Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 9

1971 Pakistani Military figures

Does the Pakistani Military website have a list of figures that fought in the 1971 war in Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.14 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The names of many commanders are given in the page about the 1971 war at http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/ On the left-hand navigation column, mouse over "War History" and click "War – 1971". —— Shakescene (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus influences and experiences

What were Christopher Columbus' early influences and experiences and how did they contribute to his successes and failures in his voyages later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.62.37 (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You could start with Christopher Columbus and see where he takes you. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully as far as the West Indies! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris' influence was felt immediately. When he landed, he tried to cash a check, but he couldn't because all the banks were closed. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. (It appears that the question is asking you what you learned from some reading about Columbus' early life, and then to relate what you've learned to how you judge the results of his later voyages. While undertaking your own analysis might help you to understand Columbus's life and record better, the answers we could offer here would inevitably have a large amount of speculative debate and opinion for which the Reference Desk is poorly suited.) —— Shakescene (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Columbus' voyage was a failure and a fake from day one... or at least the story we are told in history class. He left for his voyage in 1492 to prove that the world was round... even though the earliest known globe (round) was constructed by the Greek scholar Crates of Mallus in Cilicia (now Çukurova in modern-day Turkey) around 150 BCE. Also the first terrestrial globe was invented by Martin Behaim in Nürnberg, Germany, in 1492, the same year Columbus set sail... so, the Earth being round was a well known fact long before Columbus. 74.218.50.226 (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you learned, but Columbus knew the world was round - that's why he left! He was trying to find a way to get from Europe to Asia in order to trade without all that mucking about over land. He believed that the Earth was only about 2/3 of its actual size, and so he figured it wouldn't be too hard. Hence, when he landed in the Caribbean, he thought it was India. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"A failure and a fake". Indeed. He never actually came to the New World, and we who thought we lived in America aren't actually here. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Eating genoa salami in Genoa. Vranak (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Princess of Serbia

Who was the father of Ljubica Vukomanović, wife of Miloš Obrenović I, Prince of Serbia and the father of Jelena Jovanović, wife of Karađorđe Petrović.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[link removed] says Ljubica's father was Radosav Vukomanovic (1758-1805); the name of her mother is apparently unknown. (NB – I used google translate and [link removed] is the original – you might ask at the Language Desk for a better translation just to be sure.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The second link has been marked by my Web of Trust as a very untrustworthy site in terms of reliability and privacy. I have changed the link text to reflect this. Falconus^{p t c} 00:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also note that "Radosav" is an unlikely Serbian name and is probably a misspeling of "Radoslav". TomorrowTime (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Radosav is not such an unlikely Serbian name, though it is more popular among the Montegrins. Anyway, Ljubica's father was named Radosav, not Radoslav. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for linking to a problematic webpage. I did not receive a virus warning on loading it, nor from the Google search result. I have not heard of a web of trust (and cannot understand it's wikipedia page! It sounds technical!) Thank you Falconus. Should I delete the link? If anyone thinks so, please go ahead, I don't mind.

Queen Elizabeth, did you find anything on Jelena Jovanović? That seemed to be such a common name that it was hard to sort though the hits. Do you have a birthdate for her to narrow it down? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorru for not answering till now. There was no need for the dates on Jelena since she married her husband outside his First Serbian Uprising which makes her not a consort.

Not at all, I'm glad you got what you needed. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I've removed the link in case there really is a problem with it. Queen Elizabeth's Little Spy has already incorporated the information into List of Serbian consorts, for those interested. WikiJedits (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pro-LGBT bias on Wikipedia

No less than a multi-FA writer from the Little Red Dot mentions Wikipedia's pro-LGBT bias on his userpage. What is the extent of this bias and the extent of harm the bias causes? Do other large (Western-dominated) online communities have this bias too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.56.187 (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would need to see evidence that this is so before I even thought about "extent" and "harm", neither of which would be necessarily the consequence. This is an argumentative question, assuming facts unproven, and not suitable for the Ref Desk in this form. Bielle (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's a leading question full of unlikely assumptions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pro LGBT bias?!? Holy crap. You might as well complain that wikipedia has "pro-equality bias" and "pro-freedom of speech bias"... Vespine (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. There's a big difference between not having an anti-LGBT bias, and having a pro-LGBT bias. The former applies around here; the latter doesn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What can probably be legitimately said is that prior to the last 2-3 decades in "mainstrean" United States discourse, any mention of homosexuality was likely to be phrased in negative, critical terms, at least by a large section of the establishment. Hence an encylcopedia that no longer employs these negative, critical terms could seem to some readers as displaying a pro bias, even if the real story is lack of the anti bias. --68.175.44.30 (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, 68.175.44.30! - Hordaland (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

One would think that if such bias existed, it may be due to the primarily young, technically savvy, and disproportionately Western population of English Wikipedia.I haven't gotten extensively into anything, although I did personally bring up an issue that worries me a bit (people are saying we should slap Category:Homophobia on anyone associated with the homophobia debate... i.e., anyone with any controversy at all concerning it... i.e., anybody who has spoken out again homosexual rights, which is an underhanded and POV insult IMO). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree. The definition of homophobia includes the word 'irrational' which is prejudicial. Except in some special cases where the person was abused or suchlike I agree the fear is irrational, but sticking on such a label would violate neutral point of view as far as I'm concerned without citation in each case showing it was irrational. I'm not even sure one should count it as irrational where the person believes it because they are told it as part of their religion. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the category. It says in very big bold type "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia. Inclusion in this category does not imply that the subject of any article is homophobic." While homophobia is obviously pejorative, as I understand it one of the problems is there's no other suitable term which wouldn't be a neologism invented by wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that by "pro-LGBT", the OP means to say "bias in favor of LGBT equality under the law", or it doesn't make much sense to me. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think we need to see some examples before we can reach even preliminary conclusions. Personally, I can't recall ever finding any pro-LGBT articles on Wikipedia (or anti, unless you count the vandals who love to accuse various professional athletes of being serial homosexual adulterers), but maybe I'm not reading the right stuff. --M@rēino 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I had never heard the phrase "Little Red Dot" before, but it's apparently a reference to Singapore. The user that OP (also in Singapore) mentions is perhaps User:Chensiyuan. The paragraph in question goes:

Thoughts on Wikipedia The main problems with WP? Too many back-seat-driving, "deletionist" and counterproductive editors purporting to be of any use. Way too much western, anti-Christian and LGBT bias (ironic, considering what the majority of the world's population is). People misinterpreting fair use. Vandals are sometimes the smallest problem because those people do not pretend to be right or useful. Sometimes, it's truly "give me Conservepadia anytime" (when it comes to candidness).

LGBT in Singapore informs me that it's illegal to be a non-celibate homosexual have gay sex in Singapore. Presumably the OP sees Wikipedia's apparent lack of this anti-LGBT stance as systemic bias. --Sean 20:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever been illegal to "be a homosexual", celibate or otherwise, anywhere in the world. That would be like making it illegal to like certain kinds of music. What's illegal in Singapore is to engage in sexual acts with a person of the same sex. That law applies to anyone who does so, and perpetrators need not identify as "homosexual" to risk prosecution. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't ask, don't tell. --Carnildo (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not an example of someone being refused admission because of a propensity to commit acts that are in themselves illegal. An active, out gay man would probably not be permitted to join the RC priesthood either, or various other organisations. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that the situation in Singapore as supported by the above article and Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore) and LGBT rights in Singapore, as in a number of countries is that while many sexual acts (e.g. mutual masturbation) between males is illegal, acts between females may not be. While Sean said 'gay sex' this is somewhat ambiguous as the term gay is sometimes taken to include women as well. In fact our article supported by a source suggests it's possible that anal sex between males may not be covered under the law. I don't believe this has ever been tested as the general law banning anal sex for all people in Singapore was repealed in 2007 and the government have said they won't pursue cases between consenting adults Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The prevalence of the term "LGBT" on Wikipedi itself betrays this bias. "LGBT" is a 1990s neologism and it impliles some sort of unity between homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. This is very far from evident. If people want to discuss homosexuality, let them call it "homosexuality", not "LGBT" or similar neologisms coined by "proponents", in this case by the subculture under discussion. --dab (𒁳) 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an explicit guideline along the lines of "call minority groups what they prefer to call themselves"; this practice is not LGBT-specific. --Sean 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We also follow what the RS do and they ditto mostly use LGBT, gay, lesbian, etc Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The problem there is that "LGBT" includes bisexuality (which is not the same as homosexuality) and transgender (which does not imply anything at all about a person's sexual orientation). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems outside the scope of the Reference Desk. The OP's question looks like an attempt to start a debate, and that seems to be what we have undertaken. The question assumes that there is bias and that this bias causes harm, neither of which has been proven. I think the simple response is that there is no clear "pro-LGBT" bias and that there is even less evidence of harm. Furthermore, any assessment of bias must be subjective, and opinion is outside the realm of the Reference Desk. As for opinions about bias in "other large (Western-dominated) online communities", I don't think that the Reference Desk is the place to elicit those, either. Marco polo (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

gymnast 1889 world championship Paris

HISTORY and/or SPORT

We have an article about the Norwegian Fredrik Hjalmar Johansen, polar explorer with Nansen and Amundsen. There is no doubt that he was also a gymnast. According to Norwegian Wikipedia, he won the Norwegian Championship in 1885 in Fredrikshald and the World Championship in 1889 in Paris. It's this last item, the 1889 World Championship, I'd like to have a reference for. Thank you, - Hordaland (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reference to him getting a gold medal in Paris, without a name for the event or a year given. Do you know the name of the event? Possibly it was at the World's Fair? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're good, thanks. Took a little looking to find out more about the book: Fridtjof Nansen in the Frozen World. The Fram Expedition. Fridtjof Nansen; S. L. Berens (Editor) To quote the lengthy title page when this book was originally published in 1897: "The 'Fram' Expedition, Nansen in the Frozen World, preceded by a biography of the great explorer and copious extracts from Nansen's First Crossing of Greenland; also an account by [Eivind] Astrup of life among people near the pole, and his journey across northern Greenland with Lieutenant Robert E. Peary, United States Navy, arranged and edited by S. L. Berens, Cand. Ph.D. Followed by a brief history of the principal earlier arctic explorations from the Ninth Century to the Peary Expedition, including those of Cabot, Frobisher, Bering, Sir John Franklin, Kane, Hayes, Hall, Nordenskjold, Nareds, Schwatka, DeLong, Greely, and others; by John E. Read, Assistant Editor of the Columbian Cyclopedia. Paperback, 536 pp, International Law & Taxation, 2003, English, ISBN 9781410209832 (Available for 303 Norwegian crowns.)

NorwWikipedia says that in 1889 "he was part of the Norwegian national gymnastics team at the World's Fair in Paris, where he became World Champion in gymnastics." As you guessed. - Hordaland (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Tucker (composer)

Dear colleagues! In the German Wikipedia we got a very angry remark because Henry Tucker has no entry (doesn't have an entry in the en:WP either!). Could you please give me an impression of the relevance of H. Tucker? Would he have a chance in the en:WP? Thanks --Grey Geezer 08:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) (in case my nom de plume is not taken by the system: Grey Geezer ^{nil nisi bene} 10:30, 9. Okt. 2009 (CEST)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

A little googling shows that a fair number of published works have mentioned Henry Tucker. He is hardly famous today, but he was certainly one of the more important songwriters of his day. I think he probably passes the notability test. Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll think about it! --Grey Geezer 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

WP:SOFIXIT. Everything at Wikipedia exists because volunteer editors, no different than you, put it here. Wikipedia is not complete, so it is entirely unsurprising that there are articles which we could currently have, but do not. If you have any skill at translation, then you may be well suited towards translating the German article for en:WP. --Jayron32 23:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the matter was that there was no article on dewiki and we got a quite rude complaint at the German RD in consequence. As there wasn't even an article here (while there are about most more or less important lemmata), Gray Geezer grew suspicious whether Tucker could be made up by the complainant (or simply really unimportant) and thus just wanted to check whether an article about him would be encyclopedia-worthy. -- Sir Anguilla (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree he's probably notable enough, but I'm finding very little about the man. One website specifically states that not much is known about him and provides only a three sentence bio. This site at least seems to provide a decent list of compositions, which may help build up links to your new article. Best of luck. Matt Deres (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

does the bible show Jesus losing his temper?

and spewing a long string of demeaning insults at someone, making them feel like sh*( etc, ie just flipping out. I'm curious because I know someone with the same personality as Jesus, and they do that, so I wonder if the bible shows Jesus doing that. Also, the writers of the bible believed in him, so they might not mention it ... is there any circumstantial evidence, ie a part where it seems the writers of the bible are 'covering for' Jesus, but we can tell that Jesus really must have totally flipped out. Thanks. 85.181.151.223 (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Theres the part about him kicking out the money changers from the temple. Also the incident with the fig tree could be interpreted as him losing his temper. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are AWESOME references!!! I thought your answers would be "what? no!" with a question of whether I'm a troll. Instead, my supposition is 100% vindicated -- the answer is a resounding yes -- check out this picture. "Creating a whip from some cords, he drives out the moneychangers and turns over their tables, and the tables of the people selling doves" and the article says "Jesus went straight to the Temple and threw out everyone who had set up shop, buying and selling. He kicked over the tables of loan sharks and the stalls of dove merchants". Jesus kicking over tables and sh&*!! That is awesome. The picture I just linked is the most awesome painting of Jesus I've ever seen. I also agree that the incident with the fig tree could be his 'frustration'. I'll have me some figs. What? No figs! May no one ever eat figs again!!! Anything else guys? And again, Saddhiyama, those references are AWESOME. More more more please!! :) 85.181.151.223 (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's about it... No offence, but your question does sound a bit trollish. You know a guy with "the same personality as Jesus"? Please, forget there are not even any contemporary eye witness accounts of Jesus, I find it hard to believe any 2 people share exactly the same personality. Maybe your friend is a lot like Jesus, but with a worse temper... Vespine (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The fig tree incident might have been losing His temper. The moneychangers situation almost certainly was calculated, since it's not like He didn't already know about it. As for a friend who's like Jesus... A businessman runs into a bum on the street who asks for money and tells him that he's Jesus. The businessman asks him to prove it. The bum takes the businessman to a nearby bar. When they walk in, the bartender says, "Jesus! You here again?!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that gets us into his dual nature. According to the theology, he was both fully divine and fully human. Wearing his divine hat, he knew everything that would ever happen to him in his life on Earth, so anger at unexpected events would be a contradiction in terms. But wearing his human hat, he could not possibly have known what lay ahead. It would be interesting to speculate on which hat he was wearing when, but of course we don't do that here. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A yarmulke? :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Knowing something in advance due to being divine doesn't preclude Him from having a temper and reacting poorly. His Father had a few such acts in the Old Testament, killing lots of people many times out of anger, and various other things. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, knowing ahead of time does not preclude expressing anger. Anger can be a controlled emotion like anything else. Lots of non-divine people use expressions of anger to provoke calculated responses in people, and there is no reason to suppose that merely because Jesus got angry that he was not angry on purpose and not using the anger in that situation for a specific planned purpose. --Jayron32 23:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

For a strange comparison, I recall one time when Bill O'Reilly went ballistic against some guest. A later guest or maybe a fan letter said something about him "losing his temper". O'Reilly responded, "I did not lose my temper, I displayed it." Claiming, at least, to be "calculated". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"The moneychangers situation almost certainly was calculated, since it's not like He didn't already know about it". It does not have to be calculated just because he already was aware of the phenomenon. It could simply be that he was tired of walking into the temple while being hassled by moneylenders for the nth time, and he just simply lost it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He sometimes had a flair for the dramatic. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The posible incompatibility of Omniscience and free will is a topic of it's own MBelgrano (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some places where when talking to his disciples he seems a bit testy. It's been awhile since I've read it, but I seem to recall him getting a little snippy with Peter at various times in the book of Matthew. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Last Supper can be read in two completely different ways. In one, he is breaking bread and wine as an act of togetherness with his disciples. In another, he is telling them that they are rather worthless and will forget all about him in a few days, so he demands that they treat bread and wine as his flesh and blood. Then, when they eat and drink, they will be forced to remember him. In the second way of reading it, he comes off as a bit of a hot-head. -- kainaw™ 13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've heard the Last Supper, interpreted in many more ways than 2, and none of them were the one you just wrote. Seriously, you can invent 'ways of looking at things' for ever. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Kainaw about The Last Supper. Same goes for the Roman Trial of Jesus, really -- is Jesus being superhumanly calm, or has he gone completely nuts? It seems to me, at least, that the Gospel authors think it's the former, but that Pontius Pilate fears it's the latter. --M@rēino 20:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that Jesus complaining "Lama sabachtani," which translates from the Hebrew into English as "Why have you sacrificed me?" is a complaint. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

normal translation of that is "why have you forsaken me", which is a) a quote and b) a bit different. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

1) "Normal translation" is quite irrelevant. Unlike complete gibberish, the Hebrew language can, for the most part, be translated directly into English, and "zavachtani" is from the word "zevach," which means "sacrifice." The suffix makes it "-- me." That being said, there can be a discussion as to the author(s) of Matthew misquoting Psalms 22, which states "lama azavtani," which in fact traslates into what you state above.

2) It is a quote -- indicating that this is the sentiment Jesus had at the time of his death. One would think that the Messiah, if he was it, would know his purpose, and not complain about being sacrificed, when in fact, that was his destiny. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Speeches

Is there a single USA president that actually wrote all of his speeches? And is there any other countries in the world that have their leaders not writing their speeches? Thanks

I would suspect that Thomas Jefferson wrote his own speeches, given that at that time the President had essentially no staff (beyond what he brought in from his own household). Jefferson was great on writing, but poor on oral delivery. He had his second inaugural address printed and distributed, so people would know what they would have heard if he had been a decent public speaker. I would expect that most leaders use speechwriters - I know that several German Chancellors did. I don't know if they used them for all speeches. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson wrote a lot, but he seldom delivered speeches. Supposedly he even delivered his state of the union addresses by mail. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln was himself a speechwriter and, for the most part, wrote his own speeches. Theodore Roosevelt was also a speechwriter, but he is too current a President for me to believe that his political associates would allow him free reign to write all of his own speeches. -- kainaw™ 12:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Politicians in the UK, currently at least, use speechwriters. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Never underestimate Wikipedia. According to our Speechwriter article: "Judson T. Welliver wrote for President Warren G. Harding in 1921 and is considered the first official presidential speechwriter." Some further digging reveals that there's even a Judson Welliver Society composed of former presidential speechwriters! --M@rēino 20:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian Prime Ministers have been using speechwriters for at least 40 years, probably a lot longer. The first well-known speechwriter was Graham Freudenberg, who wrote for Gough Whitlam (PM 1972-75) but started with his predecessor as party leader Arthur Calwell in 1961. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As President, William Henry Harrison wrote 'em all. See also Inauguration of William Henry Harrison.John Z (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stability of interfaith marriages

Do interfaith marriages, or marriages between a religious and an irreligious person, last as long as marriages where both partners either share the same religion or share irreligion? NeonMerlin[1] 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be pretty hard to gather the data to answer that question. My guess is that it wouldn't matter; we've come a long way since, "I knew that mixed marriage would never work. He was a Methodist and she was a Preysbytarian." PhGustaf (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You could at least try and give a reference, PhGustaf. Starting point for other research: this PDF from the CDC, which is loaded with marriage and divorce statistics. It measures the probability of "marital disruption" with regards to the importance of religion (but not differing importance between two partners). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What a lame response. I'm not sure why the data would be any harder than other marriage statistics, of which there are many. Anyway, I would be also interested in knowing how mixed-religion marriages differed in regards to children as well. Anecdotally that seems to be the area that people with different religions have the most friction—what's the kid going to be raised as, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The statistics will of course depend on what you mean by "interfaith." A non-religious Jew marrying a non-religious Christian will find themselves likely to not have a particularly big issue, methinks. And that is going to be heavily affected by social norms. For example, interfaith marriages are probably much less of a deal in places like NYC and LA than they are in <stereotype>Mississippi and Texas</stereotype>. Also, do atheists count? How about agnostics? There are a lot of things to take into account, and not all are easily accounted for. Or, as PhGustaf said, "It would be pretty hard." Also, I didn't think it was lame. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP specifically said "or marriages between a religious and an irreligious person" so I presume marriages between a religious person and a atheists or agnostic counts. I agree with the general sentiment it likely depends on what religion and the people involed etc however. Also the op has said "last as long as marriages where both partners either share the same religion or share irreligion". The trouble is these statistics are likely going to vary as well. This [2] suggest religious couples are less likely to divorce while [3] suggests in fact atheists and agnostics are the least likely to divorce (well compared to Christians and Jews). Both are from the US. One of the problems is likely whether they researchers have attempted to account for differences between education, income and other factors. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Which countries has the Westboro Baptist Church organised pickets in?

If you look at their site, http://www.godhatestheworld.com/ it says that the world and its nations are doomed and all that due to homosexuality... lol wut... but seriously, they show picketers... around the world.

What I want to know is what countries they have actually picketed in. Jacqui Smith, despite her being a terrible person in general, stopped them from having their first UK picket...

So which ones have they actually picketed in?--Bulgarian Psychology Professor (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know they were planning on picketing in Canada, at the funeral of the guy who got decapitated and partially eaten by that Chinese immigrant near Winnipeg. Vranak (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See Murder of Tim McLean. PETA actually got involved in that. WBC tries to come up here sometimes but I think they are usually stopped. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WBC lists a lot of protests they never get around to holding. --NellieBly (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How long do libraries retain records? - Herbert N. Foerstel

In researching information on records retained by libraries, recurring references are made to Herbert N. Foerstel and his works. The general impression I get is he has had significant influence on anti-censorship/NPOV approach to the building of a library catalogue, and access to such.

The specific question I was attempting to get an answer to is, what records do libraries generally keep recording details of who may have checked-out or referred to a specific book at a specific time? If such records are kept, for how long? And, are they kept beyond the requirement to track and maintain the collection, and identify who has books outside the library?

This report, http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1198/1118 refers to page 65 of a 1991 book by Foerstel. I believe this, Surveillance in the stacks : the FBI's library awareness program is the relevant publication where best-practice for libraries - maintain minimum records for functioning, for minimum required timeperiod is recommended.

The linked-to National Library of Australia charges a prohibitive amount for copying of material from works in it's care.

Within the ALA website I have been unable to find a clear best-practice recommendation on record retention. --Brian McNeil /^talk 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In Norway it is illegal to retain such records. Even teachers' lists of which child has borrowed which books from the school library are discouraged and may in no case be retained longer than the current school year. - Hordaland (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that one Hordaland! Do you have an online reference? I'll happily take Norge and mangle it with Google Translate.

I'm actually beginning to wonder if this is a 'missing' Wikipedia article - it certainly isn't Library Records :-)--Brian McNeil /^talk 22:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional. British Library: Information Charter: http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/foi/infcharter/index.html - personal data retained we don’t keep it longer than necessary, policy must comply with principles of UK data protection act. But, I can't get a clear, "when book returned to library undamaged, the 'borrowing record' is deleted; if returned book is damaged, the 'borrowing record' is deleted when the borrower has paid for the damage or a replacement copy". --Brian McNeil /^talk 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You could try using Wikipedia's library and bookstore search service with this ISBN for Foerstel's Banned in the Media (1998), which I picked up from Rififi: ISBN 0313302456 . And from the same source, here's the Google Book page, which allows a limited preview, for Banned in the Media. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The library I go to makes a point of telling people that they don't keep any records on you after you return the book and pay any outstanding fines. It probably varies from library to library in the USA. APL (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't deal specifically with libraries, but this site discusses retention of information at Ontario universities in light of various laws, guidelines, etc. May provide some good search terms if you want a Canadian perspective. Matt Deres (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In Norway, as requested above. Damn, if I may say so. I just wrote about several links & translated some, then got too interested in reading documents & my writing here timed out / disappeared. Short version:

• Article on official site Personvern i bibliotek = protection of personal information in libraries
• Second of 2 links at bottom of previous page (30 page PDF) §9.2 on page 22, Forbud mot å lagre unødvendige personopplysninger, forbidden to save unnecessary personal information, is most pertinent but there's interesting stuff throughout, particularly on exceptions.
• PVN-2007-02 The firm Bibliotek-Systemer AS which develops/delivers electronic library catalogues, wished to supply a database correlating book titles and borrowers' names. They were refused permission, appealed and lost again. It is pointed out that, according to personal info law §28, info shall normally be deleted when a book is returned. A correlations database may only be established if permission is received from the registered borrowers.

- Hordaland (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember this being particularly relevant with regards to the various Secrets Acts and Patriot Acts in countries following Sept 11. I recall some librarians in Australia and the USA (UK? Canada?) being prepared to destroy records rather than have them subpoenaed as evidence. I'm pretty sure Australia decided against it, and records aren't kept. I don't know of any evidence of it. Stupid anecdotal evidence. Steewi (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional: The ACT Public Library Service does not keep loan records after a book is returned. Loan records can be kept upon request. [4]. Steewi (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I used to work in a University library in Australia. The borrowers record showed no info on correctly returned books. Overdues left notes which were removed after a certain time period. The actual book item record showed the current and last user. So if the turnover of books was slow you could work out what had been borrowed by someone (theoretically) by running a search of item records to look for a particular user number. But you had to use your password to run such searches, which (if they thought of it) would leave a trail for some "bigger boss" to ask why you are doing such a search. So, for books that are rarely borrowed, the borrowers number would be on the book record for years, until borrowed and return by someone else. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Evaluations of how-to-get-organised and time-management books

Are there are lists of these books anywhere that point out the best ones? I'm referring to books like Getting Things Done for example. Wikipedia has lists of them, but does not evaluate their merits. Amazon evaluates some of them through customer reviews, but you cannot see a list of them ordered by their star-rating AFAIK. 78.147.35.60 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mosaic Law

There is a provision in the Mosaic Law which states that if the estate of a Gentile comes before a Jewish court the court must award the estate to the Gentile kinsmen of the deceased. Can you give me any derivation, interpretation or source material for this provision. LEON H. GILDIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.224.64 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you make the assertion that a provision in the Mosaic Law states that if the estate of a Gentile comes before a Jewish court the court must award the estate to the Gentile kinsmen of the deceased?--Wetman (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed a strange question. In essence: "There's a law that says A, can you please show me a law that says A?" How can you know that provision exists without knowing which provision it is? /me is confused. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP may be looking for Numbers 27:8-11: "And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses." Nothing specific to Gentile or Jewish inheritance, though. Tevildo (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, from the perspective of Judaism, the Old Testament was given to Jews on Mount Sinai, and thus, as a default, all laws apply to Jews and not to Gentiles, unless otherwise specified -- again, that would be a Jewish perspective on things. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite confident that there's no such provision in the Torah. Perhaps the OP is thinking of something in the Talmud? Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)