Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 27

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.

< July 26 Humanities desk archive July 28 >

19th Century Portrait Custom

In most of the 19th century (maybe earlier) it was customary for the subject of a portrait photograph or painting to place one hand (usually the right hand) inside of an open coat or shirt, concealing the hand from the picture. Does anyone know the reason for this or how the custom originated? --69.1.26.166 01:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was the origin of this custom, but the person best known for doing this was probably Napoleon I of France (Napoleon Bonaparte). A quick Google search seems to indicate this was due to some kind of stomach complaint. It's possible that this pose was adopted by military types in the 19th century in deference to Napoleon's military prowess. --Canley 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about the subject, but this page, discussing Napoleon in particular, seems to be fairly well referenced. It says that the custom existed before Napeoleon, possibly as a revival of something going as far back as the ancient Greeks. It doesn't give any explanation as to why it first appeared, however. --Vardion 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how germane it is (taking Vardion's page as true), but Roman sculptures and portraits of noble Romans would have the hand on the breast to indicate oratory being given. It was a "noble" pose, as that hand was in and on the toga, which by itself indicated wealth. Only men of rank got the toga, and Cicero, among others, was often portrayed with the hand across in mid speech. Geogre 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

One example of a modern soldier doing this pose before Napoleon made it famous is this portrait of George Washington from 1772. As a young man, Washington's military heroes were guys like Frederick the Great—I wonder if there's a portrait of Frederick with this pose? After Napoleon, William Tecumseh Sherman was notably depicted striking the pose. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • George S. Patton struck the pose, too, according to his biopic. Then again, he may have believed that he had been Frederick the Great. Geogre 12:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

General Pershing and the uprising in the PHILLIPINES

During his duty years GENERAL PERSHING confronted an uprising in the Phillipines brought on by TERRORIST UPRISINGS. I don't remember which president it was (HOOVER or WILSON)but he was instructed to take care of the matter and he did by capturing a few enemy troops and proceeded to allow them to watch the soldiers load their cartridges and shells in the munitions area and then dip each bullet or shell point in PIGS blood and then carelessly let the captives escape back to their respective enemy camps. AS soon as the message of the blood tipped bullets was delivered , the war was strangely over. Does anybody know where I can find the whole story???

See Philippine-American war. Nonetheless, calling the natives of the Philipines terrorists seems Americentric (as in it only tells of the American side of the story). --ColourBurst 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, late in the war, the rebels did "blend into the civilian population" after each attack, which is banned by the laws of war, as it essentially "dares" the military to kill off all the civilians to get to the attackers (which, I believe, is just what the US did). This is quite similar to what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing now, with similar results. So, calling them terrorists isn't that far out of line. StuRat 20:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a difference there, since the U.S. were calling them terrorists in order to make their Imperialistic takeover more palatable to the Americans (there was a significant number of people who were opposed, including Mark Twain and William Jennings Bryan). I think calling people terrorists in a country you're about to invade to justify your invasion seems a little disingenuous. And please don't mention 9/11, the attack was on American soil. --ColourBurst 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A few fact checks are needed here. First, I wouldn't call the movement of American troops into the Philippines an "invasion", as they were replacing Spanish troops (after Spain ceded the country to the US following the Spanish-American War). Also, the natives weren't called terrorists until several years later when they took up the tactic of attacking and then running to hide among civilians. In fact, they may not have been called terrorists even then, as I'm not sure that the term had yet been coined. StuRat 07:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The story I am looking for concerns the uprising which to my understanding was by any estimate 100%Muslim and if you have pigs blood in your veins or in your system, then you dont get the VIRGINS and you dont go wherever you are suppose to end up. I know it happened and Im not really interested in the politics of the issue,I would just like to read the account.There are many 20 to 30 year old fathers that will never come home again because of sombody elses desire to change the world to their liking. I can only say that if I were in such a position as our troops are, Id sure try some old time proven methods of retaliation .The great part of this story is that it was done and it worked,and the weird part may well be that only 1 piglet was used and the word got around and that was the end , nobody wants to get a bullet in the rear with pigs blood on it, especially in IRAQ. Refrick Nimby7/28/06

Sounds like a myth to me. StuRat 07:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We could sure prove or disprove it by trying in on the battlefields if some of the big shot generals had the guts to try it. Guest comment : Stuart Timmons 29 July 06

Cool, another Stuart ! StuRat 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That could be a very good thing. Or a very bad thing. We'll just have to wait and see.  :--) JackofOz 13:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See here for one of the many dismantlings of this balderdash. Muslims are human beings, not vampires who can be conveniently defeated with some kind of silver bullet. --TotoBaggins 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't spit on the right side of the sidewalk every other Tuesday

Does anyone know what these, silly, often very old laws are called? A couple examples I remember are you can't spit on the right side of the sidewalk every other Tuesday , wearing fake mustaches to church is illegal (I remember this one was passed in Massachusetts^{[citation needed]}, etc. If possible, could someone direct me to an article of them? I've searched but I can't find them. A web site of them would do as well. Thanks --71.117.42.124 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wacky laws? It brings up a few google hits. --LynnMarie 03:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• You must have mistaken spoofs with reality. See Portal:Law.--Patchouli 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition Amendment might be close to what you seek, but Amendment XXI repealed it.--Patchouli 05:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rita Verdonk is known for proposing some ridiculous laws, such as a law against speaking other languages than Dutch in public spaces. This would have been a bit of a problem for foreign students and such. Of course the law wasn't passed - it was only intended to appeal to the xenophobic part of the Netherlands. Another xenophobic law was however passed in Germany, saying that a religious head dress wasn't allowed for teachers. It took a judge to point out that that applied not only to muslims but also to christians, ie nuns. They're now banned from appearing before class. At last a positive result of the recent wave of xenophobia. :) I wonder, though, if this also applies to calottes and therefore rabbi's. DirkvdM 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Snopes is usually full of these sort of goodies-hotclaws**==(81.134.68.10 09:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

• Thanks to Khomeini [I'm being sarcastic], Iranian women must dress like mullah being wearing a chador or a manteau. All their hair must be covered. Here is a fate of an Iranian female who refused

“ Atefeh Rajabi (1988 to 2004 August 15) was a sixteen year-old Iranian girl who was executed in Iran after being sentenced to death by an Iranian judge, Haji Rezaii, for allegedly having committed "acts incompatible with chastity" (having sexual intercourse with an older man), and for removing her hijab while arguing with her judge in court. ”

The judge executed her personally. Of course, since he is Muslim, he can get away with it and have a higher moral ground.--Patchouli 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, being the US means one can get away with a lot of shit and have a higher moral ground. How was that legal construct again, that allows the US to torture people in Cuba? (Clarification for US readers - I'm being sarcstic too). DirkvdM 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC0

The U.S. doesn't let its prison guards violently pull at the penises of dissident as a form of torture the way heavy-bearded Iranian Hezbollahis do.--Patchouli 22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Ah, you're right, that sort of thing is not done in the US. That will make the victims very happy. DirkvdM 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"It's only torture if it leaves permanent physical damage". --Serie 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. Mental torture can be even worse (although that is hard to measure). DirkvdM 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you think that was a bit uncalled for, I'm just annoyed with this "let's hit on Muslims" fad. For really stupid and cruel laws it would probably be better to look at the rule of people like Idi Amin. I just can't remember any examples, but there must be some beauties there. DirkvdM 11:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Idi Amin was a pro-Palestinian Muslim.--Patchouli 22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know that. But he just happens to be a muslim. He wasn't particularly known for being one and that's not the reason I mentioned him. By the way, this is ironic, considering that Israel (and Great Britain) helped him with his coup. And I believe the US were involved as well. DirkvdM 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

He was a foe of Israelis and rose to power due to Milton Obote incompetence by not totally stripping Idi Amin of power. He also aided Palestinian kidnappers during the hijacking of a passenger airplane (Operation Entebbe in 1976). The international community hailed him due to ignorance. Ayatollah Khomeini became the Man of the Year in 1979, too. I don't know of any U.S. involvement.

The United States does so many things around the world that people think everything is done by the United States.--Patchouli 07:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But if no one hit on Muslims, what would your excuse be for gratuitous swipes at the U.S.? Or is being "sarcstic" a good enough excuse on its own? -Nunh-huh 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh? DirkvdM 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is really funny how a lot of pro-Muslims and Muslims in democracies praise theocracies and justify their action, but never move there themselves. Muhammad Ali came to Iran, went to a four-star hotel provided by the mullahs, praised Islam, and guess what? He swiftly came back to the U.S.

I also don't understand females who live in Europe, America, and Australia and go to a mosques and observe the hijab. They want the benefits of freedom and at the same time claim holiness, imitate Muhammad's wives, and laud Islamic theocracies.--Patchouli 22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed your indentation, assuming you are referring to me. I'm not a Muslim nor a pro-Muslim (whatever that is). Actually, I think religion is one of the worst things that happened to mankind. This xenophobic bickering that leads to war is exactly what I mean. And I've been to several Muslim countries (for a total time of at least half a year). I also came back (I wasn't planning on emigrating), but the biggest Muslim country happens to be one of the two I'd love to go back to one day, partly because the people are so wonderful (Indonesia - the other being New Zealand, partly for the same reason). DirkvdM 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm... getting back to the question at hand, try Blue law and Blue Laws. --hydnjo talk 18:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Lucille Lund

I could not find an article on the 1930's movie star, Lucille Lund ? She starred in many movies (mostly Universal Studios) in the 1930's. She was known as a "natural beauty" (Norwegian heritage). Some of the movies she starred in were "Horseplay", "Saturday's Millions" ,"Timber War", Fighting Through", "Range Warfare", "The Awful Goof", "Calling All Doctors", "The Big Squirt", "Girls Can Play", "Blake of Scotland Yard", - "Healthy, Wealthy & Dumb" + "Three Dumb Clucks" - all with the three stooges & "The Black Cat" - with Boris Karlof ! Her 2 daughters, Terry & Kimmie were famous teenage Los Angeles models & also known as "natural beauties" (half Norwegian). I'm not sure how to "add an article" to Wikipedia, so I didn't even try to add any of this info.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.227.186.206 (talk • contribs) 04:19, July 27, 2006 (UTC).

• You can click on the following: Lucille Lund. It will allow you to create the article. The most common way to create an article is to put the desired lemma in the "search" box. When it comes up with nothing, you get the chance to create a new article. The other way is to go to any article, look at the URL in your browser, and overwrite the article's name in the URL with the desired article name, and you will immediately be taken to the "create this article" section. Geogre 11:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  This requires the user to create an account first, by clicking the "create account" link in the top right-hand corner of any Wikipedia page. --Lambiam^Talk 10:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

nakshatra diamonds

are nakshatra diamond jewellery cut and polished in india or singapore or belgium ?--212.72.3.31 06:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• they are made in mumbai--Mightright 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Which is the new name for Bombay in India (in case the questioner is unsure). Lisiate 23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of Drinkers Compared to Non-Drinkers

Are there any statistics for the ratio of non-drinkers to drinkers in the US? Worldwide?--Maryann10016 07:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

By 'drink' I assume you mean alcohol. But do you mean complete abstinence (from birth to death)? That would be hard to measure. For example, many muslims would lie about this because their religion forbids the consumption of alcohol. DirkvdM 08:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Try the CDC Nowimnthing 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help nowimnthing. It is interesting that I could find no statistics that compared non-drinkers to drinkers. All the statistics found compared drinking large amounts of alcohol to smaller amounts but not comparing 0 alcohol consumption to (any) consumption. --Maryann10016 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

DirkvD- right in your assumption. "I mean" choosing not drinking any alcohol as a lifestyle as compared to drinking alcohol as a lifestyle-regardless of the length of duration. Like marriage. Most often thought of as a lifetime choice but sometimes unchosen (50%?) due to the vicissitudes of human nature.--Maryann10016 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Amount of Vegetarians compared to Meat Eaters in US

What is the ratio of vegetarians to meat eaters in the USA? In the world? Any statistics comparing the amount of vegetarians to vegans in the USA? The world?--Maryann10016 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be difficult to get consistent figures. According to our articles on vegetarianism and veganism, either 2.6% or 4% (respectively) of the population of the USA are vegetarians, about 5% in the UK, and the figure is about 30% in India. You will find more statistics in those articles.--Shantavira 18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you have those figures backwards - by definition, there are at least as many vegetarians as vegans. Vegans are a subset of vegetarians. --Bmk 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sha- was likely referring to statistics reported in the aforementioned articles. I'd expect a lot of flux, yeah? Vegetarian/veganism seems to be picked up more often as a temporary fashion than a permanent lifestyle choice...

Do those figures account for all those people who claim they are vegetarian, but eat poultry and / or fish (ie, not vegetarian)? Proto::type 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do some vegetarians eat fish? I remember I tried to contest fish as a vegetarian food when it was an answer in a test! (We were given a menu in French and had to select a vegetarian meal, when all included meat. I also know a vegetarian and former vegan who ate fish and gave an explaination... but I forgot. --Bearbear 16:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fish is obviously more like meat than like vegetables, but it has traditionally been considered not to be meat. Which is why, back when Catholics were not permitted to eat meat on Fridays, fish and chips shops in areas where significant numbers of Catholics live used to do their best business on that day. JackofOz 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shantavira. That was helpful. --Maryann10016 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant actual vegetarians/vegans to meat/fish/poultry eaters. Then possibly going further to compare vegans to vegetarians or vice versa. I'm taking into account that people often have trouble making lifetime commitments. --Maryann10016 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

John Entwistle died on July 27 or June 27

Dear Helpdesk,

In the article on John Entwistle it states he died on June 27, 2002, however he is mentioned as having died on the page of "July 27". I assume you are mixing up June and July and the real month should be June.

Can you please correct this ?

Best regards, Hubito.

• You are correct. However, you can correct the article yourself by clicking on the "edit" link. I will make the correction now. Geogre 11:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Information management systems

Hello everyone

May some one please help me what is the difference between a document management system, records management system, an information management system and a database management system. Can you give me examples of each if possible?

Thank you very much

OK.

A document management system is a system that manages documents.

A record management system is a system that manages records.

An information management system is a system that manages information.

A database management system is a system that manages databases.

Easy! Proto::type 15:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And I've added links above for your convenience. I sometimes think we need a pretty template that says "This is an encyclopedia. You can look it up for yourself."--Shantavira 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

rate this

do you find this funny and which site do you find such stuff

50 things not 2 do on an elevator--Mightright 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Make race car noises when anyone gets on or off.
2. Blow your nose and offer to show the contents of your tissue to other passengers.

...etc.... edited down by Lomn all right if u can do all these 50 things next time ur in an elevator then u seriously hav no self respect!! peace out--Mightright 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't find them particularly amusing, but I expect you could find more by googling stupid lists, annoying behavior lists, or similar keywords. — Lomn | Talk 14:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

that was rather rude ,why dont u have a sense of humour

As it turns out, I do have a sense of humor. "Making race car noises in an elevator", however, is well below the radar. As for "rudeness", I suggested what I felt to be relevant keywords. You're not going to find lists like this as high comedic art, but there's a good chance you'll find them with a blog post to the effect of d00dz th1s is cr4zy stufff!!!!1. — Lomn | Talk 16:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that showing somebody nasal excretions is also a bit rude, maybe that's just me. — The Mac Davis] ญƛ. 20:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Was this by any chane C/Ped from WP:BJAODN? Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 23:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

USSR Building

I'm currently researching Soviet Russia, and I've come across a picture that's brought somehing back to me. It's a drawing of a huge thin pyramid type building with a statue of what looks like Lenin on the banks of the river in St. Petersburg/Leningrad. I know I saw a TV documentary that said that this was a planned building under Stalin (maybe to celebrate the anniversary of the revolution/Lenin's birthday or soemthing) but that it was never built (obviously, because it's not really there!). Does anyone know what it is??? Thanks.

It doesn't really fit your description but Tatlin's Tower is a famous non-existent building. MeltBanana 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the Palace of Soviets. There is a nice page on unrealized Moscow buildings here which is what I used to find it. --Fastfission 01:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

GODZILLA

Judging by size of skyscrapers in New York City, how tall would you say the American version, Zilla, is from the ground to the tip of his head and from his nose-tip to his tail-tip when standing nomrally?

he varies size according to the movie, see Godzilla, the original 1954 was around 400 feet tall whereas some later ones were around 250 feet tall. In the 1998 american version he apears to be much smaller, maybe around 150 feet tall but much of that is because he/she??? walks all hunched over like a t-rex. Nowimnthing 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering "he" lacks a vital part of the male anatomy (assuming the creature is built in proportion), I'd suggest "she". This seems not to be significant enough to be mentioned in our article though. Or perhaps that's why he/she is always hunched over?--Shantavira 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1998 movie played obsessively on HBO for a while, and so I accidentally saw it all the way through. That one is definitely female and is heading for a nest of eggs in Madison Square Garden. Geogre 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And even if it was male, showing it's giant penis would make the movie get an adults-only rating, which would be box office death for a monster movie aimed at kids and teens. StuRat 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How true. Apparently a giant vulva is fine for the kiddies, but a giant willy would somehow ruin their lives. We still have a long way to go. JackofOz 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A giant vulva is probably not fine for the kiddies, and anyway where are its giant mammaries? As for box office death, I think we could be on to a winner. Has anyone made "Godzilla Does Dallas" yet? Oh, inevitably Google suggests that someone's beaten us to it...--Shantavira 08:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant mammaries? Godzilla's a reptile, man! She doesn't nurse her young. That's what electrical power stations are for! (Godzilla Behind the Green Door?) Geogre 12:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of King Kong. "King Kong Does Dallas" has no Google hits so we could still be onto a winner.--Shantavira 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the, er, anatomical questions, see cloaca. --Cam 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sturmtruppen

From Sturmtruppen (article): The "Alleaten del Sol Levante" (The Ally from the Rising Sun) is a clear satire of the Japanese soldier, partly based on stereotypes such as a self-sacrificing attitude, sense of honor, etcetera. He is also portrayed as a sex maniac and exchanges racist taunts with Musolesi, whom he despises. Because of his short stature, for a long time he is believed to be the son of a gay couple of German soldiers. In what vignettes "il fiero alleaten del Sol levante" is portrayed as a sex maniac? I readed Sturmtruppen and I don't viewed any vignette in which the "Alleaten del Sol Levante" is portrayed as sex maniac. --Vess 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should better raise that point in the talk-page of same article. You can certainly improve the article anytime. Flamarande 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Atalaya

Atalaya (Sp?) is a late 19th century Spanish painter. Does anyone know something about him? Thanks, Stephen Wertheimer, aka <email removed to prevent Stephen being spammified>

There are probablypeople here that do... but they are more likely to hang out at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. try asking there. Grutness...wha? 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Enrique Atalaya, Spanish, 1851-1913 - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

historical time line

My question is probably a stupid one but here goes. in all reading they refer to a period of time before the birth of christ as b.c. and after his death a.d. My question is two-fold, How long did christ walk the earth? and what is the timeline called when he was alive and where in history is it located? Any help on this question would be appreciated. Thank You!!! George Ennis <e-mail removed to prevent spam>

Actually, a.d refers to Anno domini, which translates roughly to "in the year of our Lord"; it is set based on the traditionally viewed year of Jesus' birth. More in the article! (Refactored question to remove the boxy thingie and clean up the page.) Tony Fox (speak) 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

According to our article on Jesus of Nazareth, the date range in which Jesus probably lived was between 8 to 2 BC and 29 to 36 AD. This would give him a possible lifespan of between 31 years and 44 years. I don't know of any special name for the time period during his life. --Bmk 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

These days you are increasingly likely to find BCE and CE used as a religiously neutral alternatives.--Shantavira 18:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Gospels give us Jesus's death as occurring at the age of 33, which is commonly referred to as the Christological year in medieval tradition (imagine the fuss given to turning 40 today and magnify it). However, since AD is supposed to begin at the birth of Jesus, His life took place (if AD were correct) from 1-33 AD. In fact, the computation of Jesus's birth is almost certainly off, but it was a darned good guess, given what was available. Geogre 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Book claiming that events of Bible took place in British Isles

Years ago I read an article about a 19th or early to mid 20th century author who wrote a book claiming that all the events of the Old and New Testaments took place in Britain. There were nice touches like Jesus growing up in Cornwall and being crucified in Edinburgh, or similar. Anyone heard of this and know the guy's name? Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Britain, the Key to World History perhaps, by William Comyns Beaumont. This book not only places biblical events in Britain, but also claims, among other things, that Atlantis was really Scotland.

("The Holy Land was not originally Palestine but in the British Isles and a part of Scandinavia which, in antediluvian times, was separated from Britain by a narrow stretch of water known to antiquity as the Hellespont. The destruction of Atlantis, Noah’s flood and similar catastrophe legends all over the world referred to one and the same event, the fall of a huge double comet made up of fragments from a collapsed planet. It landed in Scotland, not far from Edinburgh which in those days was called Jerusalem. The accident was considered a miracle because Jerusalem was then under siege by a colonial army, equipped with superior firearms and led by a brilliant but sinister character whom Beaumont identified simultaneously as Moses, Zoroaster, Silenus and Odin. By the storms, floods and earthquakes which followed the invading host was destroyed, and so was much of Atlantis-Britain. The bulk of the comet increased the size of the earth and knocked it further away from the sun, lengthening the period of its orbit from 360 to 3651/4 days and altering its climate. The British Isles, which had previously enjoyed sub-tropical weather, became cold and misty. Many of the surviving population migrated south, founding colonies which they named after districts of their homeland, Egypt, Israel, Greece and so on. Yet the stricken lands of the North continued to be the centre of world culture. Jerusalem was rebuilt on its ancient site in Edinburgh, York flourished as Babylon, Lincoln as Antioch, London as Damascus, Bristol as both Sodom and Tarshish, and Bath as the Philistine city of Gath. The Holy Family settled near Glastonbury, where Jesus was born, and his entire mission took place in Somerset, then known as Galilee.")

See: [1] (scroll down a bit.) David Sneek 19:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the guy! Shame there is no article on him, though I see he's been requested. [[2]].He seems to have been right on the fringes of the fringe. Mattley ^(Chattley) 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is he related to the British Israelism people? Adam Bishop 21:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. It was reading that and the article here on Christian Identity that reminded me of it, but there may not be much of a connection. Very little information available online. This absence of information is, of course, a sign that it is in fact THE TRUTH and has had to be ruthlessly suppressed by an International Zionist Masonic conspiracy. Or at least, that's what one source reckons... [3]. Mattley ^(Chattley) 21:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon England’s mountains green?

And was the holy Lamb of God

On England’s pleasant pastures seen?

Bwithh 05:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Mattley ^(Chattley) 10:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A related note: Avalon is supposed to be where Jesus walked England's pleasant pastures. But that's a mythical place. So much for England having pleasant patures. :) DirkvdM 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Laws governing the British Navy

I cannot find any reference to anything other than "The Articles of War" which governed from 1750 on. The question is on to what date? Were these same rules in place in 1860? The current standard was placed in effect in 1935 or thereabouts but I find it hard to believe that the rules remained the same from 1750 to 1935, at least without amendments.

1750 to 1935 seems, in the absence of contrary evidence, quite reasonable. This is primarily because very few, if any, references would consider amendments or annotations to qualify as complete overhauls. For instance, I would expect a similar statement that Parliament has governed the UK from 1807 on, as the fundamental mechanism has persisted despite the fact that the MPs have changed many times over. — Lomn | Talk 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

...a disciplinary code known as the Articles of War. This was given the force of law by acts passed in 1652 and 1661 which were not revised until 1749.

Lloyd, Christopher (1974). The Nation and the Navy: A History of Naval Life and Policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. p. 57.

During the long period when Anson was at the Admiralty (1744-62) a number of reforms were instituted which set the pattern of the Navy until sweeping changes occurred after 1832. As has been seen, officers' uniform was introduced. The Articles of War were revised into a shape which remained virtually unchanged until 1861.

(Lloyd 1974, p. 146)

The Naval Discipline Act of 1866, embodying a revised version of the Articles of War, is the basis of modern discipline...

(Lloyd 1974 p. 211)

EricR 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

History WWII Combatants

I would like to know the maximum numbers of military forces of the various combatants (i.e. U.S., USSR, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, France) at their height in WWII; total casualties? I have tried unsuccessfully to find this information.

Thank you.

Ken McConnell

World War II casualties seems to have the information you require. --Richardrj 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are these called 'causualties'? Casualty (person) says it usually refers to "deaths and injuries", not just deaths. So shouldn't the word 'deaths' be used here? If only to avoid confusion. Is the word used to make it sound less bad than it actually is? DirkvdM 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this was a term for use by the generals, they were only concerned with how many soldiers they had "lost" (those who could no longer fight) and weren't as concerned with whether they were wounded or dead. StuRat 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But in that sense, 'casualty' would mean both, but here only the dead are meant. That's the confusion I mean. To avoid that, it would make more sense to use just the words 'wounded' and 'dead'. So the article would then have to be named something like World War II death toll. DirkvdM 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The second table includes wounded as well as killed. Rmhermen 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the title of this film?

An old science fiction movie in which the earth was threatened by a rogue star named "Bellus" or something similar. The star was moving into earth orbit and was going to consume the planet. A group of survivors piled into a spaceship and traveled to another star system where it landed on a planet able to support human life. It looked like a 1950's era film.

When Worlds Collide (film) MeltBanana 00:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)