Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 October 9

< October 8	<<Sep \| October \| Nov>>	October 10 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Gay People

What disturbances in childhood cause gayness? And is it due to physical abuse or emotional abuse? Finally, do men who enjoy anal sex with women go through the same kind of childhood experiences, only to show slightly different symptoms?--209.122.217.167 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of your question is biased, as I suspect you know. But if you're interested in learning more, see Biology and sexual orientation and Choice and sexual orientation. --Allen 00:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to recent statistics, about 10% of people are 'gay'. Its probably genetic IMHO.--Light current 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually recent evidence is leaning towards in utero hormone exposure. A recent study showed that, for males, the more older brothers they had, the more likely they were to be gay. And for women, a larger-than-usual dose of testosterone in utero seems to be causal. So, maybe it really is Mom's fault if you're gay, lol. Anchoress 01:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Anchoress was joking and meant no harm, but to use the word "fault" is to assume that there is something wrong with being gay. In fact, it is just part of the range of human sexuality. The questioner asks what causes gayness. One could just as well ask what causes exclusive heterosexuality. It is nobody's fault if a person turns out to be gay, just as it is nobody's fault if the person turns out to be straight, or if the person turns out to have blue eyes. Marco polo 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I certainly meant no offense; if I offended anyone I apologise. The joke was v/v the long-held opinion that it's the mother's 'fault' that kids are gay, that it's because of inappropriate mother/child relationships (particularly mother/son), or poor parenting. Again, no offense meant. Anchoress 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "recent statistics" are you talking about? I think many studies have shown it's more like 1-3%. BenC7 05:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the question of frequency: Demographics of sexual orientation. --Allen 06:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the comment was intended as a joke. But suppose it wasn't, isn't one allowed to think that there is something wrong about being gay, as opposed to having blue eyes, black skin or red hair? 75.126.48.146 08:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can stop you thinking whatever you like. It's a question of whether you believe every thought that goes through your mind, or whether you weigh things up and came to a reasonable view. If you did come to the view that there is something "wrong" with being gay, it's then a question of whether there is any real positive purpose in saying so. Do you have a suggested solution to this "wrongness"? If so, let's hear it. If not, merely stating that you believe gays have something wrong with them but offering them no help to overcome this supposed dreadful affliction is 100% certain to cause offence. We don't live as victims, but you would be treating us as victims and then blaming us for being victims. Is that an attitude that actually has any merit? JackofOz 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd prefer the Ex-gay movement to slanders? 惑乱分からん 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no older brothers at all and I was lucky enough to turn out to be gay. --LarryMac 13:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible! ;) (although I think finding the right partner is a better criterion for luck, than whatever orientation you might have...) 惑乱分からん 13:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Should we correct this imbalance if its possible?

If what Anchoress says is true, then, if a method of correcting the hormonal imbalance were to be found, should it be corrected to ~~reomve the abnormality~~ restore normal levels in the womb?--Light current 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "abnormality"? --LarryMac 13:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THe abnormal hormone concentration.--Light current 15:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it is "abnormal"? --LarryMac 16:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who thinks this question would be better on Humanities desk, pls feel free to move it there leaving a note to that effect.--Light current 02:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it occurs much less often than the correct hormone levels. See normal --Light current 23:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the same logic, having more pheomelanin than eumelanin is "abnormal". Does that mean we should find a cure for red hair? Charlene.fic 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont remember using any 'logic'.I've just asked a question. 8-) --Light current 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It(gay) is both abnormal and bad for the partcipants involved for numerous reasons. For example, it prevents the bearing of children; it raises the risk of various STDs, other diseases, and health problems associated with anal sex; and it is not socially accepted in most areas of the world, and in some areas, it can get the participants killed.--216.164.251.138 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot: due to this clear proof that homosexuality is detrimental to those involved, I would say that if it was due to an abnormal hormone concentration, that it should be corrected, for the good of both the individual and of society. --216.164.251.138 00:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to dispute each argument that 216.164.251.138 makes. Why is the inability to bear children bad? Do we not have a problem of overpopulation in many parts of the world, which is exacerbating climate change and resource shortages? Why is bad if a subset of the population does not reproduce? Incidentally, not reproducing allows that subset of the population to devote more of its time to activities that benefit society as a whole, such as the caring professions, the arts, and Wikipedia. There have even been suggestions that homosexuality appears in all human populations because the presence of nonreproducing adults offered a selective advantage to societies as a whole by providing more support to children and reproducing adults. As for STDs and other sex-related health problems, these are a function of risky health practices, not of one sexual orientation or another. In Africa and many other parts of the world, for example, AIDS is transmitted overwhelmingly by heterosexual contact. Conversely, because of AIDS, many gay men in many parts of the world practice only safe sex, which carries little or no risk of transmitting disease. As for your argument about social acceptance, you are correct that gay people face danger in many parts of the world. However, rather than eliminate gay people, who have been a part of humanity since ancient times and who provide society with a valuable source of diversity, why not work for cultural change so that gay people and others who depart from the norm can make the most of their potential. Marco polo 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't, but people will. They select for sex now, too. -THB 10:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

care of lace

Would any one know the best way to care for a 50 year old lace mantilla. it has been folded in a bag and i am unsure if it should be wrapped in tissue or muslin first, thank you penny-_---

For any type of fabric, I'd suggest you don't fold it, as it can weaken and break at the fold lines. Instead, roll it around a wrapping paper roll, with layers of tissue paper between the fabric, then put that in a sealed plastic bag. Add some of those little bags of silica to absorb excess moisture. Keep it somewhere dark and dry, and, obviously, pest and rodent free. StuRat 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure the paper is pH neutral. -THB 10:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dog

My dog, who is a Beagle, always trys to lick my face no matter what. Why do dogs or at least mine like to do this so much? T REX_speak 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's asking you for a cigarrette!--Light current 02:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he is searching for food residue on your lips. I suggest opening your mouth and letting him lick all the food out. Think of him as a big fluffy toothbrush!!! Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? How do you know where hes been sticking his nose? I really do think that is very bad advice! 8-( --Light current 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I usually don't want him licking my face because he also likes to lick his penis. T REX_speak 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comment 8-)--Light current 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least he doesn't directly apply penis to face. Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. He applies snout to penis!--Light current 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many dogs lick the face of their human. I'm not certain why but at least this is a serious answer... :-) Dismas|^(talk) 05:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well again thats a very unhealthy thing (for humans) isnt it?--Light current 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Wolf#Body language muzzle licking is a form of submission to a higher ranking individual. In other words, you are the leader of your dog's pack. Nowimnthing 16:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So victory = you.

I think I red that dogs licking is similiar to our kissing.So,when hes liking his own penis his just giving him self a blowjob. XXXXXXX 13:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admit it, you're just jealous! ;) 惑乱分からん 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any more of this, I will be forced to post my doggie joke. You have been warned!--Light current 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once, when asked why rock stars marry models, Simon Le Bon answered, "For the same reason dogs lick their balls."

Wikipedia Copyright?

Hey, i was wondering since wikipedia is an open source project dose that mean all articles it contains are not subject to copyright? Is there anything stoping me from taking an artile putting it on my website and saying it's from wikipedia? (not that i would, just asking).

Take a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights. With a few conditions, exceptions, and caveats, it's okay. Ziggurat 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can as long as you follow the rules in the Gnu Free Document License. Give credit and provide a link to the history of the article and have a copy of the full GFDL text around. You'd still be in trouble for copyright violation if you didn't follow these rules. - 131.211.210.12 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a copyleft project. That generally means that it uses the legal mechanisms of copyrights in order to make the content as free (in the sense of freedom) as possible. So there are actually many restrictions upon its use, but they are all designed for allowing people to use the content, not so much to restrict its use (like normal copyrights). (In practice I don't think the GFDL is at all the most clear or free of the copyleft licenses, but that's another issue). --Fastfission 18:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gala Records

Hi there, I'm trying to figure out if this Gala Records from Russia is the same as the publisher Gala that produced my Maria Callas album here. My liner info doesn't give an address of any sort, although the cover was apparently designed in Holland and the CD manufactured in Portugal. I'm having difficulty navigating the website, as my knowledge of Russian in Cyrillic is limited; I was able to find several albums of Maria Callas recordings, but can't figure out if it's truly the case. Can anybody find this out for me? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine says PARASITES make people FAT

The magazine is the First magazine, a women's mag. I have female cousins, and seen this on the check out lane. POSSIBLE website may be www.first.com OR www.firstmagazine.com. My ISP is Screwing up real bad. Google: First Magazine/Parasites make people Fat. Martial Law 06:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If verifiable, is this worthy of a article ? Martial Law 06:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend Googling "obesity infectious" for more about this. I think it's a big enough topic that it certainly could have its own article if someone wanted to write that much about it. More likely for the short term, though, it might be a good idea to break the "causes" section of obesity out into its own article. --Allen 07:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the reverse, PARASITES makes people thin. Saying "parasites makes people fat" is like saying "Turning on the Air-Conditioning makes your car go faster." Ohanian 10:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One exception is elephantitis, which is caused by a parasite and leads to enlarged body parts. StuRat 16:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, elephantitis = inflammation of the elephant. JackofOz 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article headline is/was this: Parasites make You FAT, 1 in 3 FAT people have them. Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 20:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep capitalizing fat? Charlene.fic 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's headline is like that, to get your attention and $s. Martial Law 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate words for Communication or Dialogue

I am looking for the word communication or dialogue in other languages preferably arabic and greek. Hish4amy 08:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dialogue" is Greek already, from "double knowledge", I'd guess... 惑乱分からん 13:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "double", it's a prefix meaning "through" or "across", as in exchanging knowledge between two people (the same prefix as diagram or diagnosis). For Arabic, "naqasha" is the verb for discuss and debate, so maybe the noun "munaqasha" can also mean dialogue. (There is probably a more specific word for it though.) Adam Bishop 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USMC War Memorial

Is the flag on the USMC War Memorial a genuine cloth flag, or is it a solid part of the sculpture? -- SGBailey 08:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the two entirely different positions of the flag in the two images on that article, I would say it's cloth. That and the fact that the article states that it's one of the few gov't places where the flag is flown 24 hrs. a day, would indicate to me that it's not a solid and permanent part of the sculpture. Dismas|^(talk) 09:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good analysis. Original research: I've been there. I've seen it. It's cloth. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interest rates

If for example you felt interest rates were going to remain the same or go up or even down with the European Central Bank, how do people make money from this and how do they go about it?

I don't know much about it but speculation may be a good place for you to start reading. Dismas|^(talk) 10:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Hedge fund. They are always taking a bet on interest rates. The easiest way to bet is through bonds. If you think interest rates are going to plummet, you buy bonds set at the old interest rate. Their value goes way up. --Zeizmic 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But don't invest in too many hedge funds, or they will call you a hedgehog. StuRat 15:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? .... Do you have a problem with hedgehogs? Hedgehog rights NOW! DirkvdM 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont be so prickly 8-)--Light current 08:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way in which hedge funds and other investors can gain from a change in interest rates is through the buying and selling of derivatives, of which there are many different types. Marco polo 15:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Copyright?

Awesome! refering to my question not to long ago (with the same title) - if i copied a wikipedia article and put it on my website i would not be doing anything against the rules as long as i provide a link to the original wikipedia article (or is it to the article history?) and i write on the page that i copied the article to that it has been copied from wikipedia. Would there be anything else i would need to do? Do the same rule apply to images? Please help! Im not to good at all this law stuff! lol. Thak you!

You're almost there! :) You also need to license the text under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) - so you can't copy an article from Wikipedia, acknowledge it came from Wikipedia, put a link to the Wikipedia article, and then write "Copyright 2006 Mike Smith" (or whatever your name/website is) below it. To be sure, the best thing you can do is put a note on your website that the text you copied from Wikipedia came from Wikipedia, link to the article and say that it's licensed under the GFDL (a link to which would be good too). In that case, you can't do anything wrong!

For images, it's more complicated - it depends on the license of the image you're using. Click on the image you're wanting to use, and scroll down to the "license" section. Read the license under which the image is released, which will tell you what you can and can't do with it. If, for a specific image, you don't understand the license or have another question, feel free to ask again!

I hope this helped. For the future, this kind of question might be better off at the Help desk. — QuantumEleven 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for asking! I hope your website benefits from the Wikipedia content, and it's good (and somewhat rare) that you want to do what's right. Second, though I can't speak on behalf of QuantumEleven, you should know that we don't give out official legal advice here, and I would assume that QE wasn't offering any to you either. That said, QE's advice seems sound to me, and I can almost assure you that if you do what QE suggests you'll be fine. But, I am not a lawyer, don't play one on TV or movies, and sometime can't even follow the plot on Perry Mason. –RHolton ≡– 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be a lawyer to read and understand the GFDL. It is not the clearest of the copyleft licenses but it is meant to be readable by human beings, not just lawyers. --Fastfission 18:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL. The GFDL says, in a nutshell, that you can use any content licensed under the GFDL as long as the final product for which you are using the content (i.e. the new website you are using it with) is also licensed under the GFDL. You also need to give attribution, like QuantumEleven said, but it is this aspect of the GFDL (it is "viral") that is most important — it is a copyleft license which allows content to be free so long as it perpetuates its free status. That means that someone else could come and re-use the content on your website as well in the way you are wanting to reuse the content of Wikipedia's site. So you might want to think about it first. If you are happy with the idea of someone reusing your content, then by all means, license it as GFDL. If you are not happy with that, then you can't use Wikipedia content. Wikipedia allows free use of its content as long as you allow free use of your own content. --Fastfission 18:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Stones

Hi,

I was wondering how they remove the stones from olives? The hole are generally smaller than the stones that come out but if you buy them in a jar they are never damaged

Interesting

Thanks

Graham

There are several ways of pitting an olive. The Olive Oil Source mentions some of them.---Sluzzelin 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See our article on Oliver Stone. Oops, that's a letter off, isn't it ? :-) StuRat 15:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you could also try Olive Oyl... 惑乱分からん 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of India

Which Article of the Constitution of india gives precedence to consitutional provision over the laws made by the Union Parliament/State Legislatures--62.231.245.3 12:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In India, what fraction of the members of the State Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishads) are elected by the local bodies--62.231.245.3 12:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced Salt Area

Sometimes while going on a highway we see a sign saying "Reduced Salt Area". What does this mean?

Namit

In which country? I would assume this is an area in which road salt is kept to a minimum in order to protect the environment.--Shantavira 15:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems so - here is a link from Massachusetts. Natgoo 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, so if the cops open your trunk and find large bags of white powder, it had better be cocaine, or you will be in big trouble ! :-) StuRat 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: California Proposition 13 (1978)

after long searching of google & yahoo, i can NOT find anywhere the 7 or exemptions/exclusions to reassessment, such as: divorce, death, foreclosure, etc.;

does anyone know where to find that listing???

thanks

Well, if you looked at California Proposition 13 (1978), you'd notice it has a link on the end to the full text of the amendment. The listed exemptions are there, but they are not inclusive. I do believe, however, that foreclosure is not an exemption. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington

If George Washington was a member of one of Todays political Parties, Which one would be be closest to?

Neither of the big parties. See here for a touch about the subject. For the most part, Washington saw political parties as divisive. —Mitaphane _talk 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that must be the smartest president I heard about in a long time! 131.211.210.13 10:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In his farewell address he warned against the dangers of politial parties. StuRat 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Mass Question

I should really kick myself since I am a Catholic but sometimes during mass they bring out a gold lava-lamp type thing on a chain and when they swing it essence comes out. What do you call it. Also, why does the Catholic faith use smoke and essence more than others? 207.70.37.9 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are probably looking for a Thurible or Censer for burning Incense which is particularly popular with Eastern rite catholics. The largest example is said to be El Botafumeiro at the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.

As to why, you are likely to get a more informed response from a Catholic - there are some clues in the incense article. As far as I can tell it is just typical religious mumbo jumbo like holy water and stained glass windows, designed to inspire awe and religious reverence in the unwashed masses. One might suggest that since they got an early delivery of frankincense near the origin of Christianity, the Catholics have figured there must be some reason for waving it around. In truth, many religions before and after Christianity have burnt incense as an offering to the gods. -- Solipsist 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a thurible, and an incense holder in general is called a censer. The censer article says that the use of incense during Catholic services "represents the prayers of the people rising towards Heaven.". Natgoo 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find it used a lot in Episcopal and Lutheran churches. It is a bit "High Church." Edison 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I have never seen a thurible being used in a Catholic church. I guess I've never been in a sufficiently conservative church. Adam Bishop 19:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my days as an altar server at my local RC church, back in the late 1980s and through the 1990s, we used the thurible at Sunday morning Mass at all the times described in the Thurible article. Our current parish priest isn't keen on the smoke, so it now only makes an appearance at the Easter Vigil service. We got a nice new one in the mid-1990s (thurible, not priest!_), but somebody (probably me) dented the lid, so it failed to close properly. Two servers always used to take the thurible back into the sacristy during the Homily, and "recharge" it with another piece of charcoal and some more incense - it really does burn down quite quickly. Is this a common experience at other churches? --Hassocks5489 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, I've seen it used at Catholic masses on Holy Thursday, Easter (both the vigil and the masses on Easter Sunday itself), occasionally at Sunday masses in the weeks after Easter, and at funerals. Chuck 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was younger, some parishioner's son came back from the monastary school he attended, I can only assume bringing monastary-strength incense back with him. I don't know what it was supposed to do, but it gave everyone a light head and a hacking cough. Skittle 12:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as Archie Bunker said, "Those priests are always sprinkling incest all over everyone." :-) StuRat 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Death rates of US soldiers

What is the daily death rate of US soldiers in Iraq?Jamesino 18:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2.47 per day, per 'US and "Coalition" Mortality Rate' at Pollkatz, http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/

Edison 19:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the Iraqi death rate? Something like 100 per day? DirkvdM 05:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively few Iraqis are killed by US soldiers, with far more killed by foreign terrorists and the bloody Shiite/Sunni civil war. StuRat 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked. If you pin down US death rate to specific attacking groups it will also be much lower per group, but the original question was also not about the US death reate at the hands of one specific ethnic group or whatever. So I ask again, what is the Iragi death rate? And since this is supposed to be a war on terrorism, what is the worldwide death rate per day caused by terrorists? Funny one never hears such statistics. DirkvdM 06:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism is quite hard to define, anyway, "one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist" as Massive Attack puts it... 惑乱分からん 12:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that Bush knows what he is fighting and therefore has a definition of terrorism, what is the death toll by his definition? DirkvdM 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be framing the question in such a way as to imply that all deaths in Iraq are the responsibility of the US. The US invasion might well have been a triggering event, but the hatred Iraqis have for one another would have inevitable eventually resulted in war, and, in my opinion, will inevitably result in Iraq being split into 3 countries (Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish). If you include deaths caused worldwide by groups that don't garner international headlines, like the Colombian FARC, the Nepalese Maoist rebels, and many other such groups, the deaths by terrorists would be very high, indeed. StuRat 18:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Saddam had been there for over a decade. There had been two wars against Iran and Kuwait. Iraq was in a bad shape after the two wars. But there was no such a runaway civil war. GWB broke into a gas station and blew the whole thing up. And you say the gas station is going to explode anyway. Let me rephrase it. If the Russians entered the U.S. in the 1960s and eliminated the stablizing forces, maybe they would have triggered another civil war. Black v. White., North v. South., Rep. v. Dem., Men v. Women ... -- Toytoy 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam would have died or lost power eventually, and then the civil war would have begun, much like what happened in Yugoslavia. You just can't keep people who hate each other together in a single country forever. A strong military dictatorship only delays the inevitable. StuRat 02:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Saddam would have died or lost power eventually" ... Say that to Kim Jong-Il or his daddy. FACT: At least ONE totalitarian oppressive regime stayed in a metastable state for decades until unauthorized U.S. invasion. After the illegal war, Iraqi people gained no extra benefits but entered a bloody and unstoppable civil war. The U.S. pays peanuts for their damages.

Decades, yes, centuries, probably not. The longest running recent murderous totalitarian regime was the Soviet Union, with about a 70 year run (although they stopped committing widespread genocide after about 40 years, when Stalin died). StuRat 17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centuries? WTF centruries are you talking about? The U.S. has only a 230-year history and the American Civil War was no more than 150 years ago. The Soviet Union lasted 69 years and its natural collapse did not result in tribal warfare. The People's Republic of China (1949-) experienced a peaceful revive since 1978. No tribal or religious warfare in China and Chinese people are becoming educated and rich. Bad human rights records in some cases, yes. No civil war. People are generally happy. Boris Yeltsin was a poster boy because he was democratic. But he screwed Russia badly because he was drunk, incompetent and corrupt. Did the U.S. invade Russia and liberalize Russian people? What if Martians invaded the North American colonies to save Native Americans from genocide in the 1700s?

The reason there isn't war in China is that the government hasn't fallen yet. When the Soviet Union fell it kicked off a number of wars and revolutions, perhaps the most notable being the war in Chechnya. I don't know WTF you are talking about when you mention how old the US is, it's not a genocidal (not since WW2, anyhow) totalitarian regime, so totally unrelated to this discussion. StuRat 00:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People in China are NOT generally happy, only those you see on the Chinese news or in tourist areas are. The majority of Chinese are poor farmers or poor factory workers. And don't forget about the oppressed minorities like the Tibetans, Mongols, and Uyghurs. StuRat 00:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC) StuRat 00:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ask someone in the South Bronx if they're happy. DirkvdM 06:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALMOST FOR SURE: If Saddam really had WMD. The U.S. would not invade Iraq. Many Iraqi people would be safe and alive today. They would not love their leader. But there would not be a civil war. There would not be so many unhappy kids waiting to be the next suicide bomber. You really should be ashamed and stop arguing. -- Toytoy 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mongolians, Aztecs, Vikings, Martians, or the Beatles would have invaded Poland anyway" ... I guess Adolf Hitler would have say something like that. "6 million Jews would have died in hospitals eventually" ... SHAME ON YOU. Who authorized GWB to invade Iraq and accelerate this fucking inevitable civil war? -- Toytoy 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked about the Iraqi deathtoll. I just wanted to put things in perspective, showing that the US deathtoll is relatively uninterresting. I wasn't talking about the US, you brought that up. But if that's what you want to talk about, the latest thing I heard is that the deaath toll has risen since the US invasion and that the total death toll is now around 700,000. For a 5 year period that's about 500 dead per day. That's a 200-fold of the US death toll. It's also 10% of the holocaust, if you want another perspective (no, you don't need to tell me that's a completely different thing because of the way they died). DirkvdM 06:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's completely different; if you want to compare the total death toll from the Iraq War with WW2, you would, of course, compare it to the total death toll from WW2. If you want to compare those murdered while in German custody with something, that would compare with those murdered while in US custody. I make that comparison to be around 9,000,000 to 10. StuRat 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me put in a better perspective. According to World War II casualties, the death toll was 3.17% of the population of the countries involved. The population of Iraq is about 29 million. A death toll of 700,000 means about 2.3%. Not the same, but the impact on the population in terms of death toll is not too different from that of WWII. At the moment. WWII is over, the Iraq war isn't yet. So let me have a look at a war that it is often compared with, that is over, the Vietnam war. I don't know what the population was in tha late 1950's, but now it is 80 million, so let's halve that, 40 million. Death toll 2-4 million. That's 5-10% of the population. Let me compare that with the big black page in Dutch history, the Politionele acties. Indonesian death toll 150,000. Present population 222 million. Half that and we come to a death toll of 0.15% of the population. Shame-wise I'd rather be Dutch than USian. If I were a nationalist, that is. :) DirkvdM 06:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a President

Why has the american cinemas of various social figureheads become so outraged by the film Death of a President, considering the countless war movies, and films in which various foreign leaders are assasinated, why do they think it is ok to react so differently about this one? Philc _T^E_C^I 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life, sitting foreign leaders? What movies do you have in mind? All I can think of are the South Park movie (Saddam Hussein) and Team America (Kim Jong Il), and in both of these cases the target audience would share a nearly universal dislike of the character in question. (Plus, of course, they're off-the-wall comedies involving cartoon characters or puppets.) But I haven't seen a lot of war movies. --Allen 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that people universally dislike these people is because of propaganda such as guess what, war movies, among other things. This movie isnt even propoganda, it doesnt glorify or revere his death, or portray it as a good thing. It seems pretty factually accurate to what would happen to me, further US Laws would infringe on the countries citizens rights, in order to protect the state, and a bunch of innocents would get sent to guantanamo, in a desperate search for the killer. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing what Allen said, what other movies depict the murder of a real-life, sitting leader of a country - particularly treating such a death seriously, not in South Park comedy? Not very many, if any. Personally, I think it's an interesting premise for a movie, but you can't exactly be surprised that people would be offended. What if someone made a movie based on the murder, say, your mother? You might be a little offended, right? (That has nothing to do with banning the movie, or any other restrictions of filmmakers' rights - and as far as I know no one, thankfully, has tried to get DoaP banned.) When the intent of the premise is to be provocative, you can't exactly be surprised when people are provoked, can you? zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it provocative for a film to show the president of the US dying/being killed? Dr Who could show most of Parliament killed (I think. I actually missed this one), and people just enjoyed it. Skittle 11:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Mars Attacks featured the Martians killing off all of Congress and the President, but that was a fictional President, and Martians aren't a serious threat, and this wasn't going to give any ideas to terrorists, so there wasn't any objection to it. StuRat 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference (even in fiction) between killing fictional leaders and actual real leaders. As for giving terrorists ideas, I don't think that's a problem: "Hey Osama, I just saw this movie in which the President of the United States was killed by terrorists". "Damn, that's a good idea. Why did we never think of that?". DJ Clayworth 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about specific suggestions of ways to kill him and security holes the terrorists could use to their advantage. StuRat 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should tell the terrorists not to put beans up their noses, if they are that suggestible.Edison 14:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think thats quite how terrorists operate, they're not unruly children who you avoid giving ideas, they are clever organised people. Besides anyone with the intelligence to pull off such a feat easily could have thought of it himself. Also the movies showed well how bad it would be for everyone if he was killed. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that, to the best of my knowledge, the film's distributors have not made any screeners available yet in the United States, and I know for a fact it has not aired on American television, so most Americans discussing this movie, from the average man on the street all the way up to the actual theater owners and most movie critics, have little to go on besides the name of the movie and that infamous still photo of "Bush" falling over after being shot. If the distributors would actually give some of the decision-makers a DVD of the movie, it would help smooth things over at least to some extent. --Aaron 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember looking at the back of a magazine and seeing the advert for Death of a President, which was to be shown on Channel 4 (I don't know if it's aired yet). The picture on the back was of George Bush slumping foward, his hand to his chest, with a man stopping him from falling foward. As I am particularly emotionally fragile I was shocked and saddened, even close to tears, at this photoshopped picture of a man I do not know dying (I have no opinions on his policies). As he is your President, and some people like him, I can see why people would be offended. Vitriol 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Warning: Long response follows.) I'm not entirely sure I'm reading the question correctly (I don't quite understand what is meant by "american cinemas of various social figureheads"), and I absolutely find bizarre the comment that the only reason so many people hate Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il is because of "propaganda", but I'll give it a try anyway: I presume you're asking why so many American theater owners have said they will not allow this film to be played on their screens (which is, of course, their absolute right). There are, IMHO, three reasons:

1) It's too big of a business risk. The political divide between left and right in the United States is unusually strong right now; if consumers with right-wing views find this movie offensive (whether they know about the actual plot is irrelevant) and thus boycott a given theater for showing it, that theater could lose roughly 50% of their customers. That's enough to put many theaters out of business entirely. There is, of course, a risk that left-wingers could attempt a boycott of a theater for not showing the movie, but that's far less likely for a number of reasons I won't get into here.

2) There is a very small (but higher than zero) legal risk to any theater that runs the movie. It is, after all, about the murder of an actual, living human being, so if someone actually does try to physically attack President Bush at any point in the next couple of years, and any evidence can be found that the attempted assailant saw this movie in one of those theaters, those theaters could be sued for millions of dollars on any of a number of different charges, and the owners might even face arrest on criminal charges (again, highly unlikely, but still possible).

3) (And this is the biggest reason by far, if you ask me) This is one of those cases where, sociologically, the United States just isn't the same as the United Kingdom. Whereas in the UK, the Prime Minister is still considered, to a large extent "just another one of the blokes that happened to pluck the best job", Americans consider the Presidency a "higher office", and tend to give the person in that office a certain amount of deference and respect, even if they don't like the particular individual holding that office at the moment. (For evidence of this, pick up any autobiography of any man who has been President of the United States in the last fifty years or so. Practically all of them detail the instant distance and loneliness felt by the author the moment the TV networks announced him as the winner on Election Night. (Let's use Bill Clinton as as example.) The atmosphere in the hotel room (the candidates pretty much always wait in hotel rooms on Election Night) starts out with back-slapping, we're-all-in-this-together excitement ("Ya know what, Billy Boy, I think we're really gonna win this thing, baby!" and "Come onnnnnnnnn, Clinton! Yee Ha!"). But the moment those news anchors say "That's it; Bill Clinton has the election locked up," the mood instantly turns to semi-sober "Congratulations, Mr. President" and "The White House just called, Mr. President; they're sending over some briefing books for you to examine immediately." From that moment until the day he dies, practically the only people that will ever call him "Bill" to his face ever again are members of his immediate family, and even his best friends will treat him not as Bill Clinton, the guy they've known since they were seven years old, but as President of the United States of America (except, perhaps, in moments of total privacy, and even then they'll stiffen up if Clinton gets mad in their presence over something). It's just the way American culture is. As such, most Americans find the subject matter of this movie, regardless of how tactfully it's handled, somewhat tasteless, if not outright offensive.

- (For more evidence of the sociologial differences here, compare how deferentially the US President is treated during any TV interview (whether one-on-one with a famous news anchor or via an official press conference) with how the UK Prime Minister is treated during, well, just about any interview with anyone anywhere. If Jeremy Paxman tried to interview the President as he does the PM, he'd probably be literally dragged out of the room by Secret Service agents before he could even get his second question out. And the chances of a Question Time-style debate ever taking place in the United States is zero. That sort of confrontational style just isn't done to a president.)

I must also agree with those above regarding Mars Attacks and Dr. Who episodes. There's a big, big difference between making a movie about attempts to assassinate fictional presidents and prime ministers or to blow up a generic "Parliament" filled with MPs that don't actually exist (movies with these themes come out on a nearly-continous basis, and nobody bats an eyelid; indeed, most of them are quite popular, as they're good dumb action-adventure fun) and a film that's about the assassination of the real-life, sitting President. I kind of doubt that a movie called "Killing Tony Blair" would go unnoticed even in the UK. I'm sure it would have a much easier time getting placement in theaters, but you can be sure there would be lots of very negative discussion about it in the UK news media. --Aaron 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the depiction of the murder of any living person quite distasteful. StuRat 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: There is a great number of armed and dangerous political extremists in the U.S. Today we call them patriotic, God-fearing militia members. One day we may call them terriorists. JUST DON'T SHOW THAT MOVIE! -- Toytoy 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians-cum-Celebrities!

Just out of interest and curiosity: Are there any Wikipedians which could be found out there (either he/she has left Wikipedia or currently still active) who was once happen to be or/and is presently a Super-Star or a Celebrity (like for instance: <font=Times New Roman>movie stars, actors, actresses, artistes, divas, singers, rock stars, musicians, politicians, television show hosts, supermodels, major-league athletes, etc.) in Show Business and of any kind related from the entertainment and media industry anywhere around the world? --onWheeZierPLot 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a couple here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles Joneleth 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are.Edison 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a faq. Alas the link doesn't work because it's been archived. A better method should be devised for this. DirkvdM 05:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President Bush's dates in August 2001

For a research paper I need to find out, if possible, two dates: when President Bush began his August 2001 vacation in Texas and when he returned to Washington. Also what was the date of the Presidential Daily Briefing which contained the warning about bin Laden planning to attack within U.S.

These answers will help me very much. I know I could perhaps find them in the Public Library but I am trying to finish a paper while suffering from bronchitis. Thank you for any information you may provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinaaltman (talk • contribs) 18:07, October 9, 2006

Have you looked at the 9/11 Commission report? [1] I suspect it'll be buried in there somewhere; there may even be a helpful timeline in an appendix. Shimgray | talk | 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the PDB was August 6, 2001. Bush's 2001 vacation in Texas (which, I cannot emphasize enough, is by no means an actual "vacation" as any regular person would define it; the "White House" goes wherever the president does, 24/7/365), was from August 4 to August 30. --Aaron 16:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loony Laws

Just found a book that depicts laws from all over the planet that are a real laugh riot, yet are enforced. One good one is that in one jurisdiction, you may NOT take a bath naked at all, another is that you can't sleep in a refrigerator. The book is Loony Laws...THAT YOU NEVER KNEW YOU WERE BREAKING, written by a Robert Wane Pelton, ISBN 0804107440. Is that worthy of a article ? Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. If the book doesn't include the following choice item of Australian taxation law, it should:

For the purpose of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:

a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and

b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:

i) having happened at a particular time; and

ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and

c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:

i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or

ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).

JackofOz 00:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does that law work? Couldn't they say, "We're treating your tax records as if you won a $100 million jackpot - but you didn't pay taxes on that money, so pay up or go to jail"? zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm naive enough to believe that if it were truly unjust in its application, it would not have survived parliamentary scrutiny (cough cough). But read in isolation, it sure as heck seems to confirm our worst fears of bureaucrats and their political masters. JackofOz 06:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that's to cover situations as happened with Josiah Stamp, 1st Baron Stamp, then reputed to be the second-richest person in England, who was killed in an air raid together with his eldest son and heir in 1941. It's impossible to say who died first, but the law held that the father died first, so one set of death duties (taxes) was payable, then his son died and another set of death duties was payable. Nice, eh? -- Arwel (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books) gives chapter & verse on notability applie to books. I'd think that your example is probably not very notable. Luckily the minimum threshold test is, does the book article get nominated for and survive deletion? So feel free to add a page if you like, and see how it fares. BTW, I;ve edited your question slightly in the hope that the auto ISBN doodab will kick in & produce a link for the book. We'll see. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Many bills are voted on in the U.S. congress by people who have not read them. The Powers That Be (the leadership of the majority party) often throw in clauses to achieve little goals of their own, at the last minute, on a 500 page bill. On top of that the present President, rather than vetoing a bill which contains clauses he doesn't like, just signs it and issues a signing statement to the effect that he and the Executive Branch will not be bound by it and will ignore it. So if the U.S has Rule of Law, it is laws enacted without reading or understanding, with sections that are willfully ignored by the Executive.Edison 17:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]