics, math or chemistry. Like political science, economics is replete with unresolvable debate, a variety of schools of thought, issues such as the merits and demerits of Keynesianism vs. Monetarism, supply side vs. demand side economics, whether trickle-down economics actually works, whether economic stimulation is better accomplished through tax cuts, thereby allowing taxpayers to retain more income to spend, or by tax-and-spend policies, whereby the government raises more taxes, but then turns around and spends it on programmes intended to induce economic activity, the appropriate balance between individual tax and corporate tax...I can go on and on. The way I see it, economics is such an intricately complex field that I'm almost inclined to call it more of an art than a science of any kind.

I call it science because you can apply the scientific method. For example, you could develop a theory that, if you reduce the price by 10% on a given item, you should sell 10% more. Then, you can do exactly that and test your theory. StuRat 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As to these two questions, especially the second, you're absolutely right. They're pretty much black and white, which seems to be what scientists deal with best (well, maybe not quantum physicists, but they're a special breed). But what if the question were: Which is better for a country's economy: Free Trade or Protectionism? Is it a good think to run a deficit during a recession to have the extra cash to stimulate the economy, or are you just further dooming future generations? If tax cuts are made, should they be aimed at middle class individuals, so they'll have more disposable income to stimulate the economy, or aimed toward corporations, who'll be able to use the extra cash to expand operations and therefore create more jobs (and who, by the way, are owned in large part by the middle class ayway, in their 401(k)s and other investments)? Economics is filled with such "fuzzy" questions, and scientists tend to shy away from such "fuzziness". Loomis 08:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No.! is already answered. For No. 2, you can reason through it: On January 1, you borrow a dollar for one year at a zero nominal interest and a deflation rate of five percent. On January 1 an apple costs $1.00. At the end of the year, you must pay back $1.00. However, an apple now costs only $0.95. The real interest rate is 5%.

Negative real interest rates occur when the rate of interest is lower than the rate of inflation. -THB 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and economics is the DISMAL science. -THB 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. Science RD would have probably worked well for this, but there's not much point doing moving now. To THB - paying back interest for money borrowed is only half of it, the other half is getting interest for money you save. And this is where i don't really get how your reasoning works. Although i do pay a "real interest" of %5 when i pay back borrowed money to the bank, i'm certainly not going to get paid more money than what i deposited when i withdraw my money from a bank. Or is that sort of irrelevant...since even though i don't get more money, the bank will lose money by having to pay me the same amount of money (in nominal terms)? --`/aksha 03:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which congressional district is Tucson AZ in?

I'm English, try not to bite me for asking.

I cant find out on the pages for the 7th or 8th Districts, or page for Tucson (at least not definitively). I think the city is split in two amongst the 7th and 8th districts although it is hard to tell from low res maps. Please help. --Amists 13:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that Tucson is split between those two districts. The city center is in the 7th District, while the more affluent residential areas to the north and east are in the 8th District. Here is a more detailed map of the district boundaries in Tucson. Marco polo 14:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are awesome. Exactly what I wanted :) I'll edit Tucson incase anyone else ever wants to know. --Amists 14:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But realize the voting districts are changed to give the advantage to whichever party is in power at the time (Gerrymandering). StuRat 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What a shocking admission, Stu! Do you guys really tolerate such things these days? JackofOz 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, we tolerate a lot more than that unfortunately. Dina 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical Senate Trial of Nixon

As we all know Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9th, 1974, even before being impeached by the House, not to mention conviction by the Senate. Impeachment by the House was pretty much a certainty. I'm curious though about what the article calls his "probable" conviction by the Senate.

First off, given the timing of his resignation (just three months before a midterm election), should impeachment proceedings drag on a few months, which Senate (1972 or 1974) would preside over the conviction proceedings? In either case, by implication, according to Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution, only 34 of the 100 sitting Senators would be enough to block any guilty verdict. I realize that even among Republican Senators, he lost a great deal of support. I'm just wondering if any research has been done as to the likely vote of each Senator, (be it the '72 or the '74 Senate,) and how close it is speculated that Nixon would have come to the "magic number" of 34. Any thoughts or references would be appreciated. Thanks! Oh, an by the way, please forgive me for forgetting to mention that the jurisdiction I'm referring to is the United States of America. :) Loomis 17:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting point. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the 1974 Senate elections were a stronger tilt toward the Dems than they were (+4). A look at United States Senate elections, 1974 indicates the breakdown of the Senate following those elections was 62-38. An slightly angrier electorate might have elected Harry Reid over Paul Laxalt in Nevada (actual results, 47.0% - 46.6%); William L. Guy over Milton R. Young in N. Dakota (48.4%-48.3%); Ed Edmondson over Harry Bellmon in OK (49.4%-48.9%) -- that would have made it 66-34. Assuming that the Democrats voted unanimously to convict, it would have only taken a single GOP defector -- and I'd venture at the very least that Barry Goldwater would have voted to convict, given that it was Goldwater's joining the calls for impeachment on August 5, 1974 that triggered Nixon's resignation four days later. But it wouldn't have been that close; once he lost Goldwater, one of his most loyal supporters, Nixon hadn't a chance. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Six of the 17 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee (and all of the Democrats) voted for impeachment before Nixon resigned. The other 11 changed their mind once they heard all the tapes. This was not a partisan thing like the Clinton administration. Nixon was toast. -- Mwalcoff 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming by your response that it would be the 1974 Senate that would preside. In any case, you mentioned that the distribution was 62-38. I'm sure you know your US politics better than I, but technically it was actually 60-38-1-1, the two individuals being a "Conservative" and an "Independent". I really don't know who these other two were and what their ideologies were (except that the "Conservative" was from NY). I recognize that it was hopeless for Nixon, but I just can't help being curious. Would either of you care to venture at least an estimation, an educated guess, as to the likely result, in terms of the numbers of Senators voting either "yea or nay" in the hypothetical trial? Loomis 00:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The independent was Harry F. Byrd, Jr., who caucused with the Democrats; the Conservative was James L. Buckley, who caucused with the GOP. I won't speculate; 67 suffices. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish History 1010

Hi,

can anyone please tell me what happened in Spanish history in the year 1010? Thanks!

Try here History of Spain or 1010. Dina 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that when they first started selling digital clocks ? :-) StuRat 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why specifically 1010? It seems terribly precise. Clio the Muse 08:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Following Dina's suggestion, I found the articles on Hisham II, Al-Andalus, and Taifa. They give you an idea (and maps) of what happened in Spanish history around the year 1010.---Sluzzelin 09:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the questioner is looking for background information for his NaNoWriMo attempt? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Need Metal Band Name

My friend needs some help looking for a name for his black metal band. It should be or at least sound Egyptian, Babylonian, or Persian and preferrably based on a myth cycle of some sort. Any suggestions? Thanks.

I know the Admins will spank me for answering with a joke, but I can't help, upon hearing the terms "Metal Band" and "Egyptian" to suggest "The Bangles". Oh well, the name's already been used. Sorry guys, for the joke answer, I promise to never do it again, except under exceptional circumstances. Loomis 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Brilliant! --Grace 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused Grace. "Brilliant" that I'll do my best to avoid nonsensical joke responses? I'm not even sure myself if my "joke" made any sense at all. :)

I have a suggestion: Use Wikipedia to find a name. There are many articles you may be interested in, such as Ancient Egypt, Babylonia, and Persia. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Puns:

• The Asp Kickers.

• Babel On.

• Toot in Common (more for a brass band).

• Car Touche.

• Sphinxter.

• Whore Us.

Serious:

• Nose Hook.

• Scarab.

• Mummified Cat.

• Osiris.

• Book of the Dead.

• Ra.

• Nimrod.

• Ankh.

• Anubis.

StuRat 19:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Or your friend could avoid cliche and try and come up with a name which isn't just like the names of thousands of other black metal bands... Cheers, Sam Clark 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

People who religiously follow odd youth subcultures are roughly incapable of original thought, incase it doesnt conform with their subculture, as young unstable people growing up nowadays find that one subculture or another is the only way that they can identify who they are. Also for some reason people like to be part of a minority for that feeling that they are fighting back against the world, what a lot of these people fail to realise is that together goth and emo, account for a massive majority of youths nowadays, head and shoulders above the other smaller subcultures. So much ofr the minority, They will hate to hear it, but being an emo or goth, is probably the most normal thing you can do in western youth culture nowadays. Thoroughly unoriginal. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Philc: I used to think like that, I'm glad I changed my mind. I made my peace by realizing that those kids will probably grow up just fine, discover different music and so on, but they often need this experience of belonging to a subculture to help them deal with that alienation stuff that comes with being a teenager. Didn't you ever feel like the world was a horrible place and nobody liked you? I dealt with it by escaping into books, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been healthier to participate in some subculture and perfect the art of social interaction.

Anyway...Black metal, let it be said, is not goth or emo except to the casual observer. It dates back to the 1980s and the genre has its own very specific set of conventions, like most metal subgenres.

To the original poster: The Babylon article has some cool-sounding names: Nineveh, Marduk, Darius, the Ishtar Gate. Mesopotamian mythology provides more Babylonian mythological names (see also the categories at the bottom of that page). And don't forget godchecker.com. Good luck to your friend with his band! --Grace 22:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they go into a subculture because of alienation, or do they alienate themselves by entering a subculture. I dont think I am a part of any subcultures, and yet I dont feel alienated by anyone, at my school no one really is, generally ther just normal kids, there are a few goths, punks, "scene kids" and emos, and if you ask them why they dress up and do weird things purely for the sake of it you are hit with a snide remark such as "because I'm not a sheep" which is desperately ironic, as copying a subculture to the letter rather than developing your own tastes shows far less originality. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were still in school, it must be more difficult when you have to put up with them every day. :) I think a lot of people get into subcultures because they dislike something about mainstream culture and want to express their opposition to it, and (whatever they say) they do like the companionship of belonging to a group (goths can be quite friendly to other goths, for example, because they instantly recognize that they have something in common). It's good that you don't feel like you need to do that sort of thing. But remind yourself that they'll probably discover better ways to change society or express their individuality by the time they get to their twenties. --Grace 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Mythica has a wide varity of names from all over. --Phydaux 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Cataracts of the Nile (just because it sound cool) Dina 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the cataracts affected the Pharaoh’s vision of Egypt ? StuRat 02:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Build My Statue"? or better yet, "Build My Statue, Slaves"?Moonwalkerwiz 05:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to hand it to Stu for "Toot in Common", one of the funniest things I've seen here in a while. My favourites would be Rosetta Stone or Ziggurat. Loomis 07:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the fashion for band names is to either put together two unrelated words like "bona wallaby" or misspell a common word like "Pirrahmyds". DJ Clayworth 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on! Not a lot of you have really tried to help the guy. How must he/she feel when reading your pedagogical comments on subcultures? Take him/her serious. So how about:

Darayavaush - Old Persian version of Darius, name of Persian kings of the Achaemenid dynasty

Word of Enki - in homage to Neal Stephenson's novel 'Snowcrash'

Gilgamesh - Sumerian myth, but the name is probably taken

Sargon or Sargon King - famous Mesopotamian ruler

Ashes of Troy - I think that has a nice bleak feel to it. Okay, it's a Greek myth.

And this excerpt from the Wikipedia article Mesopotamian mythology should go some way to helping you:

"In Akkadian and Sumerian mythology, Irkalla (also Ir-Kalla, Irkalia) is the hell-like underworld from which there is no return. It is also called Arali, Kigal, Gizal, and the lower world. Irkalla is ruled by the death god Nergal and his consort Ereshkigal."

So how about 'Irkalla'?--88.73.22.216 13:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Another US Constitutional Question

While I'm at it, I might as well ask this one. In the run-up to the 2000 election, I remember watching a Conan O'Brien spoof where this Clinton impersonator outlined his strategy at getting around the two-term limit of the 22nd Amendment. Reading it carefully, it only forbids one from being "elected to the office of the President" more than twice. His "plan" was to get onto the Gore ticket as candidate for Vice-President. Gore would then immediately resign, then, pursuant to the 25th Amendment, Clinton would be sworn in as President, and essentially be allowed to serve a third term. In fact, he could even go so far as nominate Gore as his VP, and with Congress' confirmation, we'd essenially have yet another four years of a Clinton-Gore administration! Of course it was meant as an absurd joke, but poring carefully over the words of the 22nd Amendment, it actually seems like, technically at least, the ridiculous plan would actually be Constitutionally legal. Am I missing something? If not, I may actually consider giving Karl Rove a call! I'm joking of course, I hope that last line hasn't caused any of you to suffer any serious psychological trauma. :--)

On a more serious note, the 25th Amendment, describing, inter alia, how upon the removal, death or resignation of the President, the VP becomes President. Yet this Amendment was only ratified in '67, four years after JFK's assination and LBJ's swearing in. Without this particular Amendment, what was the Constitutional basis for automatically assuming that LBJ, or Truman for that matter, or even those VPs further back in history who were sworn in as President upon the death of the sitting President were the obvious successors? Loomis 18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Article II Section 1: In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The 25th Amendment article does describe why that first section is needed: does "shall devolve on" mean "take over the job"? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JP. I should have gone over the article more thoroughly before asking. It just threw me off that the 25th Amendment seems to introduce a concept that had been practiced routinely beforehand. It hadn't occured to me that it could merely be clarification of previously existing text in the main body of the Constitution. Still, though, as the article states, the concept became pretty clear as far back as when John Tyler succeeded William Henry Harrison upon the latter's death. Even moreso ever since Teddy Roosevelt's succession upon the death of William McKinley, and as I've mentioned, the cases of Truman and LBJ.

The section would seem be rather redundant, given all the precedent set, and akin to passing an Amendment authorizing the courts to excercize judicial review, a function they've been excercizing without explicit Constitutional authority ever since the precedent was set in Marbury v. Madison. On the other hand, if it helps to clarify things, even unnecessarily, I suppose there's no harm. Loomis 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I figure they were doing the VP-replacement stuff anyway, so figured they may as well clean up the ambiguity -- it wasn't hurting anything, but it was easy enough to take care of while doing more important stuff. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that Article II treats four situations identically: removal from office, death, resignation, and inability to perform presidential duties. As noted, the action it calls for is ambiguous -- does "the same" mean the office (so Tyler was a president) or the duties (so he was an acting president)? From what I've read, Tyler simply acted as if it obviously meant the office, and this, ah, president precedent became accepted. But if a president had declared himself incapacitated, would that precedent mean that he had to give up the office? (None ever did, not even Wilson when he had a stroke.)

The 25th Amendment provision making it clear that the VP only becomes the acting president resolved this point. But if the amendment was going to explicitly cover one of the four situations, it only made sense to explicitly cover the other three as well.

--Anonymous, 23:32 UTC, November 6.

It's a cute plan, but rendered null by the 12th amendment, which states "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligable to that of Vice-President of the United States". Because Clinton cannot be elected President, he cannot therefore be elected Vice President. Whilst you could potentially argue that he could be 'appointed' Vice President, if a VP resigned and he was chosen to replace him, the constitution makes clear that when Congress are involved in choosing Pres/VP, they are voting and it is an election. The longest a President can serve is ten years (exactly two years of someone else's term, then two four years of their own), there's no way for Clinton to get back in, unfortunately. Thankfully, this does mean Bush is gone if the planet survives another two years. --Mnemeson 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The 25th Amendment was created in order to cover situations such as the period of time when Woodrow Wilson was President, but had had a stroke and was unable to perform his duties. Many members of Congress had considered what might have happened had Kennedy been incapacitated by the assassination attempt and not killed, so they came up with the ability for the Vice President to act as Acting President until such a time as the President is healthy enough to perform his duties again. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As a follow up question, where would I be able to find that particular "law" that provides for the order of succession absent both a president and a vice-president. I believe the Speaker of the House comes third, but I may be mistaken, and then perhaps the Secretary of State, &c.

Also, I'm aware of certain periods of US history where there was no VP, most recently from '63 to '65, when LBJ served out the remainder of JFK's term. Who served as president of the Senate at that time? What would have happened if, during that time, LBJ died, resigned or was removed from office? Loomis 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That would have been Carl T. Hayden, who was president pro tem from 1957-1969, except for the '63-'65 period, when he was President of the Senate (in the absence of a VP, who normally has that title.) But the Speaker of the House would have come before him, per the Presidential Succession Act of 1947; that would have been John William McCormack. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The last period with no VP was not 63-65 but August 9 - December 19, 1974 after Nixon resigned, and Ford became president but before Rockefeller was approved as VP. We also have a large article on the United States presidential line of succession which links to the actual law involved. Rmhermen 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Veil Controversy

Whats the whole debate regarding the veil made such a big issue around the world?

Whose freedom is being questioned? The west or the religion? Or Is there some element of choice in the religion? Or is the world slaves of freedom and western democracy where there is no rationality of thought and the West is imposing its way of life as a compulsion on the east ?

Or is the east under a compulsion to accept the age of plastic surgery and nip tuck?? -- unsigned contribution by User:Kjvenus, 19:27, 6 November 2006

If you're so big on "choice", then ask yourself whether women in Iran and Saudi Arabia are free to choose whether or not to wear it... AnonMoos 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what exactly you're asking. I get the point that you're in some way upset about veils and religion, so I'm guessing this is something to do with the current controversy about Muslim women wearing Niqab in the UK (and elsewhere), but beyond that I'm lost. Could you be more specific? Sam Clark 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not upset about anything, just pointing out that User:Kjvenus has what some might consider to be a rather selective definition of "choice"... AnonMoos 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to the original questioner... Sam Clark 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you should have put your comment in the proper place with the correct indentation level... AnonMoos 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The place is OK, but they shouldn't have indented further than your comment, that does make it a reply to you. StuRat 21:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was dealing with an edit conflict, and accidentally added a colon: my bad. The confusion is now resolved. Does this really need any further analysis? Sam Clark 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How does one define freedom? Is it the western perception of the quality of immorally reprehensible lifestyle that the world is obligated to accept? 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The world is not obligated to do anything. Who are you to determine that someone else's lifestyle is reprehensible? Is it the impatience of desire? Get a life, go get married or something.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom is usually defined as two concepts: freedom to choose good things, and freedom from affliction by bad things. For examples, most of us think that there is very little freedom in islamic countries, where one has no freedom to choose something important like one's religion or one's government, and no freedom from the rules of mullahs or the attacks of religious murderers. In the west, one can choose to live in one of many different social groups and environments, and although we are currently afflicted by a bad government doing evil things, we have the freedom to change it now that many of our slower citizens have caught on. How easily can you change your government? Or are you one of the vile cowards who chose, or whose parents chose, the freedom and hospitality of the west but are now trying your hardest to ruin the freedom and abuse the hospitality? If so, please move back to some islamic paradise and leave the civilized world alone. Dalembert 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if you don't like the West, then stop your whining and go home ! StuRat 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, the questioner is based in Mumbai.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was continuing the hypothetical line of thought from Dalembert. StuRat 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The west is not the same as the US, and civilization is not distinct from Islam. On the interesting question about the definition of 'freedom', see Freedom for some starting places. On the interesting question raised by Lambiam: someone is going to have to determine that at least some lifestyles are reprehensible (unless one is prepared to be tolerant of mass murder, for instance). The difficult question, of course, is how? I doubt that this question is going to be answered by identifying different ways of life as 'Western' or 'Eastern', though. Yours, Sam Clark 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Further: the suggestion 'if you don't like the West, then stop your whining and go home', if meant seriously, is both abusive and stupid. Among the things which 'the west' - amongst other places - centrally and rightly values are: 1. the right of radical criticism; and 2. the right to choose one's home. 'Defending' these and other values by denying them is just plain dumb. Yours, Sam Clark 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sam, moving to a country and then complaining that it's not like where you came from is what's insulting. If a person is unwilling to adjust and integrate into a new society then they shouldn't enter that society. Furthermore, any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions. Any group of immigrants who doesn't respect the values of that society should therefore be barred from entering. Specifically, they should be willing to learn the language, at the very minimum, to be granted entry. Also, they should be questioned about if they would be willing to kill civilians to achieve political ends, and deported if they do, or support any organization that does. Requirements for attaining citizenship should be much stricter, as well. StuRat 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stu - 1. The original poster hasn't said anything about where he or she is from, or now lives, so the 'love it or leave it' commentary from you and others is off-topic as well as offensive. 2. 'any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions' - rubbish. What if their existing traditions involve slavery? Or the example I've already used, genocide? Or systematic oppression of women or minorities? There is an important and difficult question about the standards of moral assessment for societies, as for individuals, but it's not answered - not even approached - by isolationist sloganeering or unsupported assertions about a 'right to maintain the status-quo'. Yours, Sam Clark 08:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument, "genocide" is obviously not a "tradition to be maintained". However, a country's native language, and women either being covered from head to toe in a burka, or not, ARE traditions of a society to be maintained, to be decided upon by the existing majority. StuRat 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a strawman argument, because, first, it's not obvious that there can't be a tradition of genocide (what's your alternative explanation of long-term conflicts like those between Hutu and Tutsi, for instance?); and, second, slavery and oppression, among many other appalling activities, can very obviously be traditions. You're trying to defend your initial claim about a right to defend the status-quo, which I've refuted, by redefining 'tradition' so it only covers things you think it's allowable to defend. This is sometimes known as a no true scotsman argument. Sam Clark 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed it's an absolute right that trumps people's rights not to be killed or enslaved, that is your straw man. My only claim was that a country's traditions trump immigrants rights to dress in ways inconsistent with those traditions and exclusively speak foreign languages. Your intentional misinterpretation of what I said is most definitely a straw man argument. You might as well claim you oppose the right to bear arms because that must include nuclear weapons. StuRat 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake: generalisations apply to cases. You asserted the generalisation that 'any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions'. I pointed out that this has absurd consequences for a wide range of cases, and that your generalisation is therefore false. This is neither a misinterpretation nor a strawman argument, it's the standard philosophical technique of criticism by reductio. In the absence of an uncontroversial definition of 'tradition' - which we don't have and are unlikely to get - your response in defence of your original, offensive comment doesn't work. My reason for making that criticism is that your dogmatic claims about how we should live together are no help in solving the serious problems which the veil controvery exemplifies. I'm not suggesting that I have a perfect solution to these problems. I am suggesting that your proposed solutions don't work, that you need to think harder about them, and that the comment you directed at the questioner was inappropriate, and should be withdrawn. Yours, Sam Clark 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You took "any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions" and implied that it somehow means "any society has a right to maintain the status-quo, that is, to maintain their existing traditions, and this right is more important than every other human right, including the right to life and to be free from slavery". That's an absurd intentional misinterpretation. StuRat 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm obviously not explaining myself very well, but I'll try to make it clear what I was saying. I have not misrepresented you, because I never claimed that you held the position we both think is absurd, that the alleged right to maintain the status quo trumps all other rights. My argument - as I've already noted a couple of times - is the standard philosophical technique of reductio ad absurdum: showing that a claim can't stand because of its absurd consequences (with the aim of refining, not ridiculing the claim). The point of doing this was not to attribute a totally implausible position to you, it was to show that your assumption of an obviously-true, lexically-ordered set of rights was false. There is no such set, and which rights trump which is a massive problem (I made much the same point about freedoms, below).

• I don't see the diff. Extending my argument to an absurd case is not a valid strategy, unless I had actually said that preserving the status quo trumped every other right. You should instead refute the two cases I listed: that any society has a right to maintain a certain standard of dress, and their language. StuRat 01:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• How we got into this argument is that I objected to your post, 'if you don't like the West, then stop your whining and go home', which was inappropriate and should be withdrawn. You defended it by making dogmatic claims about what rights communities and individuals have or don't have. I was arguing that these claims are unjustified, and trying to get you 1. to make them more precise by specifying what exactly counts as a 'tradition' for the purpose of the alleged right to maintain the status quo; and 2. to give some argument for the existence of the alleged right. I still think you should do these things, if you're interested in having reasoned moral and political beliefs, but that of course is up to you. More importantly, I think you should strike out, and apologise for, the piece of near-racist sloganeering which started this argument.

Yours, Sam Clark 14:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will not be withdrawing that comment, and it's not racist, as it also applies to Westerners who move to a foreign country and complain about it. They should stop whining and go home, too. You should apologize for misrepresenting my remarks. The main argument for the existence of this right is that the majority of the world's countries practice them. Most countries take actions to protect their language and culture. Only certain liberal Western nations seem to feel that the right of immigrants to go wherever they want and do whatever they want trumps their right to maintain their language and culture. StuRat 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Briefly: 1. That you don't see the difference between the strategy you attribute to me and the strategy I'm actually using is your problem. I've explained it as clearly as I can. 2. Your argument for the existence of the alleged right - 'the majority of the world's countries practice them' - doesn't work, even if the premise is true. The majority of the world's countries practiced slavery until very recently. And before you start claiming misrepresentation again, note that I'm not asserting that you think slavery is OK, I'm pointing out that the argument 'majority practices X, therefore X is moral' has absurd consequences, and is therefore a bad argument. 3. Up to you what you withdraw, of course. I've stated my opinion and my reasons for it. 4. I don't intend to continue this. You make many useful and intelligent contributions to the reference desk, but you're also quite seriously opinionated about subjects - notably political and ethical theory - that you don't appear to know much about. I've done my best to explain why your dogmatic claims about the rights of countries and individuals are dubious. Your response has been to appeal to your own intuitions - which are not universally shared - as if they were obviously correct; and to stubbornly refuse to understand a quite simple argument. Well, fair enough, not everybody can think critically about their moral commitments, and not everybody chooses to. Yours, Sam Clark 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to avoid these exchanges, because they they have a habit of becoming pointless and angry. The process, I see, is already at work. Might I suggest, Sam, that if you disagree with someone that you muster your counter-arguments in a precise and logical fashion. To use dismissive terms like 'rubbish' is both shallow and counter-productive; it only invites irritation and annoyance, which always leads to further intellectual degeneration. There is simply too much of that on these pages. Clio the Muse 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clio, I have 'mustered my counter-argument in a precise and logical fashion': it consists of a reductio ad absurdum of the claimed right to maintain the status-quo, as I thought was clear. 'Rubbish' was meant to be robust but not unfriendly, and I'm sorry if it came across otherwise, but I don't think I'm the worst offender in this exchange: telling the questioner 'if you don't like the West, then stop your whining and go home' was quite seriously offensive - borderline racist, in fact - and I thought it worth saying so. I agree completely about the tendency to degeneration of discussion on these pages, but I'm not convinced that remaining aloof is always the way to combat it. Yours, Sam Clark 10:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, Sam; but these debates usually slip into futility, sad to say. Clio the Muse 00:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, given the above lengthy exchange, perhaps you were right. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer the original question: I heard an interesting lecture from Gillian Whitlock about how we, as Westerners, tend to want to see Muslim women remove the veil, because for us it is "dehumanizing" and a powerful symbol of their oppression. For Muslim women, the veil itself is not as much of an issue, and certainly not a high priority for activism at the moment, compared to issues like domestic violence. Some Islamic feminists even see the veil as liberating because it allows them to participate in politics, etc., as equals with men, rather than being seen as sexual objects. An interesting way of looking at it. Perhaps this helps explain why many still choose to wear it when they have the freedom to choose. --Grace 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and relates to the question about the definition of freedom. There are many freedoms: freedom to dress as you please, freedom to go about in public without threat or shame, freedom to take part in government, freedom from oppression. Wearing niqab could be a condition of the important freedom to take part in managing your community; and it could also be lack of freedom, if a woman who went out in public without a veil would be vilified or attacked. The general point is that freedoms clash with one another (my freedom of speech may well clash with your freedom to appear in public unthreatened, if what I say is hate speech). So, we need to decide how to rank freedoms, and how to trade them off against one another. And that problem is part of the larger problem of how to make a moral judgement about ways of life. Neither cultural relativism - who are we to judge anyone else? - nor moral protectionism - we have a right to defend our way of life just because it is our way of life - are any help in answering this problem. Yours, Sam Clark 09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to bear in mind is I think a lot of people in the West (I live in the West) are deluded as to how much freedom we have in dress. While we might have more freedom then in some Arabs states, it might not be as much as people like to think. People often point out the social pressures etc to dress in a certain way in some Muslim countries despite the abscence of legal requirements or backing. But what about the social pressures we face in the West? How many ordinary guys would dare to dress in a dress or skirt (not a kilt) even if they wanted to? Not many. Or, when it comes to women, young women in particular, there are in fact strong pressures to dress in a fairly revealing way in many situations. Images in the media, expectations of friends, expectations of the opposite sex etc. Now obviously there is still the option not to dress in such a way and many want to dress in this way but then the same is true in a number of Islamic countries as well. While there are in some countries the cases where people are punished either by the courts or vigilantes this doesn't occur in all Muslim countries. Oh and about the point Grace was making, not that this applies in the west as well. A number of Muslim women choose to dress conservatively and were the veil or headscarf in the west, not just because they feel it is required by their religion but because they feel it forces people, men in particular to judge them by their thoughts and mind, not their bodies and looks. Nil Einne 16:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. Talking to young girls these days, it feels like they believe they'll be called hideously deformed, ugly beyond toleration, a subhuman scum of the earth not fit to be in public, etc. by a large percentage of the population unless they dress in tight, revealing clothes. On the other hand, if they do wear revealing clothes, other people call them whores, sluts, etc. and say they deserve to be assaulted or abused. They often feel that what they themselves want is completely irrelevant - they are forced to dress a way so as not to be verbally abused (at the least) by one group, but doing so gets them verbally abused by another group. They can't win. And they're told outright and subliminally every day that the only thing that matters about them is whether men they don't know get aroused by looking at them. Nothing else, not a thing, matters but whether they turn on men they've never met. --Charlene 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Barf ?

Wikipedia has a good article on the dubious sport of competitive eating, but doesn't seem to answer the most obvious question: After the contest, do the eaters bring the food back up, or do they allow their bodies to process these huge amounts of food in the natural way? 66.213.33.2 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think vomiting, if found out, leads to direct disqualification... 惑乱 分からん 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they follow them home to check? Philc _T^E_C^I 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a time during which they have to keep it down, something like 10 minutes or so. Dismas|^(talk) 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

During the contest, vomiting is allowed, but EXPELLING the vomit is not. (It actually makes sense to me.) Apparently there was some controversy with Takeru Kobayashi and claims that he actually expelled vomitus. -THB 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between "vomiting" (according to www.dictionary.com: to eject the contents of the stomach through the mouth) and "expelling vomit" (according to www.dictionary.com: to discharge or eject the matter ejected in vomiting)?  --Lambiam^Talk 09:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The logical difference would be that the vomitus must be retained within the mouth and re-swallowed, instead of being expelled out through the mouth. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Who designed the stained glass in the east window of St. Etheldreda's Church?

The Pitkin Guide (Cunnigham, Fr. Kit, with Rosemary Nibbs. St. Etheldreda's, Ely Place: A Pitkin Guide. Norwich: Jarrold Publishing, 2003)lists Edward Nuttgens as the designer of the stained glass of the east window, but Joseph Lutyens is named on the official website [2]. Does anyone know anything about this? Maybe one of them designed and one executed the window? Bencoland 21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, Nuttgens' window (along with all the others) was destroyed in the Blitz; Luytens replaced it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference you could point me towards? Thanks, Bencoland 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm even more confused now. Scratch all that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)