Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 19

< August 18	Humanities desk archive	August 20 >

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.

Knights

At what age was it most usual for a Knight to stop going to war as a warrior? --Burbster 00:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any clear retirement age like today, if that is what you are asking. I suppose as soon he was unable to fight and endure the hardships of a military campaign. If he was really smart he would send other knights to fight for him asap. Emperor Barbarossa who also was a knight, died in a militar campaign (crusade) at the sound age of 67. Flamarande 00:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke. Now, he was a knight. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are a monarch and you have political things to fill up your time, you don't stop going to war until you die in battle or you become incapacitated through illness or severe injury. Off the top of my head, William V, Marquess of Montferrat and Raynald of Chatillon are knights who lived a relatively long life and were fighting in battles up to the end. Adam Bishop 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically retirement was not a total stoppage but a phaseing out, it is likely that as the knight gets older (say by his 40's) he would take less dangerous assignments, such as guard duty. He may also gradually begin dispatching his retainers and vassles in his place. Bengurion.

Jo Swinson

To explain my crush on Jo Swinson 1. I am mainly of Celtic origin and thus am attracted to celtic woman. 2. Lets be honest power is sexy, and Jo is one of the few youg attractive women with power. 3. Reading her website she also seems to have a cute personality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.72 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't excuse your failure to sign your statements with 4 "~". I also fail to see the relevance of all the other unrealted (and unsigned) questions. 1) Her Celtic identity is probably tempered with Viking, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman blood (at least I hope soo). Endogamy is in my personal opinion much overvalued. 2) "Power is sexy". Whoever said that true romantic love was dying out? There are a couple of women who are more powerful and much more atractive. 3) I suspect that the website of a poltician is tailored to present the best side of the subject (and this is discounting the liberal presentation of truth = white lies). In truth I tell you: there a lot of nice and atractive girls everywhere you care to look. To fix oneself on someone you never meet, and most propably never are going to meet is ... disturbing to say the least. From such humble beginnings stalkers are made of. Ether way, don't ask again for your chances with her in Wikipedia, this is NOT suppossed be a dating service. Flamarande 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot for whatever reason restrict your spamming of the reference desk, could you please at least restrict it to the purposes of this desk, which is to ask questions? If you want to write about your interest in Jo Swinson, may I suggest you do it in letters to her, or a blog? -- Mnemeson 02:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if everyone ignores these questions... he will stop. --Proficient 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just delete unsigned "AOL" questions? I actually deleted a few that seemed trollish, and I saw at least one other editor did the same. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why pick on AOL users ? The same rules should apply to deleting inappropriate questions from AOL users as from any other ISP. StuRat 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beauty

what is the term which is given to the people who have an extreme love with their beauty?

Narcissism. Anchoress 08:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --Proficient 00:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

http://img379.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10fu2.jpg

My google earth is playing up anyone care to tell me which religious city this is? cheers.

That structure in the center looks like a cube. —Keenan Pepper 10:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Mecca with the Kaaba. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They offer a sketch tool that you can paste on googlearth. That cube is one of the features example. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coat-of -Arms

I recieved a gift of a Coat-of -Arms painting. (I think) It is on a heavy type paper and is about 8.5 by 11.5 and appears to have been hand painted.

It came with a paper from the

 International Heraldic Institute Ltd.

6034 Broad Street Washington 16 D.C.

       Order No. 7746

The name from the Coat-of -Arms is Broadwater and there are several different spellings for the name. There is also a reference to the name being "of Broadwater", a parrish in County Sussex, near Worthing

Is there anyplace that I can ask to find out this papers and painting's history and value.

Thank You

Raymond E. Riddle

E-mail address (email redacted to prevent spam)

any help will be appreciated 12:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)24.28.46.176

I understand that the only authentic coats of arms (singluar coat of arms) in the english speaking world at least, are those created by the ancient College of arms in London. There are, I understand, a large number of companies that produce fake coats of arms for peoples names. The fact that its produced by something in the USA and not by the College Of Heralds suggests its a fake, although it might possibly be a copy of an authentic coat of arms. The coat of arms is not attached to a surname: you are only entitled to use a coat of arms if you have descended through the male line of someone with a coat of arms. I also understand that people of professional standing, including Americans can apply to the college and be granted a coat of arms, but I expect its an expensive and lengthy process.

Similar considerations apply to tartans. Although there are lots of shops in Edinburgh that claim to find the correct tartan for your surname, they are also strictly for the (mostly American) tourist.

You could also search on Google for Broadwater Sussex 81.104.12.46 23:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of tartans as analogous to coats of arms is a recent invention (recent by historic scales, of course). —Tamfang 09:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere in the (partly) English-speaking world, Scotland, Ireland, Canada and South Africa each have their own heraldic authorities. —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All British coats of arms are copyrighted. They also only belong to one person at a time. There is no such thing as a "family" coat of arms. If I'm Lord X and I have sons A and B, I will have the coat of arms which I inherited from my father, and A will have a version with some symbol added to it to make it different, and B will have yet again a different symbol to make his different from either one of ours. See Heraldry#Rights, wrongs, and myths. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A specific painting (carving, embroidery, etc) of a coat of arms may be copyrighted, but the coat itself is not: you need not ask permission to use your own drawing of (say) Sir George Martin's coat of arms as an illustration in your book. At least, that's how it works here in the rebellious colonies, and I've no reason to think it's otherwise in Britain. A better analogy is with trademarks. —Tamfang 09:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boccacio's De Viris Illustribus

Is there a list of names for Boccacio's "De Viris Illustribus"? Is it a similar name list of famous Romans like that of Petrarch's? Is there an English translation on this? In Wikipedia? Elsewhere? Is there an English version of Boccacio's "Falls of the Illustrious Men"? Is there at least a name list of these lives or who these people were? Is there a name list somewhere in English of Boccacio's Illustrious Women? Thanks for your help on this... --Doug Coldwell 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bocaccio wrote about famous women (De mulieribus claris) rather than men. Petrarch was the author of De Viris Illustribus. The text is apparently not online. alteripse 13:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title of Boccaccio's work on men is De casibus virorum illustrium and a contents and some samples can be found here. I can't find the Latin work online from which I found the earlier list of Petrach's people but I think it was from www.bibliotecaitaliana.it which seems to have gone squiffy. If you search with google and use the cached version you can see the text along with several other author's De viris illustribus And before you ask, Jerome's De Viris Illustribus is in English here. I'm fairly sure De mulieribus claris is online in translation somewhere but I can't find it as yet. These groups of lives were very important in the middle ages as morality tales on how to live and how not to, but they were just a rehash of older sources and so are not really worth continued publication. On Famous Women is more significant as it reflects attitudes to women in the middle ages. Two other influential works of biography are John Lydgate's Fall of Princes which you may find online and A Mirror for Magistrates which you certainly will not, but the latter was a source for Tudor playwrites. MeltBanana 15:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice answer alteripse 15:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about that list here ? There could be a spreadsheet giving famous authors'books (columns) and famous or illustris men (rows). That should be nice. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had to break off that answer, real world life and all. Here is the TOC of a recently published translation of De mulieribus claris. Sorry can't find original text but here is a manuscript. And if your looking for it here is Le Livre de la Cité des Dames by Christine de Pizan but oh crikey its in French. MeltBanana 21:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statue in Helsinki, Finland of Russian tsar who "wasn't that bad".

Hello,

when my father visited Helsinki, the capital of Finland, he told me was shown a statue of a Russian tsar. For some reason the people of Finland - my father claimed - didn't think this tsar "was that bad for Finland".

Does anyone have an idea which tsar this could be, I have been going through the article on Helsinki, some tsars and some other sites on the net but to no avail.

Thanks!

Evilbu 14:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the center of Senate Square there is a statue of Alexander II, could that be what he meant? Here is a picture of it. --Cam 14:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that could be it. But from what I read in the article about him, I don't see why they would consider him "good".?Evilbu 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is there a reason to consider him bad? Aleksanteri II ruled Finland as Grand Prince of Finland, and unless he did something egregiously bad to Finland, why should the Fins want to take this historical statue down? --Lambiam ^Talk 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander II probably introduced more liberal reforms than any other Russian emperor (he was not a tsar), for example the emancipation of the serfs, less censorship, more self-government and democracy, and he reinstated the Diet of Finland, the predecessor of the parliament. I'd consider all that quite 'good', and it's all in the article. :) - ulayiti (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Alexander II is usually considered one of the "good" tsars. However even a good Russian tsar can be a pain in the ass (i.e. Peter the Great, who did a lot to modernize Russia, was still an arbitrary tyrant). --Fastfission 16:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Alexander II was indeed a tsar. Loomis 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he was Emperor and Autocrat of certain places (eg. all the Russias), Tsar of certain places (eg. Poland, Siberia), Lord of certain places (eg. Pskov), Ruler of certain places (eg. Yaroslavl), Grand Duke of certain places (eg. Finland, Smolensk), and Prince of certain places (eg. Estonia, Bulgaria). In common usage, however, the word "tsar" is used in reference to all of his realms. JackofOz 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so even technically he was a Tsar, amongst other things. I knew of most of the other titles as well, but I was never aware that he ever used the term "Autocrat" in any of his capacities. Were the sensibilities different then, (and/or there,) or did he just not mind having the official title of "Autocrat"? Seems like a title I'd tend to avoid. Loomis 12:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Russian sensibilities were indeed different. The tsar made the law, period. He had his ministers to advise him, but he had the final say. That was the way Russia did things, and they didn't have any reason to be apologetic about it. There was not even the pretence of democracy until the first Duma was set up in the early 20th century. And even then it had to be dragged out of them with threats of revolution. Russia really was a very backward country in many ways, despite its great writers, artists, composers and scientists. JackofOz 05:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps sensibilities weren't as different as we might imagine. Even the most absolute of leaders are required to show a little respect and deference to their subjects. A society with a leadershp structure wherein the leader is so out of touch with his people and feels no compunction about strutting around and so arrogantly and unnapologetically calling himself an "Autocrat" seems ripe for a revolution, if not during his reign, then at some time in the near future. A similar point can be made of the pre-revolutionary royalty in France. Loomis 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Benet Ramsey

Why is the American public so avidly interested in this case? Hundreds of children are murdered every year, so why the focus on this girl? As a hypothetical: What if the girl found murdered on Christmas 1996 were the six-year-old black girl Shaneeka Jackson, found strangled and bludgeoned in the basement of a Chicago public housing project? Her death probably would have been reported in two inches of copy on page 12, then never mentioned again. What if the confessed murderer of Shaneeka were arrested last week? Would newspapers, and television even more, have story after story on the murder of this beautiful little girl? Charles.

Maybe, as a preliminary answer : Missing_white_woman_syndrome Evilbu 15:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer, in this specific case, is that people like a good mystery. It's a vey interesting case. We've been hearing about this steadily for about 10 years and to finally have someone confess is a major step along the way. Pyro19 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead poor children in projects don't sell toothpaste, is what it amounts to. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyro, I wouldn't get out the handcuffs yet. Other people have confessed before, and there are a lot of people who think this guy is a crank like all the others. Anchoress 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I know, but it's still an interesting development. Pyro19 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because she was white and from a nice, middle-class family? Dead n*****s in the projects is something that happens on another planet (and let's face it, readers - it was probably something to do with drugs or some other black-people gang-related shit, right?) to the media's target audience of nice, middle-class, all-American, suburban white people. --Kurt Shaped Box 15:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSB, I've got to say that I don't think it's appropriate to use the 'n' word, even if it's to prove a point. Just my opinion. Anchoress 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - consider it starred out. --Kurt Shaped Box 16:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am against censorship!!! Let it be in its original form! But never say it to a black guy. He'll do something with drugs and gang-related shit, because all black people do that. Anyway, past the hasty generalizations, stereotypes, discrimination, and really bad comedy (really bad), I think the American public just eat up stuff like this. That's why its on tv. Ramsey was a missing pretty white girl, and Americans love that. Its even better if they find her body, or she was raped and killed. Savagely to be entertained by hearing about these things isn't it? The Box is right. The news media sells fear, anything that is significantly bad, gets on the news. Sometimes yes, we should know about something bad, but we too often go into a moral panic over nothing. Fan death (almost entertaining if you aren't from Korea]], Child sexual abuse, Child pornography, witchcraft, Marijuana, HIV, Trenchcoats razor blades-in-apples, poisoned-Halloween-candy, hyperdermic syringes-in-balls, the list goes on and on. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Don't forget getting mangled by escalators and poison, shot from pens.Evilbu 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shot from pens? --Bmk 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean : pens and if you push the right button, they spray poison on the target. In one of Michael Moore's films, they are discussing this on a USA news network.Evilbu 11:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear everyone has missed the most obvious point: the media wants pics. Since Jon Benet Ramsey had a great number of high quality pics, including movies, that were in the public domain, this made the media quite happy. If there was nothing but one grainy black and white pic, they would have dropped the story almost immediately. StuRat 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to ask a similar question, and include a question as to why the whole Laci/Scott Peterson case got so much press. Literally every burp and hiccup by anyone involved in the court case was analyzed with a fine toothed comb by the media. Don't get me wrong. It's not that it wasn't a tragedy, but literally thousands of brutal homicides happen each year in the US, all equally tragic. And I don't totally buy into the race factor, as of these thousands of homicides, many if not most involve white people. Also, I don't recall there being all too many, if any interesting pics for the media and the public to drool over. Was there something I'm missing about that whole case that made it so newsworthy when so many other similar capital cases were completely overlooked? Loomis 13:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, if I remember correctly, there was a question as to whether Peterson would be charged with the death of just his wife, or his wife and unborn child. That was the first I heard of the case, and that was news, considering the implications in the abortion debate. After it was in the public view, I would imagine that a lot of people had the expectation that it'd linger until there was some sort of conclusion.24.250.33.247 14:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, murdering his pregnant wife to be with his girlfriend added an extra shock value that is absent in a normal murder. Also, wasn't the murder done on Xmas Eve ? StuRat 15:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand it. Of the thousands of murders that happen, surely there must be quite a few that are just as if not far more bizarre than this one. Even if it was a bit unique, was it really necessary for the media to dwell on such inane issues as to the whole, weeks long debate as to whether or not the judge should grant a change of venue? I have to admit, I'm something of a news junkie, but whenever CNN or whatever other news station I happened to be watching started going into such ridiculous detail, each with its own special "Peterson Case Special Correspondent", I seriously had to switch channels as quickly as possible just to avoid from puking. This shouldn't be taken in any way as any form of disrespect to the memory of Laci Peterson and her unborn child. Rather, it should be taken as a form of disrespect to the media.

What about that woman, from Texas I believe (?) who drowned several of her kids in the bathtub because "God told her to to it" or something like that. I'm really hazy on the details, but that's because the media didn't give it much attention. Another example is the Elizabeth Smart case. There, unfortunately just like thousands of other American kids, Elizabeth Smart tragically got kidnapped and went missing. Thankfully she was eventually found. I truly feel for her family and what they must have gone through. But why single out this case to the total exclusion of all others? Loomis 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Yates? If you think there wasn't media overkill on that case ... User:Zoe|(talk) 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the media attention of the Duke lacrosse team's alleged rape of a black stripper? That got a ton of media attention, and I think race may have been a factor in that. --71.98.18.179 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yates? Oh so that was her name after all! Well, being an admitted news junkie I'll just let my ignorance about that case, even the name of the woman accused serve as proof that there obviously wasn't nearly as much media overkill as there was about, say, every nauseating detail about the change of venue, the name of Peterson's defence lawyer (Garagos) etc... as there was about this particular lunatic who drowned her kids. In fact, unlike Peterson, who I know is on death row, I really can't even recall what the final verdict was in the "Yates" case. As for the Duke Lacrosse team case, I'd never even heard of it! You say it got a "tonne" of media attention. Did Larry King devote hour after hour of his show to that case? Not that I recall! All I recall is "Breaking news! Peterson case recessed because one juror has a case of the sniffles! More on it when any new information comes in! Back to you Ted!" Loomis 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yates was just found "innocent by reason of insanity". I think such people should be found "guilty AND insane". Now you have two reasons to keep them locked up, not a reason to let them go. StuRat 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not appreciate that there's a big difference between "A killed B and the whole thing was caught on camera" and "A was guilty of murdering B"? JackofOz 05:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concept of guilt, which requires not just that the person not only did the crime, but was perfectly aware of it, sane, and in full control when they did it. I totally disagree with this concept, however. I am most concerned with "is that person a continuing threat to others", and anyone with a history of "going insane" and murdering people most definitely qualifies as dangerous to me, no matter how many psychiatrists testify that they are "cured". Indeed, many people who are "guilty" of murder seem far less dangerous to society, like a woman who kills a man who raped her (and then got off because the police failed to read him his rights), for example. The only danger that woman poses to society is to those men who rape her, and, honestly, I don't care about their lives. StuRat 07:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to calculate the total human population

How does one calculate the total human population throughout history. For example, if there was a heaven and hell, what is the sum of the human population (as in anatomically modern homo sapiens) of heaven+hell+earth combined? A rough figure would do, would one say 20 billion perhaps? Is there a general formula for a calculation such as this, excluding sudden mass births and deaths. --Kaasje 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a good question. Where to draw the line (when did the first human pop up?). But one thing is certain : it will definitely be at least 100 billion. Evilbu 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A while back on this desk (or maybe the science desk) 7% of all humans who have lived are alive now, but I don't remember if he cited anything...that would put the total historical number of humans at... 86 billion people. But again, I don't know where that number came from. Also, what about purgatory? And limbo? And assuming that non-Christian theists go to their respective afterlifes, we'll have to poll Hades and Elysium and Valhalla, etc. And imagine the headaches posed by reincarnation - same person, or a new one? Ok, done being a smartass :) --Bmk 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was me who posted the 7% figure, and I don't recall where I heard it, sorry. The answer would somewhat depend on who you include. If Neanderthals are included, that probably wouldn't change the figure much, as I doubt if there were ever more than a billion of them total. Whether you include unborn children who died before birth (and I'm sure the Catholics would want to count them) would have a more substantial impact. StuRat 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, as far as evolutionary biology is concerned, there was never a "first human". Species don't pop into existence all at once. 65.97.28.200 21:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading as a child in an old book, probably victorian, that more people were alive at that time than had died. I was going to raise a question about this being true or not. 62.253.52.30 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's bunk. StuRat 03:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat raises an important point - the age at which people die. If you count those who 'died' after conception (if only one hour after it), they would vastly outmnumber those who managed to get born. But another factor is those who died in the first few years after birth. The recent population explosion is due to a great extent to modern medicine preventing that. People were used to having many kids because so many of them died. We're still adapting to that change and only recently in the west are numbers are starting to stabilise again. So there may not have been that many people walking around thosands of years ago, but that's not the numbers one should be looing at here. And another factor that played a role here is that people lived much shorter in earlier times of evolution, which also kept the numbers down (but will conversely increase the amount of people who lived). DirkvdM 07:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that it's quite normal for women to have spontaneous abortions very early in their pregnancy without ever being aware they were pregnant. JackofOz 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, I did mention that. That's what I meant with 'dying after conception'. DirkvdM 08:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Law as it relates to work.

How can i find legislation governing working conditions specifically in relation to the length of the working day. I am particularly interested in legislation governing shift work/shift hours. What country do you live in? One possibly could be a legal aid hotline. Bengurion

William Bradford

Did William Bradford believe people were a mix of good and evil, and is that a Puritan belief? — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Bradford was not a Puritain he was a seperatist. The Seperatist wished to create a church different from the established church of England, they also where greatly influenced by anabaptisted theology. By contrast, the purtains wanted to purify the existing church and where less influenced by anabaptist theology. In time they fused into one movement which became the congregationalist church. Bengurion.

How to be nice and/or charming?

I expect this will be derided by the many people who believe in machismo, dominance, or power, regarding their relations with others, but what do you need to do to be nice and/or charming?

There are no articles about this subject. I am sorry to say, no offence meant, but many people in foriegn countries would see the stereotypical American as lacking in these two qualities, and curiously there are no articles about them in this mainly American sourced work although there are articles about almost everything else, for example belly button fluff.

It is a serious question - what do you need to do, how to you behave, to be seen as being nice and/or charming? Thanks. 62.253.52.30 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no trick to being nice, just be polite, courteous, honest, helpful and all that good stuff. Charming people are often clever, pleasant, sociable, and friendly. Pyro19 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised none of you european folks have taken exception to calling wikipedia a "mostly American sourced work". Where as we americans, as we totally lack niceness and charm, don't give a damn what you think about our manners :) --Bmk 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Manners always consideres it the epitome of bad manners to point out the bad manners of other people. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP is not an instruction manual, so I don't think, however much or little it's needed, WP will ever tell people how to be nice and/or charming. But who knows... it might be a course at Wikiversity!?! :-) Anchoress 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where there is a demand, an American will respond. See Dale Carnegie and his bestselling book of the last century: How to Win Friends and Influence People. You might get some answers to your question. alteripse 03:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the link in the question, I assumed somebody had had the unmitigated gall to write an article on the meaning of the adjective "nice". Fortunately, not even Wikipedia has such an animal. "Nice" is such a vague, vacuous term that any attempt to pin it down would be doomed. JackofOz 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I always cringe when people describe me as nice, because it evokes images of Stepford wives. I used to have a poster on my wall that said, 'The need to be nice is the enemy of my freedom'. Not that I'm boorish or anything, but I prefer more accurate words like polite, kind, compassionate, empathetic, considerate. Considerate is an action, NICE is a life sentence. Anchoress 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect to find an article on a verb. Charming is better explained at charm. And why the downer on Nice? I've been there and it's very nice.--Shantavira 08:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Nice is not a verb. How do you nice something? (b) The link took us to unintended places. I have nothing but respect for that very nice French city. JackofOz 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sattva

Who is DJ Sattva aka jason short. Jason Short is known in techno circles as the DJ who brought minimal techno to San Francisco. A pioneer in west scouting out the new ground for his Minimal Techno Genius he now works and lives in San Franciscos' highly exclusive techno scene. Jason began his DJ career in San Francisco in the late 90's. After learning from the great SF DJ masters Jason moved to Florida where he gained much of his fame. SFtechnohistorian 06:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]