Humanities desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4

Palazzo Vecchio

The Palazzo Vecchio, constructed in 1299 to 1314, was the home of the Florentine guilds. I understand it had 5,000 guild members. Did it always have this number (or most of the time)? Dante was a member. Was Giovanni Boccaccio or Francesco Petrarch a member of this Florentine Guild of 5000? --Doug 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dante was a member of the guild of physicians and pharmacists, whereas both Boccaccio and Petrarch were members of the guild of notaries. I have no idea if guild membership was maintained at a constant rate. Clio the Muse 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose Line Is It Anyway

This section was moved to the Entertainment desk .

F-22 Raptor Law

In article F-22 Raptor it states that export is prohibited to other countries? Does that mean if Canada had money it will not be able to buy it? And which law? --Jones2 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada a)does have money, but not nearly enough to but these planes and b)is a sovreign state, i.e. not part of the United States of Amerca, so the ban still applies. --The Dark Side 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The law in question was House Amendment 265, introduced by Rep. David Obey (D-WI), and attached to HR 2266, which was the Defense appropriations bill for the 1998 fiscal year. Carom 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think they would really need their own F-22s anyways, being part of NATO, an attack on Canada would be regarded as an attack on all NATO member nations, so they could very well have F-22s fighting on their behalf without the $120 million price tag. Cyraan 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carom your first link doesn't work? --Jones2 07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - you can stil get to the page. Open the second link, click on "Amendments" and scroll down to H Amdt 295. It's number eight on the list. Carom 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those planes aren't cheap. :-O | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But are the ammendments in the actual text of the legislation? Because if it is not, then it is of no effect? --Jones2 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a member of the House offers an amendment to a piece of legislation, the most likely course of action will be a voice vote, in which the members of the House either support or oppose the proposed amendment. If the amendment passes, then it becomes a part of the legislation, and, if the bill passes and becomes law, so does the amendment. Carom 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President of USA

Must the President of the United States be born in United States, if so which law states this?--Delma1 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well has there been a president who was born outside USA, to non american parents? --Delma1 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's in the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." Antandrus (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard that when Arnie became the govonator some group started to lobby to repeal that, don't know if it was just a rumour. Vespine 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The President must be a U.S. citizen when born, and being born in the United States is only one way of this happening. Someone born abroad to American parents would also be considered a "natural born citizen". - Nunh-huh 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is correct. There were also attempts to change the Constitution to allow Henry Kissinger to run for President. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not as clear-cut as that. See natural born citizen. JackofOz 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there's an article that's going too far in its attempt to be neutral. "There is currently debate" sounds as though there was some serious doubt; if there had been, it would have been a major issue when the candidates mentioned were running. --Anonymous, January 4, 2007, 07:18 (UTC).
- ~~Just a guess, George Washington?~~ Whoops, wrong again... 惑乱分からん 07:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any presidential candidate whose eligibility was not 100% certain and who stood to win the presidency, would find their status being questioned by the opposing party, and determined by the Supreme Court. Since no person whose status has been in doubt has ever received a majority of electoral college votes, the court has never had to rule on the issue. IANAL, but I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court would ever devote time to determining whether a person who had not yet been elected president was constitutionally eligible. Do that for one person, and they'd have to do it for any other would-be president of doubtful citizenship history. They would prefer to wait till a real live case came along. That has never happened yet. JackofOz 08:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~What is electoral college votes? --Delma1 08:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- ~~United States Electoral College votes. Skarioffszky 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Whether the opposing party would try to challenge a candidate on these grounds would depend on a political calculation as well, because such an attempt could backfire in a big way. For example, if I were a candidate running against John McCain, I might decide it best not to try to have him disqualified for having been born in the Panama Canal Zone –- he might very well win the case and it would look pretty bad for me (and my party, who'll be facing another election in two years), attacking a man for being from a military family. So even then the question might remain open.--Rallette 11:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be the way things go with McCain. In any event, the point is that the question is still open as to whether a person born outside the USA to American parents is constitutionally eligible to become US President. John McEnroe, for example, would be well advised to get very, very good advice before embarking on a presidential run. (I can see it now. The lawyers tell him that unfortunately he is barred from office, and he fumes "You cannot be serious!"). JackofOz 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you could be a citizen "at the time of the adoption of this constitution". That is, George Washington wasn't born in the states, because when he was born, the states didn't exist. But he was eligible because he lived there in 1789.martianlostinspace 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too sure about that. Alexander Hamilton was considered ineligible because he was born in the Caribbean, even though he was a citizen "at the time of the adoption". User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And no, there will not be a constitutional amendment specifically to let Arnie run for President. The consitution is more or less impossible to amend. That happens when pigs fly.martianlostinspace 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So Arnie can't run for president because he was born outside USA, and to non American parents even though he has lived in USA for 14 years and is over 35?
- That's correct. It's a moot point anyway, since nobody will vote for an actor for president. --Nelson Ricardo 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been a couple of cases in which the term "natural born citizen" has come up. The first case that I know of was George W. Romney, born in Mexico to US citizen parents (his son, Mitt Romney, is considering a bid in 2008). And look out for further discussion, and perhaps even a Constitutional challenge, if John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, since he was born in Panama. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert De Niro

This section was moved to the Entertainment desk .

American Writer

I'm still searching for a young writer (i think he was american) who wrote a novel in the 1950s or 1960s, but couldn't find an publisher. He was so devastated, that he committed suicide. Later his mother send a copy of his novel to a famous american writer, who cognized the potential and it was published and a really success and won some prizes. What was the name of this unsuccessfull successfull author? --160.45.153.203 11:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The novel in question is A Confederacy of Dunces, by John Kennedy Toole, published in 1980, eleven years after his suicide. The title, sadly apt, is taken from a quotation from Jonathan Swift: When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, the dunces are all in confederacy against him. Toole's masterpiece won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1981, the year after its publication. Clio the Muse 12:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say he commited suicide because he couldn't find a publisher. Kennedy Toole had a somewhat disturbed personlity. Mr.K. 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. I'm sure, it was Tool!. --87.160.224.188 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Cylinder

My understanding of the Cyrus Cylinder is that it was basically the first written down set of Human Rights. If I am correct, isn't this when Cyrus released the Jews to go back to their homeland? Is this then the reference to "Captivity of Babylon"? Also the reference to the "70 years"? Is it correct that there were 40 lines that went around it? --Doug 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site suggests there are either 35 or 45 lines depending on how many parts are counted. The site also says that it does not talk about jewish lands and it also mentions the recent propaganda use it has been put to: as a human rights charter. Ancient people did not generally spend their time writing human rights works but they did often add details that can be interpreted that way to other texts, i.e. Code of Hammurabi and the peace treaty ending the Battle of Kadesh. meltBanana 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I am trying really hard not to bite the newbie) The article explains that it is not a set of human rights but rather a list of merciful acts done by that king (ever heard of propaganda?). There is something called Google, I humbly suggest you try to use it before you ask questions. In this case try [1]. If you read the text you will see that Cyrus never talks of any rights. Flamarande 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights is indeed a very modern concept. Throughout history kings were expected to be merciful as part of a general dispensation of justice; but it remained a strictly royal prerogative, dispensed and denied at will. Clio the Muse 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that obvious that I am a newbie? Yiks!!!! I stand corrected: not a set of "Human Rights", however more like a list of merciful acts. Then am I correct in that this is a reference to "Captivity of Babylon" of the 6th Century BCE? Also the reference to the "70 years"? I want to make sure then these are one and the same. --Doug 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH. I seriously recommend you read the provided text. If I told you: "Yes, Cyrus is the king who liberated the Jews from the 70 years of Babylonian captivity. It is as written in the bible, Old Testament, etc... .It proves (again) that the bible is always right." Would you seriously believe me? Better you analyze the text yourself and reach your own conclusions. Always think for yourself, and analyze the evidence (story) as far you can, and never ever let other ppl think for you (for they might bull*hit you into submission and blessed ignorance). Flamarande 15:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you are right in thinking for yourself. In that process I have concluded that this of the phrase coined by Francesco Petrarch of the Babylonian Captivity is referenced as to that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' of the papacy. It turns out this Captivity also was for "70 years", being from 1308 to 1378. So I have concluded that whereever the phrase of the "Captivity of Babylon" is in the New Testament is really that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' or the Babylonian Captivity; meaning "Avignonian Captivity", same as 'Captivity of Avignon'. Thanks for help. --Doug 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The logical error in the above is contained in the word "So". --Wetman 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOUBLE SIGH. Doug, AFAIK "Babylonian Captivity" does not appear in the New Testament at all. The Gospels where written down in the 1st century AD (perhaps even 2nd, I am not sure). The Popes liked to compare their "deportation" to Avignon (where they were under the thumb of the French king) with the Captivity of Babylon of the Old Testament. This comparison was done for all kinds of political reasons. 1st)it presents the Pope as a martyr, and as a prisoner of faith. 2nd) it presents the French king as a tyrant who does not even respect the "Holy Mother church". Either way any of this doesn't appear in the New Testament at all. Flamarande 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you that the words of "Babylonian Captivity" do not appear in the New Testament; however "Captivity of Babylon" does. I just do not happen to believe in a 'historical Jesus' (a person roaming the earth in the middle East some 2000 years ago), so do not believe the Gospels were written in the first few centuries (since these events didn't actually happen). I believe the Gospels were written in the Fourteenth Century, hence the reference to "Captivity of Babylon" meaning that of the "Captivity of Avignon". This phrase was coined by Petrarch. In historical records scholars agree that this reference by Petrarch has to do with Avignon. So "Babylonian Captivity" and "Captivity of Babylon" and "Captivity of Avignon" are all the same thing. This is referenced in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 1. This is sometimes refered to as the "genealogy of Jesus". Now since I do not believe in this historical Jesus then of course I do not believe this to be a genealogy (i.e. family history). I believe it relates to Avignon, being of course a self thinker. I have thought it through throughly and have concluded this of Matthew chapter 1 has everthing to do with the Avignon papacy of the Fourteenth Century. Remember you are the one that suggested: Always think for yourself. Now see what happens when one thinks for themselves. They come up with different answers than the typical Christian story line. Why it even says several times in this chapter "fourteen". What an excellent clue this has to do with the Fourteenth Century. I do believe (being a self thinker) that the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon happened in the Fourteenth Century. This is in agreement with your two reasons why the Popes of Avignon liked to compare this Avignon papacy with this of the Jews of Babylon of the 6th Century BCE; however I have thought it through to the next level figuring out that Matthew chapter 1 has to do with this "deportation" to Avignon (a.k.a. "exil to Babylon"). --Doug 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeography

Would it be correct to say that in the field of paleography that there ultimately has to be a standard reference material to compare to? Logically wouldn't one compare handwriting from an unknown date manuscript to a known dated document to then determine its age? Then when there is several points of similarity, it could then be given a date. How was this original dated standard document established as being a true date in the first place? What was it compared to? Is this standard reference document then reverified for authenticity? Is the manuscript or document used as the standard reference point ever ultimately subjected to scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating)--Doug 12:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not usually a single, generally-agreed-upon standard example, following the analogy of a holotype in biology, but rather a range of dated material (a treaty, a contract, etc.) against which new, undated material is compared. Paleography is also concerned with placing the origin of the writer's hand: writers move from place to place, retaining the hand that they were originally taught. Particular scriptoria developed quirks that identify scribes originally taught in that scriptorium. --Wetman 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to provide another answer above, with specific references so you can see the dated examples Wetman mentions (see above, under your previous similar question). Wareh 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate both these excellent detailed answers. But being a self thinker I have taken this to the next level. I understand the logic of palaeography, however this still leaves too much to the imagination. For example in your statement: in careful reliance upon the most securely dated evidence available is subjective. In other words, what they think as a correct dated material is being used then as a standard. What scientific evidence is there then to back up this "supposed" date? There is none, only a person's opinion. Another example: new knowledge (say, date a MS) on a firm methodological foundation that goes all the way back to first principles then becomes; what is this first principle? back toBottomline you have not given me a standard, but only a direction of places where books are of the field of palaeography. Don't want to learn this field, however am looking for solid concrete physical manuscripts used as the standard as the reference for dating the Codex Vaticanus. I have already asked over 1000 scholars (in this field and related fields) that should have been easily able to furnish this, however to date none have. I have ever reason to believe the Codex Vaticanus is from the Fourteenth Century, not from any of the first few centuries (i.e. 1st - 6th). So I guess bottomline to solve this issue would be actual scientific testing of Codex Vaticanus (i.e. mass spectrometry) and not just someone's opinion of date. --Doug 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a scientists determines the temperature by reading a thermometer, where is the standard that this thermometer is based on? If that is another thermometer, where is the "standard" IT is based on? And if the "scientist" compares the readings of the two thermometers, what scientific evidence is there to back up his "claim" that they show the "same" reading? It is all one person's opinion of reading. I have asked over 10,000 experts, and they ALL deny this is a problem. This shows conclusively that they are NOT! experts. There is NO "standard" for "scientific" measurements. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this question. I believe there are definite scientific standards] that references are made to. Here are a few and still some more and still even more. Here is a large category of standards. Mass spectrometry is referenced back to ISO standards. Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14. Both these have an accuracy within 1%. An atomic clock is a type of clock that uses an atomic resonance frequency standard to feed its counter. These clocks are accurate to the nanosecond because they have a definite standard as a reference. This also enters into the field of Metrology which is based on the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The entire scientific community measures temperature using the Celsius scale, and thermodynamic temperature using the Kelvin scale. These are based on definite standards established by the scientific community and international agreement. Based then on one of these standards (i.e. ISO) and a scientific method (i.e. mass spectrometry) the age of Codex Vaticanus could be determined within 1%. I say it will show a date of 1373. Then given a +/- 1% accuracy it will be then some date for sure between 1360 and 1386. This is 1000 years from when it "supposedly" was written up. Why don't we go ahead and test it to find out for sure. Deal? I'll bet the Vatican will object. I wonder why? mmmm --Doug 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpinism

I understand Francesco Petrarch is the Father of Alpinism. Apparently he did this trip when he was about the age of 30. I am confused on the issue, IF he actually made the trip to the top of Mont Ventoux or if he just wrote about making such a trip? I always thought that in fact (from his letters on this account) that he actually did climb to the top. --Doug 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch, together with his brother and two companions, climbed Mount Ventoux on April 26, 1336. His account of this venture was later described in a letter to his friend, Francesco Dionigi, perhaps with some metaphorical elaborations. In his classic work, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Jacob Burkhardt, described this as the first time such an activity had been undertaken for its own sake. Clio the Muse 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. It looks like then I am correct in thinking the climb was an actual event. I will follow up on your great reference you gave me on this. I would be interested in what it says about this. Then Petrarch was 32, if my math is correct. --Doug 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Supper

Has it been determined which name belongs to which Apostle in the Last Supper? I understand John the Baptist is on the right of Jesus. --Doug 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing I can say with some certainty is that John the Baptist is not considered as one of the Apostles. He was certainly not at the Last Supper. The John in question is the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. In Leonardo da Vinci's painting the sequence, looking from left to right, is Bartholomew, James the Lesser, Andrew, Judas, Peter, John, Jesus, Thomas, James the Greater, Philip, Matthew, Thaddeus and Simon. Clio the Muse 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, now you understand why I am asking this question. I didn't know this was John the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. We are talking about two different "Johns". I've been confused on this issue. Thanks for naming them. What reference do you have on this as to these names? --Doug 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Leonardo you will find the sequence here [2] and here [3] Clio the Muse 14:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

What religion are most Azeris of Azerbaijan?207.250.204.185 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shia Muslims, at least officially. See Islam in Azerbaijan and Religion in Azerbaijan. Clio the Muse 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three monkeys

I have seen often a group of three monkeys, of which one holds its hands to its ears, another to its eyes, and the third to its mouth. this is some kind of moral tale, but where does it come from and what does it mean? Mr.K. 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the article Three wise monkeys. Flamarande 15:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) See the articles on Three wise monkeys and See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. It appears to have come to the west from Japan, but may have originated in China or India, and it seems to be an invocation to do no evil, with the implication that one will be spared evil in return. It is possibly related to the concept of karma. Carom 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juliane Lorenz

Dear friends,

I am wondering if you can change an error which is noted in my name´s file: I am born on August 2, 1957. I would like it to be corrected. Thanks for your help, Juliane

Which article would that be in? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is de:Juliane Lorenz, which in the meantime has already been changed by someone. But how do we know that the user requesting the change is the same person as is the topic of the article? --Lambiam ^Talk 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First woman to preside over the US House of Representatives

According to Wikipedia: During her term [Alice] Robertson also became the first woman to preside over the House of Representatives, on July 20, 1921.

Who presides, if not the Speaker of the House? Nanci Pelosi is the first woman elected Speaker, but if the speaker can't attend, then does someone else "preside?" Ronbarton 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See United States House of Representatives#Officers. The Speaker generally doesn't preside over every session, he delegates to other Members. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He? :-) --Nelson Ricardo 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm panting in anticipation to see if we skirt the issue of female forms of a dress. For example, is it proper to say "Speakeress of the House", or would that be considered to be a slip ? StuRat 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit. Chickenflicker---♣ 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear Nancy wears the pants in this house. (Reminds me of a former Australian TV identity whose first name was also Nancy. Her behind-the-scenes sexual antics were the subject of much gossip, and she was often referred to as "No-Pants Nance".) JackofOz 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Harper's french

Using the rating system found on Wikipedia (0-4), how would you rate it? --The Dark Side 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'est terrible (1). Vranak

Non, non...peut etre son accent est terrible, mais il parle tout a fait courrament. Anyway, I gave myself a 3, it should probably be a bit higher. Maybe 3.5, but definitely not 4. Although his accent is much poorer than mine, he's actually quite fluent, more than myself I'd say. If I give myself a 3.5, then he deserves at least that. Loomis 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui. Vranak

Why is this person's French being discussed. Loomis, I think you have to write "peut-être". I was in doubt for a moment but [4] seems to back me up on this.:)Evilbu 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's the Prime Minister of Canada. Due to our silly linguistic tensions, a politician as important as the PM is carefully scrutinized over his bilingualism.

I'm confused though about your question about my spelling. Are you talking about the absence of the "accent circonflexe" over the "e"? ("ê"). That was laziness on my part. I don't have a bilingual keyboard, and I don't even seem to see it among the characters below, so I'm forced to remember each and every ASCII code (Alt-136 in this case) if I have the patience to add the correct accent to each letter. I don't know about Europe, but it's very common for French speakers here to just not bother with the accents. Otherwise, was it the missing hyphen? Are you saying I should have written "peut-être" with a hyphen rather than "peut être" without one? You're really being picky! I have enough trouble making sure I'm using the proper word among "there/their/they're", "than/then", "its/it's", "who's/whose" "effect/affect" etc., and thats in my native English! I'm truly sorry if I missed an "accent circonflexe" or a hyphen in my French! :-) Loomis 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buy an AZERTY and your problems will disappear.:) While I'm not really that keen to support Quebec's independence, I think that in a bilingual country, the prime minister does in fact have to speak both languages. I don't see why you call the tensions "silly", here that word is used by those who aren't being disadvantaged...Evilbu 11:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, but like I said, I don't see the accent thing as a problem at all, and neither do most people here (in Quebec). But I think you misunderstood me about the bilingualism thing. Of course Canada's PM should be bilingual. For example, when we have election debates, we always have them on two nights, once in English and once in French. In fact the silliest thing I've ever seen was back when Preston Manning was involved in one of those debates. The guy doesn't understand a word of French, and so during the French debate he basically wore one of those translator headsets like they use at the UN, and had a translator explain to him what everybody else was saying. When it came time for him to speak, he spoke in English. Now THAT little episode was the most embarrasing thing to watch. What I meant by silly was the fact that our standards for bilingualism are way too high. As the topic of this question implies, if, for example, an English speaking politician isn't absolutely, perfectly bilingual, and has pretty heavy English accent when speaking French, many French speakers actully get offended. The way I see it, as long as the guy has a pretty functional understanding of the second language, and genuinely tries his best, even if it comes off as souning pretty awful, he should be given credit for trying his best, rather than criticized for not being "perfectly bilingual". Loomis 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in that case I agree, setting impossible standards does not encourage bilinguality. Concerning debates, most mass debates with both Dutchspeaking and Frenchspeaking politicians here are on the Frenchspeaking television channels , because only a handful of Frenchspeaking politicians are willing and able to debate in Dutch. This disadvantages them quite a lot and of course the moderator is not on their side either....Evilbu 14:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who feeds the Iraq people?

Iraq is clearly in turmoil politically. But how much organization is there to provide food for the population? 25 plus million people need a lot of food. How much is grown in the country, what coomes in from outside? Is the Iraq government using food as a weapon? Is the US doing the same? How does all the food get distributed? When the military seals off a city, how do the inhabitants get food?Jack.ryan16 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the agriculture in iraq will be centred on the tigris/euphrates river (as agriculture in egypt is centred on the nile) - tomatoes etc can be grown here. In the far north ('kurdistan') there is arable land (sheep). Most of the ingrediants of a kebab could be easily grown there.

Hindu creationists

I am caught cross-wise in some cultural wars that I do not undestand. I have run across on the internet from time to time Hindu websites and books that claim Darwin and evolution were wrong because they contradict what is in the Vedas. I finally decided to write about it a bit here in Hindu creationism. Since I probably do not know what I am stepping in or who I am stepping on. two indian and presumably Hindu editors have indicated or hinted at various offenses I might be committing. What I find especially strange is that somehow I get the impression that saying "hindu creationist" is somehow a slur. These individuals are Hindu, and they are creationists and reject Darwin and evolution based on scriptural grounds, so they are creatioists. I do not find "christian fundamentalist" a slur because I am not one. People who are "christian fundamentalists" do not either because it is accurate. So ?? Can someone help me out here?--Filll 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hindu religion the universe undergoes 'repeated cycles of destruction and recreation' there is no creation event. You are applying christian terminology to a non christian religion. That may be one source of offence.

eg it's a bit like naming the rabbi article jewish vicars!87.102.23.224 22:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no creation event in Hinduism as in the bible. You should not lump Hinduism with the 'Abrahamic' religions.87.102.23.224 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people can take offence at anything. It's a gift. It might not be religious at all, but cultural. If it is important to you, then you should ask them for specifics. Hindu peoples I know would not respect you if they felt you were being argumentative, and would leave you alone, but they would help you if they felt you were genuinely misled. DDB 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From creationism "In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be most strongly associated with the brand of Christian fundamentalism in which the books of Genesis are held to provide absolute truths about the creation of kinds of life and often, in more literal faiths, the age of the universe and of the earth" - I think the association of Hindism and Christian fundamentalism is rather silly - Also note that the article creationism deals almost entirely with monotheistic religions.87.102.19.164 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop fumbling with the hot potato. Would someone find the correct term for Hindus who reject the currently accepted theory of evolution begun by Darwin on grounds that it contradicts their religious teachings (in other words the correct term for "Hindu creationism")? We need the correct term, and not a political correct one. Flamarande 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Christians reject evolution as an explanation for the origin of species because they take Genesis literally and believe that God created, on the sixth day of creation, "the beasts of the earth according to their kinds." This is why they are called creationists. If followers of some religion believe that species arise by spontaneous generation from miasmata, maybe we'd call them miasmatists, in any case not "creationists". What do your Hindu friends believe to be the origin of species?

May I further caution you for the sin of original research, for which there is no forgiveness. If what you write is based on published sources, you can just use the terms they use. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true brother Lambian, for the cardinal sin of original research there can be no forgiveness at all. It is a grevious sin brother Filll and you will condemned to a fiery hell without WIKIPEDIA. REPENT, brother Filll, REPENT your sins before it is too late! You must confess your sins to nearest Administrator-priest asap and pray a hundered "Hail Jimbos" at the very least. (It's a joke, nothing but a joke :) Flamarande 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this isn't really related to the question, but there is a common misconception that I notices and would like to clear up. The Hindu religion is monotheistic -- Hindus believe in one god taking the form of many. It's a pet peeve of mine to hear people call it a polytheistic religion, so I hope nobody minds. FruitMart07 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well finally I have a couple of Hindu editors who have helped me immeasurably and are content with renaming it to Hinduism and creationism. Ok...fair enough. The problem is that they have so many holy books it is very hard to say what one creation myth exists. There are many of them. One for example, says that demigods and goddesses mate at the end of each cycle giving rise to life again after its destruction. There are several different versions of religious "evolution" in Hinduism, none of which are particularly close to Darwinian evolution with natural selection etc. And some beliefs which clearly disagree with science in some parts of the scriptures, and which have even resulted in some controversies which people have noticed is somewhat analagous to the creationism debate. Thankfully the objections have slowed down a bit for the moment at the article. I hopefully have made it NPOV enough and accurate enough that it sort of defuses the objections, at least for the moment. --Filll 00:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]