Humanities desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

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.

October 19

Theology

What formal traing will I need to become a theologian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.102 (talk • contribs)

It depends what theology you are wanting to study. For Christian theology, you would need at least a theological degree (i.e., Bible college). BenC7 09:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it also very much depends on where you live. Here in Switzerland, for instance, you'd need to have a secondary education degree called Matura in order to study theology at an university. Sandstein 13:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a Bible College! Sheesh. First, everyone can be a theologian with simply studying the doctrines and scriptures of their theologies. To be called a theologian as a profession, you need to get an advanced degree, most likely, and that would require a university associated with a particular church, or at least a particular religion. However, the term as a label for a profession comes from what you do, not how you trained. If you publish peer reviewed works or chuch approved works of theology, you're a theologian. It's just that you normally require quite a bit of education to not repeat things that have been said scores of times already, and you can get that in a school or by very disciplined and extensive reading. Geogre 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should clarify whether you want to become a minister (or priest), who serves a church or parish, in which case you need to determine what denomination you feel called to, and apply to a seminary of that faith, or if you with to perhaps become a faculty member at such a school, or in a theology department of a college. A minister should probably have a great deal of religious faith and should practice what he preaches. Theologians, on the other hand, are not necessarily religiously devout and full of unquestioning faith, unless they are in evangelical seminaries. They may be more like scientists, as they analyze the scriptures more like archeologists, using such tools as Biblical criticism. Some theologians are athiests or agnostics, which would be more problematic for a minister. Ministers may confess to being troubled by doubts, but see these occasional doubts as a test, snares laid by the Devil. Edison 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

prison and sex

While in prison I had sex with men, yet I don't feel gay; how could that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.102 (talk • contribs)

How do you know you don't feel gay? -THB 02:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question forms an...interesting contrast with your previous one... -Elmer Clark 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be gay to have sex with a person of the same sex as you. See Men who have sex with men. JackofOz 04:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer makes an interesting observation, but I'm not certain that I detect any dissonance betwixt the questions; one gathers that a good part of one's formal training to be a Catholic priest from his being a celibate straight man who occasionally gets it on with boys. :) Of course, that sometimes leads one to prison, where the whole circle begins once again... On a more substantive note, one might see, in addition to the MWHSWM page, prison sexuality, perhaps toward the proposition that one's having sex with an individual of the same gender ought to be viewed as other-than-homosexual where the former is wholly unable—for considerable stretches, at least—to seek out other pursuits (such that, assuming arguendo that there exist sexual needs that one cannot healthfully satifsy him/herself, we could construe the prison sex as tending toward the homosexual only avolitionally). Joe 05:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are gay when you generally feel attracted to people of the same sex as you. You can have sex someone without being attracted to them. Many men can be aroused by other man without actually feeling attracted to them. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't know the cultural background of the person who asked the question, we need to recognize that the word "gay" can describe identity rather than sexual orientation. Many men, especially outside of western culture where the concept "gay" does not exist as such, may engage in sex with other men, and even feel varying degrees of attraction to other men, without considering themselves gay. Many of these same men will go on to have a primarily heterosexual erotic life; others are primarily homosexual. As Joe points out, it is not unusual for men who identify as "straight" in the United States to have sex with other men while in prison (or even out of prison).

Also, note that the person asking the question said that he wants to be a theologian, not a Catholic priest. It seems wrong to make fun of this person just because he had sex with other men in prison and now wants to study theology. In my opinion, experience of life in prison and sexual relations with a person of the same sex and/or of the opposite sex all provide potentially valuable perspectives on the human condition. There is no reason why a person with these experiences might not have an interest in spiritual matters and even bring something valuable to the study of theology. Marco polo 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality is a state of mind & can be cured only with constant practice of faith. There are many who dont have a proper family support and get impatient for desires. Since the concerned person was in jail for a long time one can imagine the state of loneliness which could have possibly gripped him and could have lured him to such lewd insane acts. People who either dont have enough money or who dont have a proper family support depict such signs of sexual behavior even if it isnt a part of their sexual orientation. There are many inmates and even navy people fall prey to such signs of mental sicknesses that is reflected in the media world on a constant basis. Spirituality is the only panacea for such states of mind. With the lack of constant preoccupation of the mind, feelings grip the mind. Educational background of the concerned person has also to be taken into consideration. [kjvenus]

Christianity is a state of mind & can be cured only by constant practice of logic. There are many who don't have a proper family support and accept unreasonable ideas. Since the concerned person was in jail for a long time one can imagine the state of loneliness which could have possibly gripped him and could have lured him to such an insane religion. People who either don't have enough money or who don't have a proper family support manifest such signs of irrationality even if it isn't a sign of their innate mental imbalance. There are many inmates and even navy people who fall prey to the religious proselytizing that is reflected in the media world on a constant basis. Rationality is the only panacea for such states of mind. With the lack of constant preoccupation of the mind, feelings grip the mind. Educational background of the concerned person has also to be taken into consideration. - Cure the Curate 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[kjvenus] appears to be muslim (?), but still... 惑乱分からん 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was mirroring his remarks, which related to the apparently Christian questioner. [kjvenus] should feel free to substitute "Islam" for "Christianity", though, if he feels left out. - Cure the Curate 06:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one has faith then anything is possible.[kjvenus]

KJVenus, I've had enough of your cowardice. If you don't have the courage to set up a user-account and explain to us the personal perspective you're speaking from, I have no choice but to simply dismiss your statements as those of a coward. Loomis 23:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement of yours clearly reflects your inability to accept the facts. Every individual makes some choices depending on circumstances of life. No one is a coward [kjvenus].

Say what? That sounds just like an excuse to avoid setting up an user account... 惑乱分からん 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to be able to roll back the damage?

Let's pretend for a moment that you are like me and you

Believe that many of the bills passed by this administration are among the most disgusting laws passed in this country, including the laws pertaining to the removal of habeas corpus and the allowal of torture
Hope, probably very unrealistically, that the Democrats will take both of the houses this November and maybe even the presidency in '08

How much of what has been done by the Republicans could be reversed by a willing Democratic congress? Would reversing a law be as simple as abolishing it or writing a new law? Or do these laws come with provisions that require them to remain in law? How much of the damage caused by the GOP (not counting, unfortunately, the loss of human life and the billions spent on war) could, in a perfect scenario, be reversed by the Democrats?

Thanks for any input, -Sam

Well, you have to understand that many of these bills (such as the PATRIOT Act, which passed 98-1, with only good ol' Russ Feingold voting nay) had strong support from both parties. I think it'd be fair to say that a Democrat-controlled government would propose and pass fewer of these bills, but unfortunately a lot of the already-passed stuff has enough support that it's unlikely to be repealed. -Elmer Clark 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your question, only a Constitutional Amendment would require a supermajority to repeal. Since those are all normal laws, they can be repealed by a simple majority. StuRat 02:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, StuRat, Bush could veto any bills that he doesn't like, and that would require a supermajority to overcome (and that's not going to happen). Looking at the previous history of such things, it tends to take some time to unwind the damage done. There will be commissions of enquiry, and so on, and recommendations will be made, and it will gradually percolate its way through the legislative process. This process will be speeded up considerably if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008. Throw in that the constitutionality of a lot of this stuff will be subject to challenge. It will be a slow process, but eventually the good ship America will right itself. Until the next time it elects a bunch of ignorant GOP warmongers, that is. --Robert Merkel 02:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think this is about the US, but the question didn't state that. DirkvdM 09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh - Democrats; Republicans; GOP; presidency in 2008; 2 houses; elections in November; words like administration and congress rather than government or parliament - what other country could possibly fit all those clues, Dirk? Hmm? JackofOz 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While JackofOz is obviously correct, it's true that I should have specified the US instead of "this country." Thanks for everyone's replies. --Sam

Agreed. While obvious to anyone in the US that you are talking about their country, it may not be obvious to everyone outside the US, some of whom aren't familiar with all those terms. StuRat 15:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People should certainly state up front which country they're talking about. But that wasn't the only point Dirk was making. "You seem to think .. but" suggests it would be wrong to come to the conclusion that Sam was necessarily talking about the US. I challenged that statement because the US is the only possible fit. JackofOz 20:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That you can think of. Which is precisely the problem. DirkvdM 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given, heaven forbid, a Democratic President and a Democratic controlled Congress (boy, this hurts even thinking about it!), GWB's administration hasn't passed any Constitutional Amendments, and so every policy of his can be reversed by simple majority in a Democratic Congress and by a Democratic President. Loomis 22:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis, perhaps you can help Republicans flee to Canada. Bhumiya (said/done) 23:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! We don't want them. Although, I suppose Alberta might be interested... Clarityfiend 01:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Republican reservation? Let's give them their own land, but this time not with arms. DirkvdM 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Greetings, all. I'm a musician, and I've been making music for about 7 years now. I've been told that the music I create sounds very much like what you would normally expect to hear on the soundtrack of a video game. At first, this really annoyed me, because I thought what I had written sounded a lot like dance/club music, or maybe even hip-hop. However, I have a friend who is really into video game music, and he said I should try getting my music in video games.

So, how does one go about getting their music on soundtracks for video games? Are there video game music record labels? Any information is greatly appreciated. Thanks! 72.228.54.222 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but the only video-game composers I know are Dan Wentz and Emmett Plant. I think there are two interviews of Dan Wentz on the web right now. Dan Wentz started by getting introduced to one of the presidents of Parallax Software, and Emmett Plant got involved through contributing to open-source games. --Kjoonlee 07:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's possible, but you can contact Microsoft Gaming Studios [1]. | AndonicO 12:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial games are put together by studios like Electronic Arts; it's a multinational business. Game development is more studio-oriented than films are, so there are a lot more people on staff involved in game production than the ad-hoc nature of the film industry. Basically, I expect to get hired you're going to need to put together a demo that shows your best stuff. Obviously, it's best if your showreel includes actual games. To get this kind of experience, you might like to get involved with the mod community and see if you can include your music in a high-standard mod (game modification). That way, you can not only show your compositional ability, you can show your ability to integrate with an actual game. Failing that, demonstrating the ability to provide an appropriate score to a short film would be good. Anything to show that you're not only a good musician, but you can write music to set the required mood and ambience. --Robert Merkel 14:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republicanism in Japan?

With all of the problems over letting females taking the throne and the birth of Prince Hisahito, is there a movement for Japan to become a republic like there is Australia, Canada, or NZ? Or am I correct to assume this is all taboo and a western idea? I've searched here and google and came up empty. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Japan's monarchy isn't much like the Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand system. It is closer to being a religious institution than a political one, and it's much more closely identified with the culture. The Communist Party of Japan used to strongly oppose the monarchy, but they now support the retention of the Emperor as a figurehead. Both the LDP and the DPJ are generally favorable to the monarchy. Of course, in Japanese politics, personal cliques carry a lot of influence. It is possible that within a single party, one clique may support the monarchy and another may oppose it. I don't doubt that the DPJ and other left-leaning parties contain republican or quasi-republican elements. Hell, for all I know, there may be minor republican factions within the LDP. But none of these is very influential. Bhumiya (said/done) 07:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting time

When I go out to a restaurant, I don't normally bother with a starter. Let's say I haven't ordered anything complicated and the place is not particularly busy. How long is it reasonable to wait after placing my order before asking when my meal will arrive? I start getting restless after about 20 minutes. --Shantavira 08:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I might try to the catch the waiter's eye and put a question mark on my face after 20 minutes. It's customary to inform guests (on the menu or when receiving the order) when a meal is going to take 30 minutes or longer to prepare. I see absolutely no problem in politely asking when your meal will arrive. For sure, some waiters (especially where I live) might give you an offended look, and try to guilt and punish you for your ridiculous impatience. (I"'m only human. I've only got two hands." is an absurd response when you think about it.) But the few passive-aggressive waiters aside, why shouldn't you ask? You've got your own schedule, and these days people expect faster food from non-fast-food restaurants too.---Sluzzelin 09:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how many people there are in your party. I'd say if you're alone, you could ask in ~20 minutes; 2 people, ~25 minutes, ~ 3-6 people, 30 minutes. It also depends on what restuarant you're in. However, if you've been waiting for, say, 25 minutes, chances are, you will be getting your meal in the next few minutes. I believe it was my great grandmother who used to say "Patience is the mother of Science" (it rhymes in Spanish). | AndonicO 12:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see 20 minutes. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. . --193.56.241.75 12:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that intended to be helpful? JackofOz 12:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was Quite Interesting that there are now fast newspapers as well as fast food, but I'm not really inspired to partake of either.--Shantavira 14:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest eating at an all-you-can-eat buffet. You can generally seat yourself, grab a plate, and go get your food immediately. Try to find one where you can get your own plates, silverware, and drinks, so you aren't dependent on any snail waiters. They may still make you wait to pay, but they get nervous that people will walk out without paying so don't typically make you wait long to pay. Don't ever go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant where they bring you the food. The common technique is to just take longer and longer for each subsequent food delivery until you leave in disgust. StuRat 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I went to one of those buffet places, I got all my food and then discovered that they had run out of knives and forks! By the time those were available again, my dinner was cold and I had to get another one... 207.176.159.90 08:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I go to also have lots of finger food and food you can eat with a spoon. StuRat 11:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the conditions you state, however long it takes to prepare your food plus three minutes on the front end for the waiter to submit the order and three minutes on the back end for serving. So twenty minutes would be reasonable for fairly simple food that is partially cooked in advanced or something like a hamburger.

This is why a lot of restaurants serve bread or amuse-bouches while you wait and ask that you order soufflés at the beginning of the meal instead of near the end. Some chinese restaurants used to require 24H notice for Peking Duck.-THB 16:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alonzo de Santa Cruz

Doing a cursory search of the internet, I find what I suspect are at least 3 different people named Alonzo de Santa Cruz or Alonso de Santa Cruz who lived in the mid 1500s, including one who was a map maker and one who was the son of HRE Charles V.
1. Do you agree that all these references in the literature cannot be the same person?
2. Is there any good bibliographic informaion on the cartographer (apparently the son of Charles the V wrote a somewhat scandalous biography of his father)
3. Are Alonso and Alonzo just alternative spellings of the same name, or are they two different names? --Filll 13:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alonzo is english and Alonso is spanish and they are equivalent and sometimes used for the same person. z & s are closely related linguistically.

The article on Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor lists his children. None of them are named Alonz(s)o. His only son, Phillip II of Spain, was way too busy to be a cartographer.

Alon s o de Santa Cruz was a spanish historian who was born somewhat earlier than Alon z o de Santa Cruz, the spanish cartographer. You might find them with the s's and z's reversed sometimes. Hope this helps. -THB 17:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Charles V doesn't list all his children, only some of them. Felipe II wasn't his only son. He had three other legitimate sons, two Fernandos and one Juan, who died as infants, and an illegitimate son who survived to adulthood, Don Juan of Austria, by his mistress Barbara Blomberg. He did not, as far as I can determine, have any sons named Alonzo. [2] - Nunh-huh 17:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the articles that suggests that Charles V had a son named Alonso who wrote a biography about him--Filll 18:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Philip’s removed 3 chapters of Alonzo de Santa Cruz’s five volume biography about his father Charles V (Charles I, Spain)...."

I understand it to mean that Phillip, the son of Charles, censored three chapters of a book that Alonzo wrote about Phillip's father, Charles. The sentence that states this is somewhat ungrammatical and confusing. -THB 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just to be clear, Charles I is the same person as Charles V, because he was Charles of both Spain & the Holy Roller Empire. -THB 18:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting THB. I had never considered that since I found the statement in so many places but of course they probably cut and pasted the same material from each other. I still wonder if it is the same Alonso as the cartographer.--Filll 18:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the dates and the rest of the text, yes, it is. It's been very intereting researching all of this. Good luck with whatever you're doing. -THB 19:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who wins cards or mets? ASAP

? ASAP --Weaseljenkins 14:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do us the courtesy to state your question clearly, preferably in English. Sandstein 15:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mets but the Tigers will take them in he World Series(hotclaws**== 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Meths is bad for your health. Play cards instead. --Dweller 16:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, if you watch the live coverage of the series you will know exactly as soon as it is possible to know. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not so curious. That's the way these things work pretty much 100% of the time. :) JackofOz 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the Cards win it with Yadier Molina hitting a tiebreaking two-run homer in the 9th, then Carlos Beltran striking out with the bases loaded to end the game. Hammer Raccoon 17:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too Drunk to remember.

If somebody is accused of a crime, say sexual assault, but they cant remember the night in question, what would be their standing. This is purely for interest, I'm not looking for legal advise. Ken 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If requesting medical or legal advice, please consider asking a doctor or lawyer instead. That said, and noting that I am not a lawyer (nor have I played one on television)(but I've watched Law and Order). "I don't remember" sounds like a refusal to be responsible for the consequences of one's actions, and does not make a very good impression. A defendant saying he was drunk, or took drugs, or sniffed glue would seem no defense at all, although it is an explanation, and might even be part of the prosecution case. I suppose I would be more imressed with that defense, as a juror, if the accused could prove someone had administered to him, without his knowledge and against his will, some drug which affected his mental state, (like rohypnol) or he had a disease (like psychomotor epilepsy or a brain tumor or diabetes) or injury (like a concussion) or mental condition (see insanity defense) which made it impossible for him to control his actions or remember his behavior. That would support some defense of diminished responsibility. Personally, it would be a nightmare or Kafka- or Hitchcock-esque proportions to be accused of something and have no memory of the time in question, and be able to say only "It doesnt sound like something I would do." I would not be inclined to take the stand with such a defense, and would hope my lawyer would knock down the prosecution case, try to get any incriminating evidence excluded, attack the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, try to establish that maybe the crime never took place, or someone else did it, or it was consensual, or establish an alibi, or look for a plea bargain or offer to rat out someone accused of a worse crime in exchange for time served and community service.Edison 16:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who gets so drunk they can't remember their own actions, and presumably can't control their own actions, is so dangerous they should be locked up, in any event. StuRat 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether someone remembers their crime or not is irrelevant, as far as the law is concerned. After all, they could always claim not to remember. However, automatism has been used successfully as a defence.--Shantavira 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be relevant in establishing intent and thus with what crime one is charged. All other things equal, being drunk isn't going to affect a sexual assault charge unless it makes the criminal more repugnant to judge or jury. What would be Kafka-esque would be if you were innocent of any crime and were taken to an off-shore military base and secretly held in a cage without charges or recourse. -THB 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did getting drunk become a danger to society!? Best if you dont voice these opinions at your local! hehe. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would people asking about legal matter please state the country whose laws they are iterested i? Out of pure spite I tell you about German law now: Someone is deemed unable to be guilty of a deed if his reason was incapcitated due to illness, debility, drunkenness or the like such that he was unable to understand the wrongfulness of his act or act accoring to his understanding. On the other hand, it is a crime to drink so much that you bring yourself into a state where you are unable to understand that something is a crime and then commit a crime. So, if you kill somebody while being drunk, you'll be sentenced not for manslaughter but for drunkenness resulting in manslaughter, but the latter carries a maximum penality of only 5 years in prison (or less, if the actual crime you did has a lower penality) as opposed to 10 years for manslaughter. A standard question that always arises in this context is whether a drunnk alcoholic is unable to understand what he is doing, for it is well known that alcholics can still think more or less clearly at a blood alcohol levels that would let ordinary people lie nunder the table. Details left out as IANAL. See de:Vollrausch for them. Simon A. 22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logic

I feel that there are an exceedingly high number of logic-related articles, and I'm not sure that they are all distinct entities deserving of their own articles. I am an undergraduate taking a logic course, and I've looked through so many articles that I'm not even sure which article corresponds to the class I'm taking. I have a feeling that a few merges or redirects are in order, though if someone could verify that these each are distinct and recognized entities, I would be just as happy. Could somebody help me out? Here are a few examples: Formal logic, Traditional logic, Symbolic logic, modal logic, predicate logic, term logic, propositional logic, etc. AdamBiswanger1 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you start with Logic? -THB 16:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spock would find your feelings illogical. Edison 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you're noticing is that the various traditions in Logic training in universities have left us with multiple terms that may or may not reflect subtle or inconsequential differences. Because Logic was a standard part of the trivium, the various Renaissance to 19th century faculties developed strains of thought that might not be in dialog. Add to that the confusion from our peer editors, and you can get overlap, redundancy, and insufficient explanation. My own experience has been with the rhetoric articles. Samuel Butler said, "All a rhetorician's rules/ Teach only to name his tools," but the various cornerstone figures in Rhetoric will use different terms for the same things, and then various neo-Aristotelians coined new terms for phenomena in Romance and Germanic languages, so we end up with a mess. (E.g. fallacy and list of logical fallacies argue with each other.) It would take an expert with a lot of time and luck to find all the outlyers and get them merged with preservation of notable histories. Geogre 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving a thoughtful answer. The other user's comment seems to suggest that there is no confusion/ambiguity/overlap within these articles, as his investigation of the matter probably consisted of typing in "logic" in the search window and being so keen as to notice a brief definition of the above branches. End of story, right? Anyway, I think the best solution here would be to include sections within each article distinguishing the given type of logic from the next. You can't write an article on France until you prove that it's not Germany. But, as you noted, this seems like a job for an expert. AdamBiswanger1 20:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I think we have that old "systemic bias" business here. For most Europeans and colonial groups, "logic" derives from the Classical world. Therefore, it starts with Aristotle. However, "logic" and logic are not the same thing. Orderly thought needs no one to classify it. The classification, codification, and explanation of the types and methods of orderly thought isn't even, necessarily, "logic." For people coming from the Classical education, Aristotle "invents" logic, even though he wasn't the first person to try to come up with thinking/speaking manuals or systems. He invents it largely because he is in a democracy and because he believed in a form of idealism, where such things as concepts have reality that dictate, eternally, specific combinatorial principles. People coming along later and trying to strip away that idealism will also come up with a "logic," and they will state, largely, the same rules, but they will do so in a way that is more, they believe, pure. Others will note that those endeavors are still susceptible to linguistic contamination, and they'll come up with other "logics," etc. The basic laws of the syllogism won't change much, but each revolution has to cast those rules in new ways as the syllogism occupies a different position in the scheme. I couldn't begin to survey all the logic revolutions and tease out which ones are window dressing. My suggestion would simply be that all of our authors and editors try to think of each other branch of logic/rhetoric and be sure to put a large "See also" list. Geogre 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that at all. I asked, "Did you start with logic?" because there is a good section in that article that starts teasing apart the tangle. -THB 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you were going to classify logic what might your first and most significant question be? 71.100.6.152 00:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What IS logic?" -THB 00:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your first and most significant answer? 71.100.6.152 16:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, these terms have a clear meaning, and each deserves a distinct article, just like Tripod fish, Flying fish, Paradise fish, Feeler fish, etcetera, have separate articles. A contributing factor in the apparent proliferation is that "logic" by itself already has several distinct meanings: (a) a philosophical discipline, pursued by philosophers; (b) a mathematical field, pursued by (mathematical) logicians, having several subfields; and (c) any of several formal mathematical structures consisting of a formal language and proof rules, designed and studied by logicians and possibly used by other mathematicians. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity adoption spree

Why is there so much row created over Madonna adopting an African boy? It seems like majority of celebs are trying to garner support & media attention by such acts of Benevolence in their attempt to ameliorate the poor. Such stray acts of kindness can by no means be compared to the Nobel Peace prize winner Muhammad Yunus in his efforts to solve poverty in Bangladesh.

There can be no specific yardstick that the adopted child can be tomorrow turn out to be the person with the appropriate educational background & upbringing. The media world is abuzz with the adoption spree of the celebs. [kjvenus]

To answer your first question (and only question it seems)... From the Madonna article: "The adoption has raised public controversy about whether special treatment was given to Madonna because of her celebrity status, considering Malawian law normally requires one year of residence for adopting parents." Dismas|^(talk) 17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because of stuff like this and being a good mother mixing like oil and water? -THB 17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused: she's a bad mother because she's openly sexual? I rarely hear anybody saying that men who are sexual are bad fathers. Why must women be sexless (or pretend to be sexless in public merely to make other people comfortable) in order to be "acceptable" in this world? --Charlene.fic 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you're confused. -THB 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But she took these photographs long before she was pregnant, anyway. So to be a good mother, you must lack a sexual history? 惑乱分からん 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the vast majority of mothers have a sexual history of having intercourse at least once. However, I assume Madonna is a virgin and has no sexual history at all, and that's why she adopted in the first place. -THB 18:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought she was just like a virgin... 惑乱分からん 18:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the very first time. But not after that. -THB

I think the issue is slavery. She wants a kid, so she goes to Africa and essentially buys one. She might be able to adopt a kid thru the normal process, which takes a long time and a lot of paperwork, but instead she just throws money at them and, in return, they throw out all the rules and sell her whichever kid she wants. StuRat 22:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they lined up twelve young boys in a row for her to choose one to take home on her private jet. For what that private jet cost for that trip she could have funded every orphanage in Malawi for a year. -THB 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no adoption spree, because of Madonna, people just pay more attention to the ones that are already happening. Slavery shouldn't be an issue. Surely the kid isn't going to be forced to work as a slave? Get those definitions straight. I also heard someone who was stuck in the Dutch adoption machine complain how easy it was for Madonna to adopt someone when they had to face tests and meetings for years. The difference is they are childless, while Madonna already proved she can take care of her existing children. I'm not entirely sure it can be called trafficking either. Did she pay the authorities or the father directly to get the kid? There's nothing wrong with giving money to charity at the same time you adopt someone. The two don't need to be related. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are related. She pays them money, and they sell her a kid. They might as well slap a price tag on each kid's forehead ("Wow, buy one get one free on these twins !"). StuRat 12:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when she gets bored with it? A little African boy is not just for Christmas.(hotclaws**== 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

She'll just flush him down the toilet when he gets too big. :-) StuRat 23:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngelle Gorbitu School in Ethiopia

Would anyone be able to give me more information on the location of Ngelle Gorbitu School in Ethiopia? E.g. What city it is near? link (the "Our contribution" paragraph. Thank you! --Stacey 17:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try googling "negele gorbitu". Marks & Spencer may be generous but they aren't going to win any spelling bees. -THB 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't say :( Just the south of Ethiopia --Stacey 11:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of soundtrack in my head

Hi!

I've had this piano-theme stuck inside my head, and I can't figure out where it comes from. I think it's from a movie, at least it sounds like it could be a soundtrack.

I recorded a soundsample that is pretty close to what I hear in my mind. It is available here: SOUND FILE IN MP3 FORMAT

Something went wrong to the mp3 when exporting it, you will see what I mean. However, it's only the first two beats I hear in my head, the rest I just did for fun, but it could be close.

//Rasmus

Oh, I should have known better than to listen to it, especially since it was ONLY THE FIRST TWO NOTES that you have in your head. Now what YOU wrote is in MY head. -THB 19:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not notes, beats. In terms of seconds maybe the three first seconds or so, but I wouldn't be suprised if the original song continued the way mine did. Hope someone will recognize it.

Well, I hope so, too, because it's still in me bleedin' head. -THB 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me a bit of the musics from Amélie, but it's not it. I'm pretty damn sure I have this music you speak of in my computer, I'm trying to get my thoughts to converge to it. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That must be it! I saw that movie about two weeks ago. Must get the soundtrack now so I can listen to the song. Thanks for the help!

I do have a music in here that sounds EXACTLY like the first 3 seconds of your recording, but I'm thinking it is from a video game soundtrack, not a movie. But if you did see Amélie a few weeks ago, well, then it must be it. It's a GREAT soundtrack, and it really gets to you. Try listening to a few samples here: Amélie soundtrack page on Amazon. Anyway, good luck! ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 21:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just cause I'm curious, which video game soundtrack? 惑乱分からん 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it yet. I'm going mad here trying to find it among the 300 different game soundtracks I have. As far as I can remember, those notes come in the end of a fast paced music, and they repeat twice. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it! The exact same notes play in the song The Model. I have over 20 versions of it in here. I've been listening to several chiptune versions of it lately (like one by David Whittaker), so is no wonder I thought it was a game soundtrack. And yeah, there you go. The Model. If the version you heard was purely a piano version, then I must have it too! It's a great tune, and a piano can make anything greater. :) ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Kraftwerk is great! They don't even need pianos... ;) 惑乱分からん 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember how The Model used to be my favourite song as a little kid, and I agree it's very similar to the sound clip I made. However, I think the fast part of the song "Comptine d'Un Autre Été" from the Amélie soundtrack was the song that got stuck in my mind. And then my brain translated it to something else. Thanks for the help everybody!

Did anyone try www.musipedia.org? It's awfully easy to find anything any way you try. It should be written in blood and fire letters in every corner of our help pages. -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of it, but the database currently only works for pop rock songs and classical compositions. Hardly useful for soundtracks. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 22:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany Vandalism

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, but I have recently noticed that the entire page on Nazi Germany in Wikipedia has been erased and has been replaced by the words "F*ck Germany!". I am quite disappointed that someone would do this but I'm not sure wether I should leave the matter alone and let someone else fix it or tell someone (let alone the fact I don't know who to tell). What I'm really asking is this, is this the proper place to bring up such a problem to the Wikipedia community?

No, such problems rarely need to be brought up at all, as I have no doubt, that it has already been fixed. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) You could revert it yourself just by resaving an earlier edit... But blatant vandalism like this tend to be fixed rather quickly, anyway... 惑乱分からん 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the right place, to report vandalism, see: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Of course, you're welcome to fix it and to warn the vandal by putting a vandal template on his talkpage--anyone can edit Wikipedia. -THB 21:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little disappointed that it actually took 18 minutes to fix that vandalism - usually we're quite a bit quicker than that. -- Arwel (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For this Germany related article[3] it took more than A HUNDRED MINUTES :). But I put an end to it:).Evilbu 22:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie Blackmore

How come whenever I put in something extra on Wikipedia, it goes right back the way it was like five minutes later? Seriously, the information I put on there is true, you know. YOU as in whoever is doing this to me.Jk31213 22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because with this addition:

"one of the most respected and influential english guitarists in the history of rock music"

you violated three policies: Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Try inserting a factual statement with footnotes and no weasel words and it should stick. For instance, "According to Rolling Stone editor Mitchie Whiteless, Ritchie Blackmore influenced the use of flutes in the music of the Purple Pumpkins. (give ref)

-THB 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then YOU better edit Jimmy Page's article then on the first sentence. Or any other guitarist or any famous person's occupation for that matter. By the way, speaking of Ritchie Blackmore, What is Blackmore's night?

female rapists

Are their any reported cases on a woman raping men? Are their any reported cases of women raping other women?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.102 (talk • contribs)

Dont know but it is true to say that only like 3% of sexual assualts on men are reported, as men find it much harder coming ot terms with it, and admitting to other people that someone did this to them. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly "yes" to both. Try Rape by gender and Statutory rape#Sex differences in statutory rape. -THB 23:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Rape is not about sex. It's about control and violence, and there have been women rapists, most assuredly. Geogre 00:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that whether or not it's rape varies by country - in the United Kingdom, women are legally incapable of committing rape, because rape has to be performed with a human penis in British law. Sexual assault, on the other hand, can be, and is, performed by women, on both women and men. --Mnem e son 01:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many rapists pull out before ejaculation and then leave? None if they can help it. Or how many otherwise-non-sexual violent assaults include ejaculation at the end? Rape is about sex; violence and control are secondary. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Many rapists do not ejaculate. Some do not even get erect. As for whether "end in ejaculation," there have been instances of orgasmic murder in serial killers. You are simply wrong and should read up on rape. For most rapists, the sexual act is itself a part of the dominance and hatred of the victim's sex. Geogre 11:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oral sex

When having oral sex how does the woman get pleasure?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.102 (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to fellatio, cunnilingus, or anilingus? Please sign your posts by putting a dash and four tildes after your message. -THB 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're talking about fellatio, "not only are the sexual organs sensitive and well supplied with nerve endings, the same is true of the mouth/throat cavity, tongue, and lips, so enjoyment of oral sex is not necessarily limited to half of the involved party." Shadow1 (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was waiting for clarification, like "When two women are having anilingus," before answering. Otherwise there are just too many answers. -THB 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's entirely possible for the person performing the oral sex, male or female, to derive enjoyment solely from giving pleasure to their partner—and that pleasure can be sexual, even if not accompanied by direct physical stimulation. Is giving a back massage to your girlfriend inherently a good feeling, or do you like it because you like making her happy? (Note that "because otherwise she won't put out" is neither an available answer nor an acceptable position.) Tesseran 09:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacks and crime, intelligence - political correctness

Its pretty obvious that negros are prone to violence and are intellectually inferior to other races. Why don't biologists/anthropogists do more research on such racial differences

Much research has been done into racial differences, hopefully enough to prove onece and for all the obviously false and inflammatory assertions above. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Negro" is like "potato": when it's plural it has an "E": "Negroes" and "Potatoes". People don't research it because the concept of "Race" has been discredited. However, for some reason, there is still plenty of "Racism" around. -THB 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true to say that the concept of race has been discredited. Read this section in the article you linked to. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the offchance that you're not a troll and are actually interested in this subject, you might want to take a look at Race and intelligence. -Elmer Clark 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user, your previous edits suggest that you are indeed trolling (either that, or you're just a hopeless racist). Either way, please, don't abuse this desk for inflammatory questions based on false premises. ---Sluzzelin 23:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course he's a troll. Need you ask? I deleted his first message and apparently this is his way of asking it in a politically correct manner. -THB

It's obvious that the questioner is a troll, and a disgustingly "racist" one at that. But perhaps we can salvage this space for a (hopefully) more legitimate question I've been wondering about. The term "race" tends to be used rather inconsistently. Some divide humanity into several races (Black, White, Asian etc...), but on the other hand, many others refer to the "Human Race".

Now, from a purely scientific, anthropological, zoological perspective, am I correct in my understanding that "humanity" is a "race", and that one's skin colour/facial features/whatever are more akin to a "breed"? After all, all humans can interbreed, and unlike the offspring of a mare and a male donkey (a mule, or a mulatto in Spanish, hence the offensive nature of the term), the "mixed breed" human will if anything not be sterile at all, rather, the "mixed breed" human will, if anything, be more healthy and more intelligent than a so-called "pure-bred". So my question therefore is, are Caucasians a separate "race" from other humans or simply a separate "breed"? Does that make me a "mutt"? :-) My ultimate question is: how should "racial" differences be classified? Loomis 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should add, I'm not one to stand up for political correctness if it's indeed wrong. If there was any scientific truth to the fact that one race/breed of humanity was significantly superiour or inferiour to another I'd force myself to accept it. But the plain truth is this: A Black child adopted and raised by a White family will act and behave as a White child, and at the same time, a White child adopted and raised by a Black family will act and behave as if the child were Black. Racial genetics have obviously little to do with anything. In the case of any possible differences in race, it would seem to be almost if not all nurture, and almost if not all, NOT nature. Loomis 22:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity is one race. The genetical differences between human seems to be unexpectedly small, but there doesn't seem to be neither serious advantages nor disadvantages to interbreeding... 惑乱分からん 22:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above question is a racist one and purely incites anger for the black community ,perhaps. During the Katrina disaster why was the bush adminsitration slow in its responses to the victims of floods particularly the black americans. Is it rascism? Where did the cries for freedom & democracy prevail?