Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 25

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

March 25

Nation and Ethnic Group

What is the difference between the terms nation and ethnic group. Is there a certain criteria differentiating one from the other.

A huge difference, a nation is a political entity which (hopefully) endears itself to social and cultural unity for all the different sub-groups with in it. An ethnic group is a group of people sharing at the very least a genetic linkage, and sometimes a social and/or cultural link as wel, howevere the two can exist very independently, and can split each other up. If we look in the conext of Africa. When the Europeans arrived they thought Africans should be divided up into ethnic groups and tribes because that is what they expected, and thus in a way you could argue they invented tribalism and emphasised the idea of unity within ethnic groups. Then they drew nations around these groups, unintentionally splitting up the true social groups with political boundaries. Look at the troubles within Kenya now, there is little nationalism because loyalty is to ethnic and social groups rather than to the political entity that is Kenya the nation. Nationalism was not a known concept at first in Africa because people didn't give their loyalty to nations, but to other social committments. So there is an interplay between the two, but they can affect each other greatly and exist independently. SGGH ^speak! 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree. A nation is not the same as a country. Try reading Nation#Ambiguity_in_usage for a start, and compare that with ethnic group, particularly ethnicity and nation. Nationalism and the European conception of the nation-state are also useful related concepts. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with BrainyBabe's commentary, and I think the question is a good one to ponder. My opinion (based on my experience and reading, which in this area is not very extensive) is that when I use "ethnic group" I am talking about a self-identified community that is organized primarily around shared ancestry/race, whereas when I use "nation" I am talking about a self-identified community that organizes itself primarily around societal/political structure. The Kurds, in my example, are an ethnic group (they see themselves as a biological community), and most Kurds would identify themselves as a nation (that is, a community that is or ought to be unified structurally). I might call Native Americans an ethnic group (I think that's a community connected biologically) but not a nation (this is not a group seeking to unify itself in one structure, from my perspective...nations for Native Americans are at a lower level: the Navajo, for example, which I would call an ethnic group and a nation). "Americans" (or whatever we call the denizens of the United States) are, in my terminology, a nation but not an ethnic group. I believe I am using these words as they ought to be, but if anyone has a better (and more easily explained) distinction I'd be anxious to know it. Hope this helps, Jwrosenzweig (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is always difficult to stake out the differences between two closely related notions, each of which is somewhat fluid. Although members of an ethnic group will often have a larger genetic commonality among themselves than with randomly selected people, it is a mistake to use genetic linkage one way or another as a criterion for ethnicity. The most important aspect, in my opinion, is a shared culture, which includes many aspects, such as language, art, myths, customs, dress, and cuisine. Also important is a sense of a group-derived identity, of belonging to the group, which is only possible if there is a shared culture. Quite naturally, people who identify as members of an ethnic group are more likely to marry within the group, which explains the stability of genetic commonality.

I am not inclined to call the Native Americans an ethnic group; rather, they are a conglomeration of many diverse ethnic groups.

The word nation is related to nativity, and originally indicated a group of people, such as a tribe, related by birth. The "German nation", as used in "the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" (Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae, Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation), consisted originally of an ethnic group, the Germans – although in 1512, when this name was adopted, the Empire had expanded so as to extend to many non-German ethnic groups. It is only with the advent of the nation state (which the Holy Roman Empire was not), with its ideology of nationalism, that the notion of "nation" acquires a new meaning, diverging from that of an ethnic group. The new notion of "nation" becomes primarily political: a group of people who share a sovereign territory under a common leadership, and have a sense of sharing a common destiny.  --Lambiam 13:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

translators/interpretors salary

how much do they make an hour, like court interpreters and medical interpretors?

In the US, $35319.23 - $57864.66 for court interpreters and bilingual job descriptions as at 2005. Another google find (search: court interpreter salary) gives 30k to 80k pa. A nice link to FAQs on this is here[1]. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "list of automobiles - makes with histories.

Hello, I have never asked a question before which will become obvious shortly. I was reviewing the entrie(s) in the above topic/listing and saw a discussion, I believe, about deleting the above lists? Will they be replaced with something similiar or new? Are they believed to be incorrect? I have found them to be very interesting and informative. They are, I believe, rather incredible w/ many names, makes etc. that are completely unknown to me along with their histories, pictures etc.

It appears this "deletion" is imminent(sic). Could you please advise as to the current decision, if any? Would there be a similiar replacement of them? Where should I look for an answer? Thank you for your patience! Respectfully, jdmoran2Jdmoran2 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find the article you're talking about. The best way to get an answer here would be for you to go to the article you mean, copy the title, and paste it here between double square brackets, like this: Audi. This will create a link that will take us straight to it. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

1937 Soviet census

What literacy rate did the 1937 Soviet census determine for the USSR? The education in the Soviet Union article gives the literacy rate in 1939, but the 1939 census was doctored by the government and is not reliable. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bowlhover, are you still interested in this? If so, come to my talk page and we can discuss it there. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Absurd Philosophical Notion

Which writer or philosopher was it, or have there been several, who raised the notion that we only admire great men of history because of the atrocities which they committed? In other words, for instance, Lincoln would not have been lauded as nearly so great a leader if he hadn't shown a willingness to shed blood on the battlefield. Our saints and prophets are marginalized and neglected, for the most part, while those who make haste to commit murder and evil are commended as heroes and saints. Even our most acclaimed cultural and historical figures - such as Washington, Lincoln, and FDR - have undergone this process. It sounds vaguely Swiftian, but I don't recall Swift ever going quite as far as this.

Thanks once again for your help! MelancholyDanish (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Social Darwinism? and the relentless publicity machine, PR (aka history)– usually commandeered by the victors. my bad, you were looking for a philosopher who raised the idea... apols  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

First thought that came to mind was Max Weber's disctinction of ethics of responsibility ("Verantwortungsethik") and ethics of conviction ("Gesinnungsethik") in Politics as a Vocation. But I believe similar thoughts can also be found in Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality and all the way back to Machiavelli's thoughts on Agathocles. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt talked of the "banality of evil" in relation to Eichmann. Might she have had something to say about this question? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Conquest of the Desert and the 1982 war for the Islas Malvinas (Falklands)

In what way precise way did Argentina's nineteenth century Conquest of the Desert lead to the later dispute with Britain over these islands? I have more in mind here than simple geographic proximity. TheLostPrince (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Argentina only claims sovereignty on the Falkland Islands on geographical grounds (the islands are located on the Patagonia's continental shelf, see: Argentine Sea). The Patagonia became a part of Argentina after the Conquest of the Desert, so if this hadn't taken place Patagonia would either be independent or it would belong to any of the other countries that were interested in the region (France, Spain, UK) and Argentina would have never fought against Britain. Hope this helps. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Falkland Islands, Argentina has claimed the islands since independence on the basis of prior Spanish claims. Is this incorrect? Algebraist 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because Spain was the Island's sovereign until 1811, but when the revolution broke out Spain had to move their troops, leaving the Islands unprotected. That is why Argentina's Uti possidetis claim applies, because no treaty was ever signed by Spain or Argentina.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen Patagonia called The Patagonia before. Is this correct usage, or old-fashioned, like The Lebanon? Snorgle (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, that was just my own translation. In Spanish you refer to Patagonia as "La Patagonia", and I just forgot how it's called in English.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 12:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

help plz

i m writing something on what makes life insecure ( imean the external influences) such as bomb blast, political unrest, inequality of life leading to crimes). Can anyone please provide some good sources for primary reading. and citation or anyone who has written about these things (any online essay or link).

:Just had to decap your question or you might be ignored (kidding), Julia Rossi (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There's this[2] in our article on lists of publications in sociology: social change section. Then if you really, really like reading, there's the Pierre Bourdieu article – a social scientist who talks about kinds of capital (as in what people have going for them – or not). Happy reading, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Things People Have Crossed Canada In

Alright. I know Terry Fox ran across canada. I know Rick Hansen wheelchaired across canada. Some woman went paddling across it. Is there a list somewhere of Things People Have Crossed Canada In For Charity? 24.69.167.145 (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Terry Fox completed about two-thirds, so I take it your list is not of people who completed the journey. There must have been early voyageurs who crossed all of known Canada by canoe. Amelia Earhart flew across part in her early aviation trips. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You can add walking, rollerblading, cycling, car and RV but I don't know of any existing list. WikiJedits (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Kingscote rode her horse Zazy across Canada in 1949 when she was 20, and much later wrote this up as Ride the Rising Wind [3]. There's a touching review of her giving a reading here. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Critique of Dialectical Reason

In what way does Sartre use his existensial phenomenology to support the arguments he advances in the Critique of Dialectical Reason? F Hebert (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Marxism and Existentialism

Is it possible to reconcile a determinist doctrine like Marxism and the subjective forms of freedom that Sartre had promoted for most of his intellectual life? Was his attempt to do so a final surrender to intellectual dishonesty and creeping bad-faith? F Hebert (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

These will be on the mid-term. --Wetman (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you bend them enough, you can reconcile any two doctrines.  --Lambiam 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Herbert, I'll post an answer to your questions on my talk page tommorrow. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

War of the Two Matildas

Hello, all good people. I need some guidance from you historians. Would it be OK for me to describe the English Anarchy of the twelfth century as the War of the Two Matildas? Thanx.

Well, Matilda of Boulogne was only involved because she happened to be Stephen's wife, so I don't think that would be the best description. I guess you can call it whatever you want in your daily life, but on Wikipedia you should stick to The Anarchy (unless this counts as a reliable source!). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact there was a stage when it might very well have been described as the War of the Two Matildas! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

gear vehicle

Are all cars sold in developed countries non-gear automatic cars? What about truck?

Can you clarify what you mean by "non-gear automatic"? I'm not sure what specific car type you're referring to.

Regardless, the answer is almost certainly "no". Cars in the US are sold with both manual and automatic transmissions, commonly with 4 to 6 gears, and continuously variable transmissions are emerging in the market. Pickup trucks share the same options, but large trucks are predominantly fitted with manual transmissions. In any event, it is unlikely that all cars will be fitted into any such category. — Lomn 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the tendency to like automatic transmissions is mainly a USA thing, for whatever reason. Americans also tend to favor ridiculously large, living-room-on-wheels type vehicles- apparently valuing sitting in comfort more than they value actual driving. We take steps to improve auto safety, but this generally involves forcing manufacturers to make heavier vehicles, rather than encouraging people to actually pay attention while driving. Our cars show this. The rest of the world tends to make fun of us for that. Friday (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

citation needed.

Sorry. Perhaps that was a bit soapboxy. I'm confident that the bit about automatics being way more common in the US than most of the rest of the world is factually correct, tho. Friday (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, Friday. If everyone in this country had manual transmissions then they'd pay more attention to driving than phone calls, eating, applying lipstick, shaving, etc. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wishful thinking! People in the UK still do the same thing in manual cars. I have had someone say "hang on, I need to put the phone down to change gear" - even though using a non-hands-free phoe when diriving is illegal in the UK. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's illegal here too, but it really isn't enforced throughly enough. I didn't see a single police car on my 30 minute drive to work this morning, but I did see scores of people yakking away on their cell phones. Anyway, the fact is that the person calling you knew that he/she had to change the gear means that they were paying more attention to the road than someone with an automatic whose frontal vision turns into peripheral vision the moment they start talking. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Automatics are rare in Europe. User:Krator (t c) 15:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

81.93.102.185 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How does anyone know people driving sticks pay more attention than those driving automatics? has this been documented? Or is it a big assumption people make? Does driving an automatic make you lazy, or do lazy, inattentive drivers tend to prefer automatics? I drive an automatic and don't talk on my cell, and try to look where I'm going most of the time. I'm not sure paying more attention to my transmission would make me a better driver. It seems like substituting one distraction for another.66.152.245.18 (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's one source discussing the question. And there are plenty of forum posters with personal opinions, of course. I have to imagine the insurance companies would know- they're interested in any factors that help them predict who's likely to be in an accident. That one source implies it's a wash, though. In the US, where the vast majority of cars are automatics, the manuals tend to be either economy cars or performance cars. The performance-car enthusiasts may enjoy driving more, and thus may pay more attention.. or they may be irresponsible kids taking stupid risks. I dislike cars that get you away from the feel of driving, because I think they make the driver more likely to forget he's holding a deadly weapon in his hands. But, people are capable of being inattentive in manuals, too. I think the most neutral answer is "go with what you prefer." Friday (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Manual transmissions are more common in other countries as petrol (gasoline) is generally much more expensive and manuals are more economical. Exxolon (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the direct-shift gearbox becomes widespread, we could see automatic transmissions without torque converters, which is mostly what causes their inefficiency. And presumably automatic shift timing will also get better with technology. Right now efficiency, convenience, and performance are the biggest factors in what people decide to drive. But it's just a matter of time before technology catches up, and it will be no less efficient to drive an automatic. Then it will be purely a question of how much people prefer manual operation vs. automatic. 66.152.245.18 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

From my own experience in the UK, some of the larger hire car companies provide automatics by default as they are "easier" to drive in that there is usually only one configuration (Neutral, Park, Reverse and Drive gears). Manual geared cars can have 7 gears or more depending on the make and the layout of the stick selection varies from model to model. In view of this, UK drivers can obtain an "automatic only" driving license which gives them the right to drive but prevents them from ever using a car with a manual gearbox unless they retake the full test. Historically, automatics were more expensive and seen as a "luxury" item - today a flappy paddle gearbox still is. 84.66.15.200 (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Whereas some off-road vehicles have "seven gears or more" (often accessed by a separate "low ratio" shift leaver and a "standard" shift lever), and some high performance sports cars have six forward gears plus reverse, almost all cars have five forward plus reverse. Some low range have only four forward plus reverse. Every car I have come across since the citroen 2cv and the early Renaults were withdrawn (early 70s?) have a standard shift pattern for the forward gears. Reverse gear can be in different places and may need a collar bellow the stick to be lifted to go into reverse, but for forward driving people expect the standard layout.

The above layout will cover any car you are likely to come across will have the above pattern, maybe with the fith gear missing and with the reverse somewhere else. See Manual transmission for details, though note that column mounted changes are almost unheard of now and sequential gearboxes are normaly only used in track-racing, not road cars. In short European drivers expect to be able to get into a manual transmission car and not have to worry about where the forward gears are. BTW for most cars automatics are still more expensive in the UK, though luxury models often have it as a "no cost" option. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My 2001 Renault Laguna (diesel estate) has six forward gears - hardly a 'high performance sports car'. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sony vs. Casio

What Phone has sold more units, the sony ericsson w580i or the casio G'Z one type-s?

Please don't post the same question on multiple desks. If somebody can find the answer, they'll provide it. --LarryMac | Talk 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not write to the two companies and ask? Going to the source seems like a good idea at this point. 08:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Scriabin's Sonata in E-Flat Minor (1889)

Alexander Scriabin is my favorite composer, and I enjoy playing his music on the piano. However, I have a couple recordings of people playing his 'Sonata in E-Flat Minor', and I can't seem to find the sheet music to this sonata. The work doesn't have an opus number, so that doesn't help much. It is a very interesting sonata from what I've heard in the recordings; I would love to play it myself. Does anyone know of anywhere I can buy a copy of this piece in sheet music form?

Allpianoscores has a downloadable pdf-file. It's free. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a lot!

SS

Hi all I would like a bit of information on the SS which operated in Nazi Germany. I have read the article on the SS but found it a bit overwhelming. I have heard the SS being called a 'state within a state'. Could anyone explain to me whether this is true or not and if so, how? I realise that the SS amassed great wealth through the use of slave labour during the second world war and that they operated as a sort of army and police force. Any expansion or simple explanations of the SS and their role would be much appreiciated!

Not to be condescending, but the version at the Simple English Wikipedia is briefer and (obviously) more simply written and may be more of what you're looking for. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rubles at turn of 20th century

I'm writing a short story set around 1900, and I have a question that I can't answer (and don't really know where to look for). Approximately how much would it cost, in rubles, to travel from the western Russian empire at this time across the ocean to America (say New York)? And if you don't know but have an idea where to look, that'd be good too. Any help would be appreciated! zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very cool question, so I had to take a stab, but it's a huge research project for a non-expert. Still, if no expert appears, maybe this can help get you started. The first part, cost of getting from your character's starting point to Hamburg or other main port (maybe Danzig? Bremen?) I have no idea. But as for the ship crossing, here are some interesting links:

American Historical Society of Germans From Russia: Passenger Ships and Immigration Links

100 Years of Emigrant Ships from Norway: Cost of passage, Norway – America This gives you 166 Kroner from Trondheim to Boston in 1900.

New York Times, April 9, 1892. Steerage Rates Raised This gives Bremen/Hamburg – New York passage as now up to $30 from $25 in 1892. ("steerage rates" might be a fruitful google search term.)

And a couple more interesting sites that popped up Emigration From Hamburg – description of the passage, though a bit earlier than you want. And Genoelogy.com gives the contact info for two America-Russia history societies.

Happy writing :) WikiJedits (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Accord to this link from Google, rates were cut down to $18 in 1894, while this link from the early 1890s gives a rate of 6 pounds, and half rate for children. Now to find a historical exchange rate converter that goes back that far... zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer is on the tip of my tongue, but you might find answers in histories of Jewish emmigration. 192.117.101.209 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreasonable and outdated dissatisfactions

Removed trolling. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing fortunes of the Nazi Party

Hi there I was wondering if anyone could help me understand how the fortunes of the Nazi party changed in their 12 years of power (1933-1945) or could recommend any books which deal with this subject. If you were wondering, this is a school assignment but I am asking for help as I have no idea about what to write. I think the defeat at Stalingrad in the second world war seems reasonable to mention as it was a change of fortune for the Nazis. If anyone could inform me of any other events which denoted a change of fortune for the Nazis or just give me some hints that would be great! Thanks.

Are you looking for the basis of the change of fortune? I can't find it just now but I have read somewhere that the current reason it is rejected is that it was deemed part of the Jewish agenda (see verse 26) to dominate the Earth and regard States and government as animals rather than as men. I'll keep looking for the reference. Multimillionaire (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe it's a little early for me, but are you suggesting that Nazism is not in favor now because it is regarded as part of the "Jewish Agenda", which you have defined as a passage in Genesis? Because that's ridiculous, as well as ignorant. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As a member of law enforcement I am often within earshot of members of the brotherhood of which several members have been overheard expressing the point of view that because Hitler's grandfather was a Jew there is a Jewish connection which reveals a Jewish purpose. The purpose is to dominate the Earth of which government, business and a mered of other enterprises are a mere part. Multimillionaire (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in 1943 the allies started targeting their oil sources in Romania (covered a little here). It had been the Axis plan to capture Arabian oil fields to ensure a supply, but obviously that didn't work out. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am reasonably certain that any "brotherhood" whom you might "overhear" as a member of law enforcement, Multimillionaire, is not likley to be a relaible source for reasoned political and social histories. Wild fringe theories based on distortions and misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise, yes; thoughtful analysis based on evidence, no. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kublai and Genghis

Why is Kublai Khan so much more famous than Genghis Khan in America, but Genghis is more famous in Europe? Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that American culture (South Park, Citizen Kane etc) always mention Kublai Khan whereas in the UK I'd never heard of him until these references but Genghis is infamous. Thanks a lot. 90.192.223.225 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm American. I've never heard of Kublai Khan until 2 minutes ago when I read this question. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also American and don't think that Kublai is more famous than Genghis here. Both are covered in world history school textbooks. Kublai might get a little more attention because Marco Polo claimed to have met him and because Kublai was also emperor of China. (I may be old, but not old enough to have met Kublai Khan!) Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Marco Polo may also get relatively more attention in American textbooks because he's treated as a predecessor to Columbus.--Pharos (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kublai Khan is almost certainly not better known than Genghis Khan in America. To the extent that Kublai Khan may be relatively more popular than in Europe, I would put that down to Xanadu in Citizen Kane, which was of course inspired by "Kubla Khan" by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. I imagine that Kublai Khan may also be more relatively popular in Britain than in the rest of Europe because of the Coleridge poem.--Pharos (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Another American who thinks Genghis is more famous than Kublai.--droptone (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The questioner is probably thinking of What Would Brian Boitano Do?, which mentions Kublai Khan, but I believe that is only because it is such a bizarre reference. Referencing Genghis would have fit the meter as well, but it wouldn't had the same bizarre effect, since everyone knows who Genghis Khan is. In popular culture, he was the leader of the Mongols in the original Civilization, and my favourite, John Wayne played him in a movie. Adam Bishop 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that where he said "Truly this is the son of Genghis!"?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that reminds me of an anecdote I once read - Wayne was directed to give that line "more awe", and on the next take he said "Awwww, truly this is the son of God!" Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to ruin a joke but I have to report that that anecdote was slightly fictitious. The "Truly this was the Son a Gaaad" quote is a real quote, but it comes from the 1965 movie The Greatest Story Ever Told, in which John Wayne is in a brief cameo role (all of 3 seconds) as a Roman centurion at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. He's shown in darkness and facing away from the camera, silhouetted against the sunset with his cape waving in the breeze. He's only recognisable by his unmistakeable voice. The Conqueror was made 9 years earlier, in 1956. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I thought we were referring to Greatest Story now. (And the anecdote came from "Movie Anecdotes" or some other book of apocrypha.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OT, but this reminded me of the Berryz Kobo's cover of Dschinghis Khan (song). Youtube has translated lyrics. — Shinhan < talk > 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Authorship and publication of Wikipedia

Who wrote the Wikepedia? Also, when was is publihed?

Volunteers wrote wikipedia anoymously and continue to edit it constantly; it's not been published in any real form. Kuronue | Talk 01:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that people asking this question are usually trying to fill out bibliographical citations. If that's your purpose, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In English law, Wikipedia is certainly published and is an "electronic publication" of the Wikimedia Foundation. There's no answer to 'When was [Wikipedia] published?' - but you can of course establish when particular statements or words in it were published. Xn4 09:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland: Income tax liability for actors

I have checked Taxation in the Republic of Ireland and also read the material produced at the government website, as linked at the bottom of the WP article. Writers, painters, sculptors can be exempt from paying income tax in the Republic of Ireland, providing the work they do is "creative". (There are other qualifiers and distinctions, too, but this is enough for a lead-in to the question.) Does anyone know if musicians and/or actors, full-time or part-time, receive any taxation exemption or reduction based on their earnings in these fields. (I know it is possible that they may not pay taxes because of the limited amount they earn.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

stores in history

Before Auto Zone, Meineke, Pep Boys, and many other auto parts stores, there was Grand Auto. Before there was Home Depot and Lowe's, there was this home improvement store called J. Borg & Company. Whatever happened to them? Anyone know?72.229.136.18 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pep Boys has been around for quite a long time; the article indicates that the first store opened in 1921. In general, however, before large nationwide chains of any type, there were more local or perhaps regional operations. I'm not personally familiar with Grand Auto or J. Borg, where were these stores located? --LarryMac | Talk 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

J. Borg & Co. and Grand Auto were located in the San Francisco Bay Area, as far as I know.72.229.136.18 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

H Donald Smith

What was her given name? - Kittybrewster ☎ 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the National Portrait Gallery website [4], it is "Helen". The NPG -and ArtPrice- hyphenates the last two names as "Helen Donald-Smith". ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see this information is now in the renamed Helen Donald-Smith article. You are quite welcome. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A painting by Picasso of Modigliani

Hello, Humanities. I am in desperate need of a good picture of Picasso's painting of Modigliani. In particular, the one in cubist style, made not long before Modigliani passed away. It is a portrait of Modigliani, taller than it is wide, I can only guess it is entitled "Modigliani". I would be much obliged for your help on the matter! 81.93.102.185 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. It was shown in the movie about Modigliani, as part of the exhibition contest. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie and can't trace the painting. I wonder, could you be thinking of Modigliani's portrait of Picasso (1915)? Xn4 08:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the OP. No, this would not be the painting I had in mind. It follows closely the style of Picasso and Braque's cubism, that which Picasso used around 1910-1912. Indeed, see [5] for what is, stylistically, very close to "Modigliani" by Pablo Picasso. Edited for tildes and addition: I wonder if the picture is in private ownership by the Modigliani family. 213.161.190.228 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this is not a fictional portrait, sprouting from the fantasy of the filmmakers to spice up the film's largely fictional story?  --Lambiam 17:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

undent^. I've researched the movie further. It actually states that these works (Mexico, the Madness, Modigliani, all the pieces for the competition) are not real. Absolutely bummed about this. A good discussion actually follows here, on Imdb, from which I intend to pursue the hunt for the picture. Thank you for your replies! 81.93.102.185 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Strories set in the Deep South

Is there any stories set in the Deep South, like Forrest Gump?

The Heart is a Lonely Hunter set in the deep South yes, like Forrest Gump, no. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John Ball's In the Heat of the Night and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird come to mind, not to mention Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Song of the South? Exxolon (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my lawd. That is the epitome of historical inaccuracy. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll be interested in the genre Southern literature.--Wetman (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't fret, Bibliomaniac. The OP didn't ask for an accurate picture of the deep South, just a book set there. 01:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For more current reading, there is James Lee Burke's Dave Robichaux novels set in and around New Orleans and the bayou country, and those by Virginia Lanier with the bloodhound theme. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

William Faulkner is an noble prize winning American genuis whose works focused on early 20th century Deep south. Plus, Mark Twain, Ernest Hemmingway, Tenessee Williams, Truman Capote. Those are some truly big ones. 68.229.113.142 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is another well-known one. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What about John Grisham? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize: The Yearling. Non PP: The Black Stallion's Ghost. And that female forensic pathologist who keeps digging up corpses. Atmospheric. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My Dog Skip and Good Old Boy: A Delta Boyhood by Willie Morris are honorable mentions.72.229.136.18 (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That female pathologist is Kathy Reichs, but, although much of her work is set in North Carolina, some of it is set in Montreal, as well. Corvus cornix_talk 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Montreal is in Latin America, after all. The weather may differ from Tennesseee, but the Confederate flag is seen as a decoration. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill Bryson's The Lost Continent is partly set in the deep south.HS7 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)