December 27

I have just read the following comment in a discussion forum in The Guardian: "the UK will join the Euro if and when we get permission from the US Federal Reserve, and not a moment sooner." I was unaware of US influence in the UK decision to join the Euro, nor is there any info. about this on the Euro article. Could someone explain if any strong US influence is exerted over UK currency decisions in this area (Eurozone membership)/explain this comment in the forum? Thanks. --AlexSuricata 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that there is any formal agreement along these lines between the United States and the United Kingdom, nor between their respective central banks. Probably the comment was made by someone who perceives the United Kingdom to be abjectly following US dictates, based on the UK's continuing involvement in the US adventure in Iraq, despite overwhelming public sentiment against this involvement in the UK. We do not entirely know why the Blair government has adopted this policy, but there is no reason to believe it carries over into monetary policy. On the other hand, I think that a majority of the British public is opposed to joining the euro. Any party proposing such a move would probably lose support, particularly if that party continues military involvement in Iraq. Marco polo 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, the UK is a sovreign nation. Despite the proximity of Tony Blair's lips to George W. Bush's buttocks, the UK makes its own international and monetary policy. --Nelson Ricardo 02:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though of course it will be considerably less sovereign after "joining the Euro".... -Nunh-huh 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marco, there doesn't need to be a formal agreement. Blair is quite happy to surrender his country's foreign policy to the dictatorship of the White House, we saw that especially in Iraq (and I haven't seen any rewards from the Yanks for British help in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Alex, I think any influence the US has is freely granted by a weak British government (in my opinion). Quite a popular argument, that one, actually. I don't know if Blair would want to let Bush do the same with UK monetary policy as he has done with defence policy, but it is worth knowing that anything Blair does (at this stage) must be approved by Brown, because it will fall to him to implement. And Brown's "toughman" image doesn't suggest he's as willing to be bossed around like that. At any rate, I think he is known to be more anti-Euro than Blair.

Can someone suggest what interests Bush would have, in a UK economy based on the Euro?martianlostinspace 11:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be beyond the scope of the reference desk, but I will comment anyway. First of all, I think that Bush's main interest is pleasing his benefactors, America's oil and weapons industries and the superwealthy. The rise of the euro is a threat to the dollar hegemony that supports the US and its military contractors and provides the US with the ability to promote the interests of its oil industry through military means. I believe that Blair teamed up with the US to give British military contractors and (more importantly) its oil industry (BP and Shell) access to the same advantages. This is particularly important at a time when Britain's North Sea oil reserves are running out and the UK is returning to the status of an oil importer. The euro, as an alternative world currency and (more importantly) a potential alternative to the dollar as a means of payment for oil, would challenge dollar hegemony and the ability of the US to protect US (and UK) oil interests. Russia, Iran, and other OPEC members have recently been studying or moving toward accepting euros alongside (or instead of) dollars as payment for oil. (Currently, only dollars are generally accepted.) If euros were accepted as payment for oil, nations would no longer need to build up massive dollar reserves, the value of the dollar would drop, and interest rates in the US would rise, because foreigners would no longer need to purchase US debt as a way of investing their dollar reserves. (See United States public debt.) Rising interest rates would very likely crash the debt-based US economy. The UK is too heavily invested in the US to want this to happen. By joining the euro, the UK could promote these dire scenarios. By joining the euro, the UK would add significantly to the size and the appeal of the euro zone, it would eliminate the pound sterling as an alternative minor reserve currency, and these two factors would add to the momentum toward adopting the euro as a reserve and oil-payment currency. However, Blair has sided with the US against the euro-zone powers (Germany and France), and I suspect the financial backers of the Labour Party have dictated this alignment. I doubt that Gordon Brown or the Conservatives would change this policy. I do not think that the UK will be joining the euro anytime soon. Marco polo 14:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Labour government are in power, not Tony Blair. That the government went to war alongside America and supports the continued efforts in the conflict is not evidence itself of American influencing (any more so than might be expected of friendly nations) the choices of this government. Media talk shows the UK as the weaker-partner but this does not mean that the UK government has not used its influence to lessen/alter/change the decisions the US government have made.

With regards to the original question I have not come across anything to suggest there is any direct-link (or indeed indirect) that would prevent the UK going into the Euro-currency if it desired. The factors against the Euro seem to a skeptical public, the potential loss of control for said government over issues which shape how good/bad a job the government do, little political value is perceived to be gained from this (unlike for example devolution of Scotland/Wales which could significantly improve the election-fortunes of the conservative party). I would ask the person on the Guardian forum/comment is free thing to provide some links because if such a thing is true I would anticipate there is a desire for a Wikipedia article detailing the link/thing (or at least a mention in an appropriate article). ny156uk 17:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would doubt that this is an issue the White House considers a priority. There is nothing about it in the whitehouse.gov domain, according to Google. Contrary to what people in other countries often believe, George W. Bush is not sitting in the Oval Office going over the domestic or economic policies of the rest of the world. True, there would probably be downsides to the U.S. if Britain joins Euroland, but there might be benefits, too. A weaker U.S. dollar would aid manufacturers and exporters. That's why the White House wants China to increase the value of the yuan. -- Mwalcoff 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wonder about the following: At the moment, there are two Princesses of York: Beatrice and Eugenie. Now, if somebody, let's call him John Smith, marries Princess Beatrice, what would his style presumably be? I'm somewhat doubtful whether he would be called Prince John of York after the marriage... Second question: If some years later Eugenie gets married as well, say, to a Harry Miller, what would his new title be? I guess, it wouldn't be the same as the one of "John Smith"...

Thanks for your answers

--83.173.215.12 12:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Princesses of York. Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are called "of York" not because there is such a thing as a "Princess of York", but because they are daughters of the Duke of York. In any case, their future husbands will acquire no titles simply by marrying them: a wife acquires her husband's titles, but the reverse is not true. If Beatrice marries Mr. John Smith, he will still have the title "Mr.". Of course, it is possible for a title to be granted to Mr. Smith before the marriage so that Beatrice doesn't have to suffer the indignity :) of being married to a "Mr.", and so that their eventual children would have titles, but this is a separate matter. The same goes for Mr. Harry Miller. - Nunh-huh 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. And do we know from history which title, if any, these husbands would then be granted? --83.173.215.12 13:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: in fact, we don't know that they would be granted any titles at all. When the Queen's daughter Anne married Captain Mark Philips, he remained Captain Mark Philips, and when she married Captain Timothy Lawrence, he remained Captain Timothy Lawrence. But a generation before that, when Princess Margaret married Anthony Armstrong-Jones, he was created Lord Snowden in anticipation of the marriage. The factors that are probably considered are [1] closeness of the princess to the throne (i.e., how many people would have to die for them to reign); [2] the princess's personal wishes (Anne did not want her children to have titles); [3] the advice of the government; [4] current strategy of dealing with peerages; the current practice is to minimize their granting. You seem to be asking if there is some traditional title for this situation (as in "second sons get Duke of York, third sons get Duke of Clarence, husbands of princesses get X"), and there is no such traditional title. The further back in history you go the more likely the future husband is to have been made a peer of some sort or another; of course, the further back you go the more likely they are to have married someone who was already a peer. - Nunh-huh 13:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You formulated my question more eloquently than I could ;-) Exactly this "traditional title" was what I wondered about. Anyway, now I'll sit back and watch what happens once such a marriage takes place. Thanks again --83.173.215.12 13:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did religion become so involved in something that is so personal to a person, and so irrelavent to the religion. I mean why is it so strongly discouraged. Other rules handed down by religions are roughly the basis for a succusful society (do not steal, do not kill, do not lie etc.) or rituals involving worship of whatever the religion is based around, and so you can see the origins of these beliefs. But why is premarital sex discouraged, it doesnt harm anyone, doesnt lead to situations that people dislike, and for it to take place, both parties actively want it. Being possibly the greatest feeling that can be obtained why is religion so harsh as to try and outlaw it, except for in the strict confines of some sort of ritual based relationship. I can understand dedicating yourself to one person once you are in a relationship, but not abstaining from it prior to meeting that person. As as long as you practice safe sex, no-one gets hurt surely, so isnt it just a pointless rule, resented by those who feel that they have to abide by it? Philc _T^E_C^I 14:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it has to do with whom you have sex since having sex in effect results in the surrender (if only momentary) of one person to another. Would you want your teens to have sex with the devil and then have to live with the devil's influence on them the rest of their lives. If so then there is no point in providing a further reply to this question. Adaptron 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would I want my teens to have sex with a flying heap of meatballs and noodly appendages? Not particularly, but I would also not be worried that that might come to pass. I don't consider that fear a valid reason to have them don a chastity belt. I would not want them to marry a deeply evil person who they then presumably might have sex with, but I don't think this carries the day as a strong argument against marital sex. Finally, if there is no point in providing answers to questioners who don't happen to believe in the existence of the devil, then maybe we should institute a screening procedure for questioners.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the reason for the question is to assess the moral bases for abstention from pre-marital sex at a personal level rather than a philosophical one then if the questioneer does not care what the consequences are of his teen having sex with the devil as an example of what might happen in the absence of morals or their application to pre-marital sex then there is no point in giving a response unless perhaps to persuade the questioneer to change or to adopt personal morals which support abstention from pre-marital sex. Adaptron 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until very recently, the family was a vital economic unit, not just an emotional one. Also until recently, sex roles were very sharply defined, and a family could not survive without both an adult male and an adult female. Under these circumstances, (heterosexual) sex outside of wedlock brought the risk of childbirth outside of marriage. A child without a father faced many material disadvantages from the lack of a father to provide economic support and to transfer property rights in a system of patrilineal inheritance. Thus the ban on extramarital heterosexuality was a measure that protected children from the dangers of “illegitimate” birth (which included ostracism as an additional incentive for mothers to avoid such births).

The ban on homosexuality (by definition sex outside of marriage) brings up another dimension. The heterosexual family was the basic unit not only of economic life but of patriarchal power relations, which were the glue that held societies together until very recently. In fact, patriarchy remains important to power relations in many, if not most, parts of the world. By offering an emotional and sexual outlet outside of the heterosexual family, homosexual relations threatened the power of heterosexual families to control their members.

Thus, until very recently in a few Western societies, sex outside of marriage seriously threatened the entire social order. One of religion’s main functions is to protect and support the social order and the means of social control. Hence the bans on extramarital sex.

Marco polo 14:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A traditional Jewish view is as follows. The religion is not ascetic. It does not demand a monkish existence. Activities that can be perceived as "indulgent" are tolerated or encouraged under certain conditions. Thus, it's fine to drink alcohol, indeed sometimes drinking alcohol is obligatory. However, don't miss your next scheduled set of prayers because you were drunk. It's fine to eat an excellent meal, indeed, sometimes eating well is obligatory. But say the appropriate prayers before and after. Similarly, the sexual laws. It's fine to have sex, indeed, sometimes having sex is obligatory. Just do so with someone who's not your close relative, who is not married to someone else and, erm, is married... to you. In a microcosm, these laws can be said to encapsulate Judaism's world view. The religion seeks to give meaning to life through changing the mundane into the holy. Eating an apple becomes special by making a blessing. Cleaning up the house becomes special through doing so in preparation for Shabbat. So, having sex, rather than being a dirty, shameful thing, is something good and holy. Just do it having read (and followed) the manual. Incidentally, Judaism doesn't say that these attitudes necessarily need apply to non-Jews. See Noachide Laws. --Dweller 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said, Dweller. I'd just add a couple of extra points. To Jews, sex is like food. As humans, we're all created to naturally hunger for food, just as we're all created to naturally hunger for sexual intimacy. But just as we're meant to restrict our hunger for food to what is proper and "kosher", so are we meant to restrict our hunger for sex for what is proper and, sexually speaking, "kosher". In fact there's a particular Rabbi who wrote an entire book entitled Kosher Sex, though I can't remember his name.

In fact, (and listen closely ladies!), according to Jewish law, and contary to many other traditions, it's NOT AT ALL a Jewish husband's "right" to have his wife satisfy him sexually, rather it's the opposite. It's a Jewish husband's DUTY to sexually satisfy his wife. Should he fail in that duty, the wife has grounds for a Jewish divorce (Get). Loomis 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Shmuley Boteach. --Dweller 10:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks Dweller. Did I forget to mention that it's actually considered a great mitzvah to celebrate the sabbath by having sex with your spouse? One other thing. Though pre-marital sex is indeed forbidden in Judaism, traditionally speaking, Jews are encouraged to get married at a rather young age, (after puberty of course, and not younger than the law allows in whatever jurisdiction they live in,) and in doing so, they can be as sexually active as they like at that particular period in life when their hormones are driving them nuts! Loomis 15:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above replies attempt to answer the original question: How did religion become so involved in this issue? Of course, an immediate problem is that the believers of some religions believe that God has ordained that premarital sex is against Its will and a sin, so for those religions the answer is: Because God made it so by putting Its nose into what otherwise might have been a personal issue. For non-believers that answer is not satisfactory, for obvious reasons. A related question is how religion got so involved with the institution of marriage. While I don't have a satisfactory answer to that question, I think it might largely also answer the other question. The involvement is undoubtedly already from prehistoric times, which will make it hard to find other than speculative answers.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion probably became involved in the way it usually does with matters of morality - it's easier for people in authority to tell people what to do if the people believe they have the authority of God (or the gods, or whatever) behind them. Thus, dietary restrictions that were probably originally good advice from a health point of view at the time became sacred thou-shalt-nots. No sex before marriage, in a time before reliable contraception, is a sensible precaution to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Also, in patriarchal societies like those in which most of our religions formed, women were essentially the property of men - they belonged to their father until he agreed to transfer them into the property of a husband, often explicitly in exchange for cash. Women thus had economic value, based on their fertility, and a woman who could be guaranteed not to have slept with another man was at a premium because any children she bore would be guaranteed to be her husband's, and women who had sex before marriage brought disgrace on their family because they couldn't sell them for as much. Hence women are historically, and still, judged more harshly than men for having casual sex.

Reliable contraception and the emancipation of women should have made both these attitudes obsolete, but because they're written down in holy books that people take literally they haven't gone away. I think modern religion uses the no-sex-before-marriage rule for different purposes, though. I don't think it's a coincidence that the religions that have the most fanatical followers have the strictest rules about sex, and target the young. If you recruit kids in their teens and twenties and deny them an outlet for their burgeoning sexual energies, you can divert those energies into religious zeal. --Nicknack009 16:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answer attempted to address the question of how religion became so involved. Religion became so involved because its function is to protect and support the social order. (My perspective is obviously that of a nonreligious person.) As for the exact historical sequence, we cannot know, because religions have banned extramarital sex (with exceptions in a few religions for temple prostitutes or boys) since the beginning of history. So, this is something that dates to prehistoric times and most likely to the beginnings of religion (since families as units of economic life and power relations predate the origins of our species). As Lambiam rightly says, this is speculative, but religion probably developed because it was useful to early human societies partly for its definition and defense of the family unit on which survival and social cohesion depended. I agree with Nicknack about the place of these restrictions in modern Western society. Marco polo 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion does not prohibit anything. Its interpretation is the key. External manifestations of being religious is equally disgusting Being spiritual is important. Patience for desires is the right attitude towards religion. The american concept of freedom particularly the so called sexual freedom is only a guarantee for short lived happiness. Its no use speculating about banning religion or being faithless. Faith is essential to fight ones impatience. At the same time gay lesbians and other so called homosexuals in the west is just a consequence of impatience. 18:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)~~

I am not a theologian, but in reading all the above answers to the pre-marriage sex question, I noted no mention of the consequences of close blood relatives unwittingly procreating villages full of idiots. And clearly, small biblical and pre-contraception communities would want to militate against that possibility, particularly when spouses-to-be were sold across inter-village/town/city boundaries. In those circumstances, any unregulated illegitimate offspring would spawn genetic weaknesses that could imperil the whole community - just look at some of the remote North American mountain communities in the not-too-distant past! In the absence of any other recognised controlling agency, it seems to me that religious groups were ideally placed to provide those necessary controls, in order to protect the communities for giving better service and devotion to their God.

This is really a strange jump, equating pre-marital sex with incestuous sex. Where did that come from? And why would "biblical" communities, whatever they are, want to militate against that any more than other communities?  --Lambiam^Talk 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is irrelivant to religion. Religious thought and understanding have been linked through history. Leaders extended personal authority to corporate through deific claim. Sex is a modern concept which can be misapplied to ancient understandings. Procreation has a strong connection to property inheritance. A known example is the ethnicity of Cleopatra, who, while being the last Pharaoh, was Macedonian. She learned Egyptian and was accused of 'going native.'

It is important to note that religious claims are not always endorsed by god. DDB 23:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Fromm argues somewhere - I think it is in To Have and To Be - that religion (as opposed to faith) is about control, and since sex is such a fundamental human need it is hard to control, and so religions therefore typically demonise it. (I am paraphrasing from memory, of course, but I don't think I am doing violence to his argument). --ColinFine 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why has nobody mentioned sexually transmitted diseases? If everyone confined themselves to sex only within marriage, and marriages lasted a long time, sexually transmitted diseases would not really be a problem. This is less of an issue if everyone uses appropriate protection, but that still isn't as reliable as not having sex at all, and wasn't an option until very recently. So, if you're trying to find rules to minimise damage to your society of people, you want to discourage the spread of diseases that can kill or render people infertile. Seems logical to me. Skittle 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balaam's ass. What's the meaning?

I assume you're familiar with the basic story. If not, go read it. Assuming you're asking on an interpretive level, one interpretation goes as follows. Balaam was one of the greatest prophets of all time (in some ways he exceeded Moses, hence the Bible says that there has never/will never be a prophet as great as Moses in Israel, i.e. among the gentiles, there was one). However, in his arrogance and stupidity, he ignored God's overt will. So God closed Balaam's eyes to a (by Balaam's standards) obvious divine manifestation (an angel with a flaming sword blocking his path). So obvious that even Balaam donkey could see it. He was supposed to learn his lesson, but didn't. Interestingly, Balaam exhibits no recorded surprise at his mount speaking to him. Perhaps in his world, such an event wasn't particularly out of the usual. --Dweller 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict:) The ass (the animal, not the body part) is famous for speaking to its master, thus being one of the very few documented cases of animals (excluding human beings) having spoken; another famous case being the serpent in the Garden of Eden. See further our article Balaam.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prophets are used to talk with inf or sup entities. See Gabriel, &c. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is familiar with Jerome's "Christians" or "Christian Authors"? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

I am especially interested in history information on Chapters 66 and Chapter 80 Chapter 66 is of one: "Cornelius", bishop of Rome. It talks further of the "eight letters of Cyprian are extant"; what is this? It further says: "He received the crown of martyrdom for Christ, and was succeeded by Lucius." Who is Lucius? Chapter 67 speaks of a "Cyprian of Africa" who was put to death at the same time as Cornelius. Who is he?

Chapter 80 is of "Firmianus, known also as Lactantius". Whom is this person? Looking for history information. This person is VERY inportant. Looking for some good detailed history information on this person "Firmianus". It says: "whose poem On medicine is still extant". Is there history information on this poem? What is this reference of: "...an Epitome of the same work in one volume, without a title...". What is this since apparently it was written in hexameters? --Doug 15:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bishop of Rome is "by definition" the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The persons referred to are Pope Cornelius and Pope Lucius I. The letters known by Jerome to exist may have been written by this Cyprian, who is mentioned as writing in support of Cornelius in that article. For Firmianus, see our article Lactantius. You can find most of this easily by using the search box on Wikipedia pages, or by using Google search terms like [Firmianus Lactantius site:en.wikipedia.org].  --Lambiam^Talk 15:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Yet another question from Krikkert :D

I'm a 'wanna be writer' and i beleive i have a special talent for it, so I'm writing this novel, (if i ever complete it, its due to come out sometime around year 2050, LOL. Its a huuuge and project writing a book :O ) which is why I have so many questions, and i use Wikipedia a lot as one of my most important sources. maybe even THE most important..

Anyways, being set in a fantasy/self-created world, I figured I had to make entirely new names for every MONTH of the year, and there is ONE month i struggle to name, 'the December-month'. And also, i must say, the names of all the months is not final yet, but it has been something I have been working on in my head for some time, and i won't settle down until I am 100 % satisfied with all month-names. And now the december-month is starting to get really tiresome as its new name is proving elusive to me and will not come to my head. I'm quite stuck... So i decided to be a bit creative and let YOU guys try be even more creative if you should wish to help me out :) You have always helped me out before, and i hope you are willing and creative enough also this time :) :) :)

The names goes as follows, (with the REAL month-names in parenthesis) :

• Frostmoon (January)
• Deepwinter (February)
• Rising (March)
• Springtide (April)
• Highseeds (May)
• Summertide (June)
• Highsummer (July)
• Highsun (August)
• Leaf-fade (September)
• Falling leaves (October)
• First frost (November)
• ??????????? (December)

So, if you let the names i have come up with so far guide you towards as to what kind of 'name' I am after, maybe you get some ideas to share to what i can call the month :)

Suggestions on the other month-names is WARMLY welcome as well, if u should want to suggest any. I'll put them into consideration and use whatever names is best :)

I'm also in doubt about Frostmoon/January...

and now that I'm at it, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF MY NAMES ? are they any good in ur opinion ?

Let me see your creative sides ! :D

Krikkert7 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Krikkert7[reply]

Brrrrrr !? -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out French Republican Calendar. The French completely re-invented the calendar after the Revolution, and you can see what names they came up with. Also for days of the week. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some suggestions:

• Cold time (January)
• Grey season (February)
• Bird return (March)
• Planting time (April)
• Blossom time (May)
• Gentle breeze (June)
• Thunder time (July)
• Melt weather (August)
• Wet season (September)
• Harvest season (October)
• Bird migration (November)
• Long night (December)

You can also name months after fictional characters, like "The moon of Olgranath". And, you don't need to have 12 months, you can have any number you want. StuRat 18:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your months as they are sound fine to me. Unless they are a major focus of the plot I would not spend too long worrying about them, what is important is your central theme, the pace, flow and direction of your writing. I admire the detail you are putting in, but be weary of concerning yourself with these things too much. As for alternative names for December how about "Hibernation" or looked at December, there are a few 'other names' for it there. ny156uk 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Turkish the name for December, Aralık, literally means: "Inbetweenness", as if they'd rather skip it and start straightaway with January. Maybe you can find some inspiration there.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it all depends on your particular climate. Up here in Canada these would be more appropriate:

• January: Freezing
• February: Still-Freezing
• March: Still-Freezing-but-it-Should-be-Over-Soon
• April: Cold-and-Wet
• May: Nippy-and-Damp
• June: Pleasant
• July: What-June's-over-Already?
• August: Pleasant-but-Summer's-Basically-Over
• September: Brisk
• October: Nippy-and-Windy
• November: Nippier-with-Some-Snow
• December: Cold

Loomis 20:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what part of Canada you're in. Here it would be:

• January - Wild Temperature Swings Between -30C and +20C With 120 kph Winds
• February - See January
• March - See January
• April - Snowstorms
• May - 35C One Day, Snowstorm The Next. Repeat.
• June - Rain, Floods
• July - Hail the Size of Canned Ham
• August - Hot and Dry, Unless It Snows
• September - See August
• October - Cold and Windy [the only damn month that's anywhere near predictable]
• November - See January
• December - See January

Guess where I live. --Charlene 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech uses nature-oriented month names. They are:

• January -- leden (ice month)
• February -- únor (unknown)
• March -- březen (birch month)
• April -- duben (oak month)
• May -- květen (flower month)
• June -- červen (red month)
• July -- červenec (same as above)
• August -- srpen (sickle month)
• September -- září (approaching rutting)
• October -- říjen (rutting month)
• November -- listopad (falling leaves)
• December -- prosinec (unknown)

Some of those same names are used in other Slavic languages. -- Mwalcoff 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutting month?! (No wonder there aren't more Czechs - it takes them a month to approach it.) Clarityfiend 02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, literally, it means "behind rutting," if we take it as "za říje." -- Mwalcoff 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice. Lowerarchy 21:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here where I live, it would be more like:

• January: Middle of winter, but I need to turn on a fan.
• Febuary: I need a cold beverage.
• March: It's not even summer, and it's already hot.
• April: The AC broke down, and it's almost 100 degrees (F).
• May: Mosquitos are coming...
• June: I don't dare go out now.
• July: Oventime.
• August: One word: Hot (and Humid).
• September: Summer's almost over, and it won't make a difference until late November.
• October: I won't go trick or treating for fear of melting.
• November: Finally! Two cold days (70 degrees)!
• December: The white Christmas we're going to have is from glare.

As you can see, the months vary widly if named by temperature; why not take inspiration and name them after Greek/Roman gods? (Well, Augustus was the son of a "god".) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're keeping your solstices in the same place, try "Ebbing-" or "Waning-" "sun," or "Sunsebb," "Sunwane," etc. Or just do something simple and straightforward, like "Yearsend." I'd be inclined to reverse your names for January and February, too... or possibly even move "Frostmoon" to cover December, "Deepwinter" to January, and come up with something new for February instead. Either something hopeful, like "Firstflower," or something that has to do with cold, damp, miserably wet and slushy.... --Vyasa Ozsvar 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a focus on the solstices suggests that the names for the months o the solstices (June and December) should be parallel. If June is "Summertide", then make December "Wintertide". Alternatively, ditch "Summertide" and pick a pair of names relating more directly to the solstices, "Longdays" and "Shortdays" or some such. One problem with Vyasa Ozsvar's suggestion of "Sunwane" is that the winter solstice is actually when the sun begins waxing, i.e., the days begin getting longer, after having been on the wane since June. I dimly recall reading some work of fiction in which this time of year was referred to as "Sunreturn" because it's when the sun starts returning. JamesMLane t c 20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question reminded me of an old favourite from Flanders and Swann. JackofOz 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time finding the statistics that I need for research. Please tell me if there is a specific strategy to get what I need: Wikipedia's article on Sierra Leone is wonderful, but I need to find out exactly how much it would cost to feed its citizens for one year. Can this be done?

Do you mean all of it's citizens or just those who are currently malnourished ? The first step would be to determine the population size. The total pop is easy, those who are malnourished would be harder. Next you need to decide how much it will take to feed each for a year. Be sure to include the cost of delivery and workers you need to hire. Then just multiply the two numbers. StuRat 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat's method works well if the purpose of your research is to determine how much it would cost an aid agency to feed the people of Sierra Leone. If the purpose of your research is to determine how much income the people of Sierra Leone need to feed themselves, then the relevant statistics probably don't exist. The number will depend heavily on factors such as climate and social stability, which will affect how much food Sierra Leoneans can grow for themselves (since many are subsistence farmers who would not normally spend much for food) and how much food is able to reach the markets, which will in turn affect its price on those markets. Marco polo 19:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA world factbook link CIA Fact Book is an excellent resource. DDB 09:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

need to have information on history of buenos aires police department from 1945to 1965 thank you

sorry but your question is extremely vague what kind of information are you looking for you're welcome Loomis 22:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to find a web site that provides the concise arguments on both sides of controversial political, social, and economic issues. For example, are free trade agreements good or bad for America, should funding for education be increased, should stem-cell research be legal, etc. A one-stop-shop to get a concise introduction to the main arguments on important issues. Does such a web site exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweet music (talk • contribs) 20:10, December 27, 2006 (UTC).

The first one that springs to mind is Wikipedia. We manage to do it pretty well for some issues. Beyond that, you can sometimes find sites on an issue-by-issue basis. Is there an issue in particular you're thinking of? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're like Balaam (see above). Try this, or this. --The Dark Side 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful though, certain "controversial issues", looked at out of context, don't seem controversial at all. For example, on its own, no person in their right mind would say that it's a bad thing for "funding of education [to be] increased". Of course! We'd all love it be increased! But where are we gonna get these extra funds from?

Sort of reminds me of the electoral platform of Canada's traditional "third party", the letftist NDP. "If elected, we're gonna increase funding for social programs, pay off the national debt and reduce taxes for everyone, all without running a deficit". Now math is definitely not my strength, but I'd sure like to see how they'd pull that one off! Loomis 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why that's easy, just print more money ! :-) StuRat 02:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is islam the fastest growing religion on earth? 21:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

see claims to be the fastest growing religion for insight. Hope it helps. ny156uk 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question was asked a while back. You'll have to define what you mean by "fastest growing". Many tiny religions can double in size in no time. Should we count those? Loomis 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also get into arguments about what a religion is; see Jedi census phenomenon. --Dweller 14:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original poster meant fastest growing major religion. --Proficient 21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for some biographical info on Samuel Reichmann, patriarch of the extremely wealthy Reichmann family. As you can see, there is no individual article on Samuel Reichmann. All that is said in the latter article is that he made his fortune "specializing in the currency trade" in Tangier. I'm specifically interested in finding out more about his days in Tangier, and how in particular he made his fortune "specializing in the currency trade" there. I thank you in advance for any info any of you can provide, including any references to external sources on the net. Thanks! Loomis 23:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can get a hold of a copy of Peter Foster's Towers of Debt: The Rise and Fall of the Reichmanns/the Olympia & York Story (Hardcover) or Anthony Bianco's The Reichmann's: Family, Faith, Fortune and the Empire of Olympia & York (Paperback) somewhere. Here's a review on Bianco's book by Andrew Coyne that's a bit longer than the one on amazon. ---Sluzzelin 00:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sluzzelin. Of course the lazy guy I am I was hoping something would be available online, but if I can't get it that way, I'll follow up on your recommendations. Thanks again! Loomis 15:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]