Humanities desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

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.

September 10

Obama speech comparison

It has been touted as propaganda but how does it really compare to the scene in Wall-E (~ 40 minutes, 40 seconds) where the classroom of babies is being taught the alphabet as "A" is for Axiom, your home sweet home, "B" is for Buy-N-Large, your very best friend? -- Taxa (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which speech are you refering to? In the past 3 days, Obama has made 3 major speeches on different topics which have been important enough to have been carried live by all of the major news networks in the U.S.? --Jayron32 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume he's talking about the one where he was talking to kids in school, pushing the propaganda that they should stay in school. Bush had a similar gig, in fact that's where he was when 9/11 happened. Bush had to grow up in a hurry that day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if its an omen? 9/11/2009 is not that far away... -- Taxa (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this question even have an objective answer that we can provide? It seems like a request for opinion or the start of a forum discussion... Dismas|^(talk) 06:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does; I think it's an attempt to stir up political debate and promote a frankly absurd view of both the President and Wall-E. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya think? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it could be a way to classify individual responders or reference desk consensus according to political opinion. -- Taxa (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text of the speech [1]. You can decide for yourself. Rckrone (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to classify ref deskers by political opinion? --Tango (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone and everything has a natural tendency to assess and to classify. Cockroaches assess some movements as threat, others as not a threat. We classify food according to glycemic load or fat or moisture content automatically. Classification/identification is what all entities with functional brains naturally do. -- Taxa (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody questioned cockroaches. To be more blunt... What is your need to classify everyone here? This is a Reference Desk, not a "Get your Political Meter Assessed" Desk. Leave the idiotic time-wasting self-classification polls to Facebook. -- kainaw ™ 20:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

err... Thanks for making the point and your example. -- Taxa (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Alexander the Great didn't conquer Rome?

Alexander the Great wanted to conquer all the known world and declared himself as an emperor of the world. But he didn't invade Rome. Why? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Alexander_the_Great#Influence_on_Rome. -- Taxa (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, because at the time of Alexander, lands to the east were composed of very large, very rich kingdoms with lots of plunder and other good reasons to conquer them. Rome, on the other hand, was basically a backwater town on a small river on a mountainous peninsula with not a lot else going for it. It had, by the time of Alexander, started to consolidate its power in central Italy (Latium), but its hegemony even over its own neighborhood was not assured at this time. Basically, the Italian Peninsula wasn't worth worrying over, so Alexander ignored it. He had MUCH bigger fish to fry... --Jayron32 02:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Rome was still a very minor state at the time of Alexander. It had not reached a strength to worry the Meditteraenen states until over 100 years after Alexander's death and hadn't even conquered all of what we now call Italy until around 260BC. By the time Rome became a power to be wary of in the region - Macedonia had lost most of it's captured territories and endured civil war. This resulted in the country being much weaker during the Macedonian Wars than under Alexander and they eventually became a Roman province. Nanonic (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "oracle" connected with the Gordian Knot "predicted" that Alexander would conquer Asia, which did not have its modern geographical meaning. He never declared himself 'emperor of the world": wasn't that Jack Dawson?--Wetman (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am pretty sure that Alexander claimed the titles Autokrator, Hegemon, and Basileus (essentially "Commander", "Ruler", and "King"), all of which would later become associated strongly with the Roman title of Imperator. Technically, the actual title of Emperor did not exist in the world until Augustus Caesar, who was the first Emperor of any kind. The greek titles existed beforehand, but only got associated with the office of emperor during Byzantine times. During Alexander's time the office of Emperor did not exist; it is only later historians by analogy that call the sort of state established under his rule an "Empire". For most of history, Empire was synonymous with Rome. --Jayron32 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider, too, that he was only 32 when he died! While Jayron32 is quite correct that the Italian penninsula didn't seem as worth it, one could postulate that, had he not died - the reasons vary, including sadness over the death of hephaestion - he would have tried to conquer Rome. Alexander living longer is a great subject of alternate history, given that youthful age (well, early middle age for those days).Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32 was not early middle age. Googlemeister (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the belief that many people died "young" in pre-modern times, even antiquity, isn't quite true. It is a misunderstanding of the data. If you plot the age at death of everyone born during some time frame, you can get the life expetency; however these numbers are heavily skewed to the younger side because, prior to modern medicine infant mortality was so high. In most places, absent a major epidemic like the black death, anyone who lived to the age of maturity had a high probability of living into his/her sixties or seventies. In otherwords, if you lived to be, say, 16 or so, then your likelyhood of living to 70 or 80 were not much different than today. The statistics are skewed to a much lower life expetency because living to 16 was so hard to do. --Jayron32 14:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I knew that. :-) As I approach 40, though, such thigns start to escape me. (Not that I'm blaming that for calling it early middle age. Actually I was a bit concerned that if I kept the original "young" in there, someone would correct it saying that 32 is not young.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate crimes committed by LGBTs

I am looking for examples of notable hate crimes where the perpetrator is LGBT. (I tried posting this question earlier but don't know if it somehow didn't go through or was removed.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.252 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One book which generated some controversy (I can't say much more about it than that) was The Pink Swastika... AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the bizarre nature of his original version of the question [2] and you'll see why I rubbed it out. He came back with a toned-down version. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're bound to find some, if you look long and hard enough. Gay people are human too: I don't suppose that is the answer being so energetically searched for.--Wetman (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesse Dirkhising case, an example of pro-LGBT bias in the USA. --59.189.56.201 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you pointed it out, but it would have been easy, and more helpful, to link the name.... Jesse Dirkhising. Dismas|^(talk) 06:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question was not about pro-LGBT bias, it was about hate crimes commited by a member of the GLBT population. The article doesn't indicate that the Dirkhising case was a hate crime - apparently, the perpetrators killed Dirkhising because they were sick fucks, not because they would hate him for being straight or white or whichever other category of hate crime target he might have fit in. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That anonymous comment about "pro-LGBT bias" refers to the allegation that the Dirkhising murder was under-reported because the killers were gay (and therefore, so the argument runs, immune from criticism in the liberal media). In fact, as the article points out, the reason the murder was under-reported was simply that it wasn't newsworthy enough. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this comes under "hate crime" as such, but most of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims were of African or Asian descent. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Röhm and Edmund Heines were pretty good at the hate crimes. Algebraist 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Opie's question as originally posted and you'll get a better idea of his motivation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and don't see the problem, or why you decided to remove it. The only objectionable thing I saw was that some people see "Aspie" as an epithet, though plenty of people don't. --Sean 12:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He brought up certain specific groups. That can't be accidental. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who commits violence against members of minority groups, merely because they happen to belong to such groups, is committing a hate crime. But asking questions about such crimes is not a problem, is it? We encourage OPs to give some context to make their questions clear. Identifying certain minority groups for this purpose is not discriminatory or problematic. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific groups he mentioned are an odd choice of "examples". I'd be interested in hearing him explain how he pulled them out of the hat. I'm not going to sit around waiting for that explanation, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has certain views/agendas, but don't most people? I don't think it's the role of reference librarians to pass moral judgment where the question can be answered by sticking to facts and references. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the OP either didn't want to limit answers to a specific minority group, or didn't want to give the impression of being a white-supremacist nut job who thinks everybody is out to destroy humanity. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he did mention specific, odd groups in his original posting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sean. The question as initially posed was fine. Its removal was inappropriate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. I thought many know about the friction between blacks & LGBTs and between Muslims & LGBTs. My best friend is an Aspie (I didn't know some find the term offensive) and has been harassed by LGBTs. But examples can have any minority group as victims, instead of always the same minority group as victims.

Ernst Röhm and Jeffrey Dahmer are interesting examples (Jesse Dirkhising also, even if it wasn't a hate crime). Even more examples would be appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.227 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per your original question, you appear to be determined to perpetrate certain stereotypes. There are Black LGBTs, just as there are Muslim ones. Which means a statement like “the friction between blacks & LGBTs and between Muslims & LGBTs” appear to be bigoted. Further, even when you know some people consider “Aspie” to be offensive, you persist in using the term. In short, you are not here to obtain useful information on obscure subjects, but to provoke.

How do we deal with trolls, class? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By assuming good faith for as long as remotely plausible. 213.122.24.205 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely consider the offensive, but Baseball Bugs, you an have uncanny inclination to censorship. There was no reason to remove the post. There are people who want to respond who don't have a sensitivity to the offences you take.174.3.110.93 (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because it looked like trolling and race-baiting. And I still think so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your original removal was definitely out of line. A polite request to use more sensitive terms would have been ok; removing a question of fact because, in your personal opinion, without generation any consensus, it "looked like race-baiting," is very much against the spirit of the reference desk. As you can now see, the question was perfectly answerable, and no debate was provoked except on the subject of your inappropriate censorship. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but on regular talk pages, race-baiting and similar stuff is not allowed, it's reverted on-sight. And his peculiar naming of particular groups sounded to me like some kind of "wishful thinking" that harm would come to these particular groups. He rephrased it in a more general way, and that's fair. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "race-baiting." He listed some examples of groups that LGBT people might have committed hate crimes against, perhaps to emphasize that he didn't simply mean hate crimes against non-LGBT people in general. And calling it "wishful thinking" is an absurd and insulting leap of logic (I seriously cannot comprehend how you came to that conclusion) and certainly a very blatant disregarding of WP:AGF. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're kind of forcing the issue, his original wording was, "I am looking for examples of notable hate crimes where the perpetrator is LGBT. The victim can be black, Muslim, Aspie or whatever..." My initial response to that wording was, "What the f--- is that supposed to mean?" Obviously, you're seeing it differently. But while you're accusing me of not assuming good faith, you're nonetheless assuming bad faith on my part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I believe that you did what you thought was right. I just think you were mistaken. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Aspie myself and I know many Aspies and we all identify as Aspies. Maybe a few use the term to insult us but most Aspies and their supporters use the term Aspies in a friendly way, even as a badge with pride. Baseball Bugs and DOR (HK) are either ignorant about Aspies or hate Aspies, I hope the former. I suggest they get to know the Aspie community first. Good to know that OP has an Aspie friend. So stop calling OP a troll and answer his question instead. Once I met this gay online and he said a lot of racist things to me after he found out gay sex is a crime where I live, but maybe that is an isolated incident. --59.189.59.75 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Tobar

Can any user please tell me the dates of birth and death of Jerome Tobar, author of the book "Inscriptions Juives de K'ai-fong-fou", which was published in Shanghai in 1912. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some library catalogs have such information on many authors... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also didn't find anything online (as AnonMoos suggested, maybe an editor with library or JStor access will do better), but if you get no better answers here you might consider contacting the Society of Jesus, since Tobar seems to have been part of the Jesuit mission in Shanghai – the Chinese Province branch (see email address on that page) might possibly still have some relevant records. The only other thing I found was more of his books. He seems to have actively published between c. 1895 and c. 1916. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

worldcat.org shows that book was published in 1900. A bit of searching in books.google.com shows Tobar died on September 3, 1917 [3]. With some determination you might be able to find his birthdate the same way. Or, since he was apparently a Jesuit priest, there might be some church records you could get hold of. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Simonschaim (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western (wannabe) Buddhists

Isn't it ironic, that many people turn to Buddhism in the hope to find their self, but, Buddhism is about finding your non-self?--Mr.K. (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking a question? This appears to be a forum-type comment. I'll admit that I, too, ramble at times, and can't get out what I actually want to say - such as one query I had on why people behave in a certain way, which I eventually found in articles on sentimentality, etc..

So, if you have a question about why Westerners become interested in Buddhism, please visit our article on Buddhism, and then - if you have a further question - we'll be happy to help.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me formulate the questions in a less "forum-type" style (as if the RD were not a forum). Do Westerners get interested in Buddhism because they have lost any identity of themselves and cannot longer find it? Is Buddhism about not having a self? Isn't it a lost quest?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I know didn't but that is OR.Actually,it sounds as though you don't really know what Buddhism is,if you feel it can be summed up in that one phrase...hotclaws 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all western Buddhists (or any, as I'm not one myself), but as I understand it, a large number turn to Buddhism and other "eastern" religions because they are disillusioned with the Judeo-Christian belief system they grew up in. It's similar to a lapsed Catholic converting to Lutheranism because they no longer believe in the primacy of the Pope. The people who convert to Buddhism don't find the message of the monotheistic God of the Torah/Bible to be compelling anymore, and view the philosophy of Buddhism to be more in line with what they think a religion "should be". It's not necessarily them trying to "find themselves", but rather of them trying to adhere to a religion which more closely matches their beliefs. By the way, I like the koan-like nature of your original question. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who helps to run a Buddhist centre, I can assure you that the vast majority of people turn to Buddhism (in the west) to find a sense of purpose and a less stressful lifestyle. The very few who turn up wanting to annihilate the self are usually people who don't like themselves and misunderstand what Buddhism is about.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The (several) Westerners I know who are Buddhists began to investigate the religion because it was interesting. There were no other, “finding yourself” or “lost identity” issues at all. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that Jesus existed

Not quiet sure how to phrase this question. Simply put I guess I am asking whether there is evidence, outside of the bible, that Jesus existed. Not that it really matters, but just to be above board with my intentions, I have no religious beliefs but I have always been interested to know whether or not it is widely accepted, by people who would require more than just the bible as evidence, that Jesus definitely did exist. I understand that defining "Jesus" may be tricky, but I suppose it is whether there was a man who, around the same time and in a similar location as indicated in the bible, lived a life and carried out acts that fairly closely match with Jesus's representation in the bible. Blu-Ray Betamax (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Historicity of Jesus. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been previously discussed here, the evidence for the existence of Jesus is about as strong as that for any other person from ancient times who was not a ruler or high government official, and is not mentioned in contemporary inscriptions... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do US children treat their parents?

Do they say things like 'shut up', 'fuck you, you nazi', 'blow my cock, fagot'? I'm asking because in some American films the children indeed say such things to their parents... Mr.K. (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in American movies, human beings can fly under their own power. Just like real life. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for American children, during those hectic years of puberty and hormones, to have painful outbursts towards their parents. "Respect for one's elders" is almost non-existent in the United States (unlike many other countries), and there is virtually no corporal punishment anymore. Rudeness is quite common. Obviously this is a generalization, but I don't think it's too off the mark, based on my observations and talking with others. (This my no means implies any sort of American exceptionalism—I'm sure teens all over the world go through this to some degree, though Americans do love their foul language.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a delayed punishment factor for those rude teens: Having teens of their own someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I looked quickly at google and it seems like the net is abuzz with distressed parents looking for guidance in dealing with their "extremely disrespectful teenagers". Couldn't find anyone talking about their flying neighbours, though. I don't think you'll find anything concrete/conclusive that suggests that movies are perhaps overstating the problem, however. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US, like any other country, has a wide variety of people. Some children will be very polite, some will be very rude, just like in any other country. --Tango (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that American filmmakers tend to memorialize it, hence presenting a skewed picture to the world. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever said anything that remotely resembled an insult I would have gotten a good beat down for my troubles. I live in Australia, but I'm pretty sure it's the same in some North American families. Or at the very least in Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.151.31 (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus demonstrating to kids that violence is a socially acceptable approach to solving problems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways to deal with it, like confining the children or denying them privileges as punishment. In my family, nothing remotely like that language would have been allowed. I certainly don't think that all or even most children in the United States today treat their parents with disrespect or foul language, but it certainly happens, and it is not uncommon. This is of course my own POV, but I think that there has been a growing trend, especially among highly educated parents since the 1960s and especially among the large numbers of them that have only one child, to give up on enforcing any kind of discipline on the part of their precious child. These parents believe that if they are just loving, accepting, and indulgent, their children will be angels. They are reluctant to believe that their precious child might exhibit any of the less savory aspects of human nature. However, the parents' lack of backbone or willingness even to defend themselves against their children's outright attacks may cause them to lose their children's respect. Marco polo (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also helps if the parents refrain from vulgarity themselves. It's hard to tell a kid not to do something if the adult also does it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is intended to be a comedy element, and not a reflection of reality. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr K: Stop asking these 'forum-type questions' (as it was called above). It's not what this page is for; as is clearly stated at the top. If you want a general discussion, or opinion, please go somewhere else. --Pykk (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "forum-type" question (whatever that may be). It is a sociology question or perhaps sociolinguistics question. People were answering, and not discussing, so that is a proof that I'm right. Mr.K. (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A call for opinions on a tendentious subject fools no one. This is not what the Reference desk is intended for, period.--Wetman (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American films sometimes present children with freakily authoritative qualities. An air of authority emanating from youngsters equates with adulthood. Offensive language may not always be present. But conjured up may be a freakily topsy-turvy world in which children are adults and adults are children. The vulgarity may be just serving as a marker of adulthood. Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as Comet said earlier, those films are typically comedies. Kids being obscene to adults is funny. Adults being obscene to kids is generally not. Although there can be a horror element too, if you've ever seen a film called The Bad Seed (film). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is not meant to be taken literally. And yes, this qualifies as "freakiness." I wasn't familiar with The Bad Seed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why answer the question the way it has been answered? it seems people answer to stir up discussion, baseballs comments especiallyChromagnum (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Kosovo

Prior to the declaration of independence of Kosovo, the primary symbol used by those who favoured independence seemed to be the flag of Albania (or something essentially identical to it). When independence was proclaimed, though, a new flag was put forth. Can anyone tell me how common the new flag currently is within Kosovo? If I went there, would I see lots of people using it? I got the impression that some in the pro-independence camp considered the red and black Albanian flag to be the only "real" flag for ethnic Albanians, and that a new flag which didn't use the same symbols and colours might find it difficult to win acceptance even among those who supported independence — is that the case? Is anyone proud of the new flag, or is it just seen as a committee-designed political compromise? (I'm trying to set aside questions about whether the declaration of independence itself was legitimate and so forth... I'm just interested in how people in Kosovo have reacted to the particular flag, not in its political or legal legitimacy.) -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Since we don't seem to have a Kosovar refdesker lurking around here, let me offer my (ex-Yugoslav would be the best description here, I suppose) OR. The Kosovo push for autonomy/independance is an old one. Even back in ex-Yugoslavia, Kosovo demanded to be recognised as a republic (i.e., an autonomous entity inside Yugoslavia, on par with Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia etc.), and after the break-up of the country, this transfered into demands for independence. The Kosovo region never had any real flag of its own as far as I know, and had indeed been using the Albanian flag as a rallying point for the majority Albanian population. So, considering that the new flag is indeed, as you say, a comittee-designed compromise flag (similar in this way to the horrible Flag of Bosnia), and considering that the drive behind the independance movement has a long-time association with the Albanian flag, I would imagine that the populace would feel better bound to the Albanian flag. How long this will last and whether Kosovars will one day accept the flag as their own, I can't say though. I believe some day they will accept it. (One interesting side-note: while there is a majority of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, the years of different history and culture between them and the Albanians in Albania has caused some major differences between them, and the two peoples don't really feel as part of the same populace anymore, so a merge of Kosovo into Albania is unlikely. Or at least so I have been told in Albania.) TomorrowTime (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damages wrongfully won in libel court

There have been cases under English libel law where a person wins damages for claims which are later proven true (e.g. Sonia Sutcliffe from Private Eye and Jeffrey Archer from the Daily Star). What happens to the damages? Lord Archer paid his back, but was he obliged to do so or could the Daily Star have had to sue for them? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archer was convicted of perjury and there are laws against people profiting from crime, so I expect there would be some way to force him to pay back the money. In the absence of that, I'm not sure what would happen. --Tango (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberace successfully sued a British columnist for libel after suggesting that Liberace was gay. Turned out he was, but that was not known until he got AIDS. Don't know if that columnist was still around to do the "told ya so" dance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS does not equal gay so I don't know why you brought that up...hotclaws 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Liberace#Lawsuits and alleged homosexuality suggests a different picture. He denied he was gay 'til he died. The lawsuit by an alleged former boyfriend came before and is better evidence IMHO then him dying from AIDS Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if there was a time warp and Liberace was known to have AIDS when he sued that journalist, there's no way he would have won the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: The above is my personal opinion on the justice of the matter. I ain't no lawyer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient then, that the OP asked for user:Baseball Bugs' personal opinion. Oh, wait ... Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opie asked for cases that were proven true. Liberace fits the bill. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Opie named some cases that were proven true and asked what happens to the damages in such cases. Opie. 13:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in the case of Liberace, nothing happened, because he had the good sense to die before he could be counter-sued. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And no-one mentioned Liberace except you, so I fail to see why you're continuing to harp on about him. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He played the piano in life. Now he's playing the harp. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So does one have to counter-sue to get the money back? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure one could get the money back at all. In the UK you aren't allowed to publish something that could harm a person's reputation unless you can prove it is true. If it is true but you can't prove it, that may well be your problem, I'm not sure. --Tango (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the guy in the Liberace case found out. But Liberace took a major chance by filing suit. The old principle: "Never sue - they might prove it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that he might have taken heed of Oscar Wilde's example. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though this could be dealt with in one of two ways, according to the examples discussed in this article. It states that "...it has been a long-established principle that if a fraud is committed in the course of giving evidence during a trial the verdict can be re-opened", so if the person to whom you paid libel damages can be shown subsequently to have given fraudulent evidence, you could get the original case reopened in the hope of a replacement verdict, whereupon the court could order the return of the damages and, one would assume, could order sanctions against the other party if they did not comply. Thus it is theoretically possible to get the money back without a successful counter-suit of some type, although the article suggests it's never been done. (Jeffrey Archer's return of his compensation was made out of court and without any admission of liability, so it's not exactly the same thing.)

Or you could counter-sue them for compensation in a brand-new case, on the basis that you are out of pocket because of their previous fraudulent actions. The article discusses a possible example of this related to John Major, and quotes legal opinion that a high standard of proof would be necessary, in relation to the specifics of the original case, in order to succeed with such a prosecution. Ka renjc 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green and Blue inverted triangles (Nazi Germany)

Hi, I'd like you to help me to understand those triangles, I know Green = common criminals and Blue = emigrant workers, but cannot understand, I mean, examples?. Thank you. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples are found in Nazi concentration camp badges which hark back to Yellow badges worn by jews in the middle ages. Maybe also see Badge of shame. What is it you don't understand?83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nationality of those who wore the Blue and Green triangle. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those who wore the green triangle were common criminals. I would think that most of these would have been German/Austrian, though they probably would have included other nationalities (Polish, Czech, Slovene) from Großdeutschland. Those who wore the blue triangle would have been forced and unforced emigrant workers. These mostly came from Poland, but they also included Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, and others. See Forced labour in Germany during World War II. Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White men in the fields of women or Black studies

Are there any White men scolars in the fields of women or Black studies ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.236.203 (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I looked at Harvard University's website and found [4] in African studies and [5] in women's studies. I'm sure there are many more. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't white and black common nouns? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]