Humanities desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 4

Imprisonment of people judged in The Hague, Netherlands

People judged by the ICC, for example, where do they go, are they in solitary confinement? --190.49.115.132 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who are undergoing trial at the International Criminal Court are held at the ICC detention center. People convicted at the court ar transferred elsewhere to serve their sentences. - Eron^Talk 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more checking and it looks like other tribunals at The Hague, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, use the same detention facility. Still no luck on figuring out where those convicted go to serve out their sentences. To date, there have been no convictions from the ICC, but there have been several from the ICTFY. - Eron^Talk 06:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After more digging, it looks like there is no one place where persons convicted at the various tribunals in The Hague are sent to serve their sentences. Those convicted by the ICTFY have been sent to various prisons around Europe, including prisons in France, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. - Eron^Talk 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metafiction - Paul de Man

Does anyone have a citation for the following passage on the ‘Metafiction’ article page?

“According to Paul de Man all fiction is metafictional, since all works of literature are concerned with language and literature itself.[citation needed]”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichyPrior (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered an Ommundsen, paraphrased by Virginia Lowe in her essay "Little Fur Coats of Their Own: Clothed Animals as Metafictional Markers and Children as Their Audience" in Writing the Australian Child, edited by Clare Bradford, UWA Press, 1996: "all works of fiction are metafictional, in that they all, in one way or another, draw attention to their constructedness." She credits Wenche Ommundsen, Metafictions?: Reflexivity in Contemporary Texts, Melbourne University Press, 1993. I was unable to get into Ommundsen's book to get a direct quote. Googling on "'de man' metafictional" produced an unreferenced line from Literawiki that is suspiciously similar to the line in Wikipedia: "However, some chritics [sic], such as Paul de Man, argue that all literature is in fact metafictional, since all literaterary [sic] works are concerned with language and literature itself." The other 1,709 hits I leave for others to winnow (many repeats and great variety leading nowhere in the first few pages). --Milkbreath (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Quote

Can someone please give me the full version of robert kennedys quote about small ripples adding up to to create a large splash or somthing? It is in refrence to small acts creating large change. I checked wikiquote and Braniy quote and both dident have this quote.

Google + "kennedy ripple" = [1] --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kishoreganj District

According to Nilphamari District (and this map), this (nortwestern) district includes an upazila called Kishoreganj, but the Kishoreganj article redirects to the (northeastern) Kishoreganj District. Are there two different places called "Kishoregang" ? Should the Nilphamari District article rather send to (northwestern) Kishoreganj Upazila ? Perhaps we also need a disambiguation page? I didn't make changes myself because it's often difficult to find reliable sources and maps, and there are also transcription problems. Apokrif (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources, such as Google maps, confirm that there are two places in Bangladesh called Kishoreganj, though the northeastern one is often spelled Kishorganj. While we have articles on the northwestern upazila, the northeastern district, and the northeastern upazila called Kishoreganj Sadar, we are lacking articles on the main towns of those two upazilas, each also called Kishoreganj or Kishorganj. It looks as if we should have a disambiguation page. Marco polo (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created one. Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jewish Publication Society of America Version

Hi. Does anyone know of a free online source with this Biblical translation? The only one I can find is the slightly antiquated 1917 version. Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 11:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the new version is still under copyright... AnonMoos (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can get the Torah in this translation (not the entire Tanakh) through the Torah Portion links on this page. --Cam (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of porn stars are on drugs?

How common is it for porn actors and actresses to be on illegal drugs, tobacco and alcohol? I heard it was really common. Any statistics or reports, anecdotes?--I Want To Do This (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90% was an estimate I heard, but I don't know really.--I Want To Do This (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to be a bit more specific. Seriously, what percentage of the general population are 'on alcohol'? 80%? 90%? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, a friend of mine was in a college class in which love was defined as a drug, because it was [if I remember her words rightly] a phenomenon that produced a change in brain hormones and in actions. If we include that, it's going to change the percentage. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that would be pretty unhelpful to the OP. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Male Masculinity

Hello :) I have a movie on how black females see themselves as, I have a movie on how black males see themselves and I have a movie on how white females view themselves. I'm having a terrible time trying to find a movie on how white males see themselves. I want to show it to my Sociology class, but I can't find anything. It doesn't have to be a full length movie... 10-15 minutes max probably but I'm running out of ideas. Any suggestions?

Thanks a million in advance! --Zach (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to know the names of the movies you are using for the three points of view you have listed. // BL \\ (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diner (film) is a very touching and funny exploration of the lives of a group of young white males in 50s America. ~~By the way, I'm a bit shocked that a teacher of any kind, even a sociology teacher, doesn't know how to use the apostrophe~~. Oops, it just occurred to me that "my sociology class" could mean you're a student rather than a teacher. You should still know how to use the apostrophe, though. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's a foreigner. Don't suppose that anyone here is American.--Mr.K. (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, America isn't the only country that speaks English... for a start, there's this little place called "England" - you may notice a similarity between the names, that's not a coincidence. --Tango (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mee-ow. LANTZY ^TALK 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to find a film that addresses how white males see themselves is when their masculine identity is threatened. And nothing threatens white male masculinity like the idea of guys getting it on. The first film that comes to mind is actually a scene from Gods and Monsters where Ian McKellan, playing a depressed James Whale, grabs Brendan Fraser's crotch just so Fraser will beat him to death. It almost works. However, this leads me to the overall concept of masculinity and gender roles in film, and a documentary was made about it in 1995 called The Celluloid Closet that addresses how Hollywood has portrayed gender and sexuality in the history of film. Check out Celluloid Closet. It's actually really good. --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are looking for a film in which the whiteness is identified explicitly as part of the men's identity, and therefore something they have to construct, or a film set somewhere where everyone is white and so that aspect is taken for granted. If the latter, and you don't mind a feature film, what about The Full Monty, set in industrial England? A bunch of men, mostly working class and one sort of middle class, are laid off or otherwise without work. Their identity as providers to their womenfolk and children is threatened. They adopt a novel solution, stripping for money, and some find it challenges their conception of themselves. ("Real men don't do this!" -- "Oh yes they do!" is one of the unspoken subtexts.) Very funny, to boot. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99% of films are about how white men see themselves. But I suppose that isn't helpful. So I suggest Fight Club. LANTZY ^TALK 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute your first assertion very strongly. It may be PC to claim that Hollywood – which is presumably what you're talking about, omitting every other film industry in the world – is negligent in not making enough positive representations of women and ethnic minorities, but the merest of thoughts would tell you that is not the case. There are films about how women and minorities see themselves literally all over the place. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See our article on hyperbole. LANTZY ^TALK 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just beware of believing that whatever answers we give you will necessarily represent how all white males see themselves. Some exult in their individuality, as do some women and some non-white people. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For questions of white male culture rather than the individual, this is a nice read. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it doesn't represent all white masculinity, but Fight Club is considered representative of a good proportion, and more representative than most movies. If you're picking a single movie, that's a good one. Steewi (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I always thought Swingers (1996 film) was probably the best "White guy" movie ever made. Fight Club was a little too much "beat the shit outta people for no good reason" for me; sure that's probably some guys psyche, but I always thought the themes of Swingers was more universal in its representation of the inner lives of men. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. I'm not sure Fight Club has anything to do with real (i.e. most normal) people when compared to something like Swingers. —Kevin Myers 06:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long to respond, my home internet was down last night and had to wait until I got in this morning to check back. First up, excuse the apostrophe usage, my error. I was writing quite fast to post this and after a quick edit, I forgot to take out the apostrophes. Also, I agree, don't always assume English is someone's native language.

The name of the movie I have about how black females see themselves is called "A Girl Like Me," you can find it on Youtube. The other two I have were sent to me and don't have titles to them. I will check out Swingers and see if it's what I'm looking for. Thanks everyone! --Zach (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR here, but at least men under 25 down to 14 or 15 actually do relate to Lantzy's Fight Club film. Does that suggest another issue, a generational gap within the white male thing? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between the United States and Canada?

Please excuse my extreme naivete, but I really don't know why the U.S. and Canada have such different "clout" in the world - militarily, politically and culturally. In my view they are approximately equal sized countries with a high level of economic development and equal opportunities for personal growth. Why is it then that the U.S. is "the" world power but Canada is rarely in the news. The U.S. election was such an important world event but not many know who the Canadian Prime Minister is. I hope you get the drift of what I am asking here... The U.S. military strength is well known, everybody watches U.S. TV shows and U.S. movies; U.S. has the world's most advanced space program, the U.S. is the prime target of the terrorists (Ok that's not a good thing, but still), the U.S. dominates the world's most significant geopolitical alliances, the U.S. patent office is the most crucial for filing patents, the list goes on. I used to think that the prominence of America in comparision to other developed nations is due to its size. But Canada is larger; what did Canada do differently due to which it pales in comparision with America. Please understand this is the view of a distant Indian national who just follows the news, so please correct me if I am mistaken in any of my assumptions. Thanks. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big broad question.. you might look at History of the United States and History of Canada to start with. Friday (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

o.O --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is physically larger, but the United States has about ten times the population. And that's just for starters. The fact that Canada is so close to the United States, and so closely coordinated with the United States on the international stage, leads it to vanish into the shadow of its neighbor. However objectively powerful Canada may be, it is always shouting over the roar of the United States. This leads to the paradox that countries poorer and less powerful than Canada attract far more attention. But just because Canada is quiet doesn't mean it isn't influential. Canada's relationship with the United States gives it a special, subversive kind of influence that no other country enjoys. But why not study the issue for yourself? We have a big-ass article on Canada – United States relations. LANTZY ^TALK 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll give me some latitude in answering this Q, I'd say it's because most of Canada is too far north to support a large population. If Canada had a comparable population, it would have comparable clout. Perhaps global warming will change this, though, as Canada stands to be a big winner, with most of their major cities inland and thus protected from rising oceans, warmer climates opening up vast areas for agriculture, and the opening of the Northwest Passage to shipping. For a similar example, look at Alaska versus California. Alaska is bigger, but has much less of a population and economy because of the climate there. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I think two of the larger differences are the population (306M versus 34M) and GDP (14T versus 1.4T). The US has had enough financial clout to pursue hegemonic policies. The same option has not been open to Canada. Physical area - roughly equal - is not a good indicator for the issues your question concerned with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC x2)Actually, the populations are quite different. Canada has 1/10th the population of the U.S. and less people living there than there are in just California (33 million in Canada and 36 million in the Cali.) By economy, Canada has a per capita GDP (PPP) of 38,000 USDollars, while the US has a per capita GDP (PPP) of 47,000 US Dollars. By GDP (PPP), the U.S. has the largest economy in the world, at just under 14 trillion US Dollars. Canada has the 13th largest economy, at 1.2 trillion US Dollars, just behind Spain. Just on those factors, it is easy to see why the US gets more of the worlds attention than Canada does. And though, as you note, Canada is larger in area, it is only JUST larger in area (by about a 1-2% difference). By population, I would say that Canada actually has an economy and an influence GREATER than its place. Consider that it is a member of the G7, and as I noted, the 13th largest economy, despite having 36th largest population. It certainly has much more worldwide clout than does, say, Vietnam, the 13th largest country by population. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the US - by far the largest economy in the world - control's the world's primary reserve currency and has a military budget larger than the next sixteen countries combined, with bases in dozens of foreign countries. Many consider it the hegemonic power of our time. NByz (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population and wealth are definitely the main factors, but it's also worth noting that the US gained independence from Great Britain in 1783 following a violent revolution, which was in turn followed by a series of wars (the Barbary Wars, the Quasi-War, and the War of 1812) to confirm that independence, and a bloody civil war to establish national unity. Canada, meanwhile, attained independence from Britain gradually and peacefully, becoming fully independent only in 1982. It's not as though the history of Canada is all wine and roses, but the United States' violent beginnings, violent westward expansion, isolationism, and history of aggressively defending its interests have given rise to a particular cultural mythos that Canadians simply do not identify with. The US has only really been a world power since World War II, but it was self-important long before that, and this is reflected in the nation's culture and foreign policy. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one of the reasons Canada became unified was to present a common front against American expansionist ambitions. There were many Americans for whom Manifest Destiny extended north as well as west. LANTZY ^TALK 18:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) First: agreed with the "only ...[a] world power since WWII". The policy of isolationism and a weak navy composed of coastal-defense ships and monitors (the U.S. had Civil War monitors still in servce at the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898...) assured that the U.S. didn't rise before then; they couldn't compete with anyone abroad without a navy!

Second: It may be of interest to people here that right after WWII, the U.S. and Canada were one and two when it came to the title of "wealthiest nation in the world"...and Canada also was somewhere in the top five in size of their navy and size of their air force. I can't remember where I read that, but... food for thought. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that you read it right here at the ref desk, Ed? Deor (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL now that you mention it, I have part of that on my user page...wow. Epic fail. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh golly, I'm famous! And here I was assuming I only crack myself up. --Fullobeans (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is the little country (in population and military might) to the north of the U.S. which is beloved in the U.S. for having Mounties such as Sergeant Preston, for saying "oot" instead of "out," for having the Francophone Quebecois, for having various provinces which few in the U.S. could locate on a map, for warming up the Arctic air a bit before it comes southward, for being part of the Commonwealth, for having an extremely long undefended border with a superpower, and for having soundly defeated the U.S. in its early ambitions to dominate the hemisphere, in the early 19th century, when Canada and the U.K. crammed the words "54' 40" or fight" down the throats of the U.S of A. and its notion of Manifest Destiny, later revived in the mid 20th century by Germany with respect to Austria and Czechoslovakia. In many fictional works such as the "future history" series by Robert Heinlein, or It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis (1935), Canada was a refuge for rebels from authoritarian dictatorships in the U.S. The U.S. maintained military plans for invading Canada in a hypothetical war against the U.K. into the 1930's as "War Plan Crimson or "War Plan Red"." Canada likewise had until 1929 a bold plan to invade the U.S and seize several northern state capitols to buy time for relief expeditions from the Commonwealth in the vent of war with the U.S. 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I really doubt that Canada is "beloved in the U.S." for defeating them. How many Americans think they won the War of 1812? All of them? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak for my own reaction to reading about the U.S. bombastically running off to defeat the Indians, the French, the Mexicans, the British, and the Canadians because in the 18th and 19th centuries "God wanted the U.S. flag to wave from sea to shining sea" and from farthest south anything desirable existed to farthest north anything desirable existed, except for the failure of the jingoistic "54'40" or fight sloganeering against Canada. And yes, the U.S. did woin the war of 1812. The Battle of New Orleans was the icing on the cake. Except for the little vandalistic matter of the burning of some gonernment buildings in Washington D.C by a British force. Edison (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Fullobeans (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your answers. I wasn't aware of the vast difference in population and GDP. Cheers! --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other pairings of superficially similar countries with vastly different impacts on the world could include Australia and New Zealand, England and Wales, and indeed India and Sri Lanka. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Australia co-opts successful New Zealand actors and performers as Australians. A specially cringeworthy example is the "Australian" opera baritone Teddy Tahu Rhodes being promoted here at the moment. If it weren't for that middle name, they'd get away with it. B***s, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is based in Australia, which makes him an Australian resident. But I agree, that no more makes him an "Australian singer" than Don Lane was an "Australian entertainer" (except in the sense of “an entertainer who worked mainly in Australia”; and my apologies if Lane did take out Australian citizenship, but to my knowledge he never did - although our article calls him an Australian). Russell Crowe, on the other hand, chose to become an Australian citizen, so I've never quite understood the Kiwis' grumbles about our claims to him. Nobody ever denies he was born and grew up in New Zealand, but when making a quick reference to him, it's not always appropriate to say "the New Zealand-born and -raised but now Australian citizen, the actor Russell Crowe". It’s not inaccurate to refer to him simply as “the Australian actor Russell Crowe”. Now consider John Farnham, born in England. He was famous from the late 60s, and nobody ever disputed the tag “Australian rock singer”. But he only actually became an Australian citizen shortly before he was named Australian of the Year in 1988, and only then in order to qualify. I never heard the British complain that they weren’t given enough credit for him. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First woman in the Swedish academy

Who was the frist woman in the Royal Swedish Academy of Arts? I do not know, and it would be interesting to know. This would be sometime in the 18th century. --85.226.44.201 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still looking but~~ so far, there's ~~Wendela Gustafva Sparre in 1797~~ Ulrika Pasch in 1773. Here's an incomplete listing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is Ulla Adlerfelt and Charlotta Cedercreutz, and they seemed to have ben before Pasch, but there is nothing about which years they were elected.--85.226.44.201 (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bannister Fletcher's History of Architecture

I should apparently buy a copy of this book, but it seems there are many different versions and I'm not sure which to get. Would it matter much if I were to get an older version of the book? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to suppose that older editions will lack additions made in later additions. These may, judging by its contents, include architects & projects. And so the question is, do you particularly mind a contemporary shaped gap in your education? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the 20th edition - the current version - is being pimped as a thorough reorganisation - "The timid modernizing, the anxious realignments of the past fifty years are over". And the editor, Dan Cruickshank, is an estimable sort of a chap. I'm sold on it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier versions also seem to be a lot cheaper, so would it be viable to buy one of them, and another book on more recent events, and does anyone know of such a book? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher's tome is certainly not the only source of info on newer architects & works; and I'm kinda hoping you have access to an academic library which would have the 20th edition, so could work out what was missing from an older edition. I think there's a risk that the mindset of the 70s or 80s or whichever decade you end up in might not be quite the same as the contemporary analysis, but there's a strong "best driving out the good" argument to be made, which is that any edition is so very much better than no edition ... and you'll not be relying solely on one book to understand the history of architecture. How far wrong can you go in settling for the older book if this is the case? Whilst you;re about it, btw, I've heard that the very best way of fixing all this information into your head is to write detailed NPOV wikipedia articles, which would be excellent! --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 19th century ? version, which is a wonderful period piece, with robust dismissals of baroque architecture & loads of beautifully clear drawings that I don't imagine have survived into modern editions. But it would not be an ideal introduction if you are new to the subject. It sounds as if intermediate editions between this & the 20th may have the worst of both worlds. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patricks Day trivia

How many men of Irish Ancestry signed the declaration of independence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midaberg (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were seven: Thomas McKean, Benjamin Rush, and James Smith (all of Ulster Presbyterian origin), Thomas Lynch, Jr. (whose ancestors were expelled from Ireland following the Irish wars), Charles Carroll (the only Catholic signer), George Taylor and Matthew Thornton (who were both born in Ireland). Interestingly, there were eight of Welsh extraction: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Lewis Morris, William Floyd, Francis Lewis, George Walton, Button Gwinnett, and Joseph Hewes; a Dutch-American, Abraham Clark; and even a Finn, John Morton. The rest were of purely English or Scottish stock. In other words, all the colors of the rainbow, from ecru to eggshell. LANTZY ^TALK 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote, we should mention the great, Irish-born Charles Thomson, who, though not a "Signer", did sign the broadside declarations issued by the Continental Congress in his capacity as secretary. It's also interesting to note that colonial prejudice against Scots (and presumably Ulster Scots) was not insignificant. Given the number of signers of Scots ancestry, it's no surprise that Congress deleted Jefferson's complaint about "Scotch & foreign mercenaries" from the text. —Kevin Myers 02:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Flag/ New York City

What building is the Irish flag flown on in New York City during St. Patricks Day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midaberg (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably thousands of buildings. There are many many many Irish and Irish-descent people in New York, and many of them will fly the Irish flag on St. Patricks day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a crossword puzzle question, is there an official bldg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midaberg (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the Empire State, which changes the color of its lights to reflect different holidays. Or the U.N., which I imagine flies it every day. Irish embassy? Bennigan's? Tomdobb (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, the flag at right was displayed as often as the Irish green-white-orange tricolor... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Hell

Of all religions of the world, past and present, which threatens the worst fate for non-believers? --79.79.253.232 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of religions make no distinction between believers and non-believers. Buddhism, for examples, reserves only a special fate for those who are enlightened. Only a very small subset of people would become enlightened. Everyone else, believers or not, go through reincarnation. Likewise, in Taoism, everyone gets judged in the underworld after death, except those who've achieved immortality. And you achieve immortality by meditation, taking funny drugs, and breathing excercises. For the great masses who get judged, whether you get eternal damnation or just a shadowy existence in the underworld depends on your deeds in life, not how much you believe in one thing or another.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(econ):For the afterlife, as in hell fire and brimstone, then possibly fundamentalist or puritan Christianity is a contender. The article has Bible and Q'uran references. For the past along these lines, Dante's Inferno or first canticle of his Divine Comedy describes the fate of hell-bent people (who also didn't impress Dante). Writer's revenge comes into it then, but is that a religion yet? Islam has some pretty snappy solutions for some present life transgressions. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost by definition, it doesn't get worse than Hell's inner circle. Edison (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not quite true that all forms of Buddhism do not threaten unbelievers with a bad fate. Nichiren said the type of Buddhism he taught was the "true and correct form of Buddhism," and "attributed the occurrence of the famines, disease, and natural disasters (especially drought, typhoons, and earthquakes) of his day to the sovereign's and the people's adherence to all other forms of Buddhism." Though these consequences may not be quite so dire as spending eternity suffering in hell, they're still pretty severe (at least as far as life on earth is concerned). -- noosph e re 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on the Science Reference Desk once invented a religion [2] with "horrible" consequences for those who don't follow its tenants. Since it apparently doesn't have any followers, it condemns all of humanity to an unspeakable fate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]