January 8

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I don´t understand why China is not a full and regular member of the G8 (or its coming adhesion to the group not being announced in the press). According to GDP figures it is 4th (nominal) or 2nd (PPP) in the world, so why is it still excluded? (btw: The G8 wikiarticle doesn´t seem to directly address the issue of Chinese membership). Thanks for info. as I don´t understand the reasoning here. --AlexSuricata 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, it is not just the relative size of the economies that is important here, but political processes as well. Members are expected to be democracies, which would obviously preclude China. This site will give you some more detail [1] Clio the Muse 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the G8 members have a floating currency, while China does not. StuRat 07:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to with the fact that it is (rediculously) a developing country?martianlostinspace 11:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info (and the very good link provided) - I didn´t know that having a democratic government was a such a strong prerequisiste for G8 membership and have requested that the G8 article reflects this more clearly. --AlexSuricata 11:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on several projects about great jewelry designers ranging from Celinni, Castelani, Lalique, Tiffany, Boucheron, Belperon Jensen and Andreasen.

You have no category for Jewelry Designers under the main category of Design. To whom can I address this problem?

thanks, Archie Martin 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Jewellery designers - note the spelling and lowercase. Stevage 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Benvenuto Cellini, René Lalique, Louis Comfort Tiffany, Georg Jensen: also Bulgari, Van Cleef & Arpels, Harry Winston: their careers as jewelry designers are under-represented at Wikipedia, it's true. --Wetman 06:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a place to categorise Sexennio (and somewhere to redirect Quinquennat to) and can't seem to find any very relevant pages or categories. We must have an article about the normal lengths of political terms? There's term limit (and List of political term limits) but that describes how many subsequent terms one person can have, not how long those terms last. And political term, term of office, term (politics) are all red links. Am I thinking about this the wrong way perhaps? Thanks in advance. Stevage 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definition given at sexenio, it is a term limit and should be so categorized. (I've gone ahead and added a link at List_of_political_term_limits#Mexico.) The definition at term limit ("a legal restriction that limits the number of terms") clearly includes a restriction to one term, and that article goes on to cite the ancient Roman "law... imposing a limit of a single term on the office of Censor" as an example of a term limit. Wareh 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a big difference between the length of a term, and "term limits" as such. For example, let's look at Australia in that list. For some reason it only lists the GG, not the prime minister. The PM's term varies but is around 3-4 years. There's no limit to the number of consecutive terms, however. There doesn't seem to be any article on the length of the terms themselves, other than these upper limits. Stevage 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would still say that the sexennio should be categorized as a "term limit"– despite the nickname, the whole point is that it's only six years once. I agree with you that there should be an article on term of office; there are an awful lot of things that could be said on that topic, and various philosophies on whether short or long terms are preferable.--Pharos 07:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list is somewhat inadequate, and inaccurate. The office of G-G is inherently apolitical, even if it is filled on the nomination of the Prime Minister, a wholly political animal - so it should not be on the list at all. The PM's term is not defined; upon appointment, the PM holds office until:

• his party is defeated at an election and he advises the G-G to commission the leader of the winning party or coalition to form a new government (eg. Paul Keating)
• he dies (eg. Harold Holt)
• he resigns his commission because he wants to retire (eg. Robert Menzies was the only one who has managed this so far)
• he loses the confidence of his party and is ousted as party leader (eg. Bob Hawke); or
• his commission is terminated by the Governor-General (eg. Gough Whitlam).

A general election must be held no later than 3 years after the first sitting of the parliament following the preceding election - this is usually translated to "3 year parliamentary terms", but it can be some months longer; or considerably shorter. And a single parliament may contain a number of different PMs (there were 3 in 1967-68, and there were 3 in 1945). JackofOz 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from escapism and relaxation, what good does it do anyone to read fiction/novels? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.24.62 (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fiction can make you think, it can give you a new look at certain things, and it can also teach you a lot of things. Science fiction can be quite an inspiration. — Kieff 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escapism and relaxation both may be regarded independently as sufficient reasons to read fiction. And to expand on Kieff, fiction does make you think, and reading, as an activity, can keep your mind sharp and broaden your vocabulary, both of which contribute to an improved ability to communicate and express yourself. And really, that's just for starters. Wolfgangus 04:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My philosophy is that real life is for real life, and gross unrealism is for fiction. If outlandish and absurd situations didn't exist in fiction, then they would not exist at all. Moreover, I think that most of the people who have read, say, The Lord of the Rings would not hesitate to tell you that the experience of doing so improved them somehow. Vranak

How? (by turning them into Hobbits? ) 8-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It helps you empathise. Try reading, say The Chrysalids without gaining new insights into disfigurement. Or any novel where you are invited to see the world through the eyes of someone markedly different from yourself, in terms of age, sex, class etc. People who can't empathise are psychopaths, but there is a continuum of how much one is able to truly empathise. Moving along that line makes you a better human being. --Dweller 11:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character traits that you can apply to your own life can be found in fiction. Pictures of bravery, courage, valour, integrity, leadership, perserverance etc. can be gleaned from fiction. That they are in fictional stories does not necessarily mean that nothing can be gotten from it. Sometimes important concepts can be conveyed and remembered better in a fictional story rather than simply telling the reader straight out. The Pilgrim's Progress and Chronicles of Narnia spring to mind. BenC7 11:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point to doing anything, if you have to ask. Instead of fiction you might read Roman history or perfect your figure-skating skills. If you have to ask "what's the point of going to church?" the experience is not doing you any good. Why not leave fiction alone and learn to speak a new language? Or to bake a cheese soufflé? --Wetman 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some fiction is read for education and information, almost like non-fiction. Animal Farm by George Orwell for example is a work of fiction; yet the book also acts as a fairly detailed and accurate summary of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union; people who would normally not be very interested in reading about the history of Russia, such as teenagers or older children, enjoy the book as an allegory. Likewise, most major events have works of fiction written around them (just think of all the novels and movies about the sinking of the Titanic), and some books, such as those of Tom Clancy, are so exhaustively detailed and painstaking researched that some people read these to learn just as much as for entertainment. Laïka 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that mention of Animal Farm, fiction can often shine a light (ugh, not much of a fan of that phrase) on real life. An author may not know enough about the circumstances of a real life situation to consider a non-fiction work, but may sense something in their political/social climate that can be disclosed in a fictional setting.

There's lots of other reasons. A writer may want to talk about those around them without causing offence to people that they love and care about. What the reader gets is a kind of kinship with what the writer's saying; they know people with similar traits, and so enjoy seeing these explored, or they may not know people who are anything at all like that, so their horizons are expanded by reading the book.

Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky is a fiction about someone who commits a murder. And when I read of the guilt the protaganist goes through I can relate to some of his anxiety, even though I've never killed anyone (yet).

Further, some accounts of real life just don't make a good enough book. So writers use a great deal of their own experience, but fiddle with it for the purposes of giving us all a better read. --bodnotbod 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me glean / collect information on "Psychological Distress" from a seriously academic point of view 06:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Dr. Pant

"Psychological distress" is seriously vague topic, not defined well enough to treat "seriously". It can range from realizing that one has missed a train stop to paranoid schizophrenia to existential angst. I don't think we can help you further. alteripse 12:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the topic is too vague. Distress is merely stress caused by adverse events. As our article on stress points out, stress has a physiological dimension that is eminently suitable for scientific study. Unfortunately, the sources cited by our article have more to do with avoiding stress than describing it. However, this article, from the website for a university course, provides a useful introduction to the topic, with some additional references listed at the end. Marco polo 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching the census pages and encyclopedias trying to find an average statistic for my question and cannot find an answer. Here is my question: Q.What is the total population of "americans" in the world in realtion to the total population of caucasians in the world? Any help eould be appreciated Michi Yamano —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From the perspective of a European, you've managed to choose two of the most ambiguous descriptors of human groups you possibly could. Over here, Caucasian usually refers to people living in the Caucasus, but I believe in the U.S. it's typically used as a synonym for white people. On top of that, it appears it also refers to people who speak one of the languages of the Caucasus, but don't necessarily live in the region. Progressing to "American", do you mean "people of the Americas", or of North America, or of the United States? Do you want the number of people that live in those regions, or have citizenship of a country in them? I'm not being disingenuous, I really don't have any idea which combination you're after.GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: What is the total number of "white americans" in the world in relation to the total number of "white-skinned" people in the world (to include that of european, australian, and every other "white-skinned" person? The question is derived from my job where I am to ask a citizenship question and an every day response I get is "well, I'm white" where I would like to be able to say "well Jean Claude is white too, but he's from France and is not a citizen" but I can't say that so I would like some kind of statistic I could use. Thanks for any help!

OK, let me get this straight. You perform surveys on citizenship and some white Americans respond, "well, gee, I'm white, of course I'm a citizen", right? It would not be particularly educational in this situation to point out that how many white people in Europe etc. are not American citizens. The correct response would be "well, gee, you never had a great-grandfather, came from somewhere else?". This will hopefully point out the foolishness of their racist assumption without undue insult.--Pharos 08:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you cannot find any statistics on that. Being "white" is too vague, as being a member of any other so called race. Me for example, I am from Eastern Europe, but I do not consider my self as being "white", while I know people having darker coloured skin, who define themselves as "white". I don't believe that there possibly be a global statistics on the matter, because diffrent people consider bieng "white" a diffrent variation of the skin colour. I mean that all possible statistics such as the one you are looking for cannot be objective or/and will be ethnocentric.--82.146.27.71 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have stats on whites in the US: [2]. The population of 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) can be multiplied by the 81.7% figure for the white percentage of the total population (note that this includes Hispanics) to get a white population around 244 million. The global population of "white people", including Hispanics, is a bit harder to estimate. It would include most people in Europe, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, and a few people in other countries. I'd guesstimate it at a bit under 2 billion people. So, we get a percentage around maybe 12.5% or 1 in 8. This is a "back of the envelope" calculation, though, so could be off by as much as a factor of 2, depending on your assumptions, methods of measurement, etc. StuRat 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human population seems to be estimated at 6.5 billion. The math doesn't add up... 惑乱 分からん 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes estimated the white population at roughly 27%\^sauce, which puts the total at 1,775,000,000, although they accept that the question is vague. Laïka 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you meant to add another 3 zeroes to the total number of "whites" in the world. That site estimates about 30% of the world is "white", so, when multiplied by the above 6.5 billion estimate for total world pop, this gives us 1.95 billion, or a little less than 2 billion, just as I'd said. StuRat 18:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Thanks! The 30% figure at the top of the page is from a viral email; they calculate further down the page that 30% is slightly high. Laïka 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the info, those estimated stats were exactly what I was looking for!

And on a side note to the other remarks, I am not at all concerned about insulting someone when they are ignorant enough to think that their white skin means they are a US citizen and use that answer daily with an annoyed tone in their voice. I don't see how the response "well, gee, you never had a great-grandfather, came from somewhere else?" is any less insulting not to mention I don't see how that response could be interpreted as anything but sarcastic as well. I too am bi-racial and am not being ethnocentric when in fact the statistics I was looking for do exist. I was not looking for a "white" statistic I was looking for the number of people with "white-skin" vs. the number of people who have white-skin and are american citizens. Facts are facts.

You'll excuse my sarcasm; I meant that that type of answer (pointing out that their recent ancestors probably weren't citizens), given in a less sarcastic and gentler way, would be less insulting than "that's a stupid racist assumption" (which would still be accurate), and probably more likely to change someone's mind. I personally don't think there are many people actually ignorant enough to believe every white person in the world is an American citizen, so I'm just not sure a statistical refutation makes sense here.--Pharos 09:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I don't necessarily think they actually believe every white person in the world is an American citizen, I just think they are ignorant enough to make the comment period and to make the asmuption that the majority of "white-skinned" people in the area this is happening are in fact citizens. The statistic is not intended to be a rebuttal, more for my satisfaction of pointing out their ignorance. My questions sole intention was for a statistic, which I got, not a discussion board of opinions on racism and someone else's interpretation of how someone else is going to feel about my sarcasm.

OK, sure. By the way, if you just want to avoid the annoyed sound, you could just ask them what state they were born in first, and only ask about their citizenship if they say they were born abroad. I'm sorry if I've given too much irrelevant advice here; good luck with your surveys.--Pharos 10:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if they haven't been born abroad and naturalized which a huge percentage of the people coming through this area have, being its on the US.Mexican border and many of them even being born with mixed parents are "white-skinned." The only relevant question is to ask their citizenship.

I am a primary school teacher and a nine year old girl in my class has asked why the Tudor Rose is sometimes depicted as being red on the outside, white on the inside and sometimes depicted as being white on the outside and red on the inside. I do not know the answer, nor do I know which is correct. Can you help us? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.51.13 (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey there - according to our article on Tudor rose:

"In so doing he created the Tudor rose, conjoining the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. In heraldry, the rose is depicted as white on red if placed on a field of a metal (gold or silver), or red on white if placed on a field of a colour, due to the rule of tincture." --Mnemeson 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in heraldry white is often represented by silver, so when printed on the pages of a book, the white-on-red rose should be used, making it the "correct" one in most circumstances. Laïka 11:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the s San Miguelino de los Mercados? --Scarlett Kiteway 12:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the context: a church in Manila? a convent in Argentina? a pious confraternity in Seville? --Wetman 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this question is showing up on Google, and to save futile searches for a fiction: The Convent of the "San Miguelino de los Mercados" is a fictitious place referred to in card #249:The Angel's Key, for the online game Perplex City. --Seejyb 08:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In The Monk's Prologue and Tale lists the 17 seventeen short stories on the theme of tragedy based on Giovanni Boccaccio's Concerning the Falls of Illustrious Men. Is Boccaccio's list identically the same list (but just in Latin) or is it a shorter list? Which are on Boccaccio's list then if it is shorter? --Doug 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer's work was not a translation he just pynched the idea. John Lydgate's Fall of Princes is closer to Boccaccio's work but Lydgate loosely translated Laurent de Premierfait who had in turn loosely translated Boccaccio. I haven't found much detail on Boccaccio's Illustrious Men online but there is a dead tree version in english, translated and abridged by Louis Brewer Hall. New York, 1965. From stray references I think Darius and Mark Antony are in Boccaccio but not Chaucer. meltBanana 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I apologize if I am not in the right area to ask this question. I am Phd student at Bard who is attempting to write and edit a number of articles on well known jewellery and functional art designers from 1800 - present. I began by writing an article on the notable designer Suz Andreasen and have been getting conflicting signals from the editors. I think now I am getting somewhere but the current revision got nominated for deletion however there is a discussion going on which is good. I am trying to get folks in the arts of humanities to take a look at it in relation to the current listings you have in the Jewellery Designers Section which is where this candidate should be located. Can anyone help direct me? Thanks, Archie Martin Archiemartin 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 17:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look it over, including the html, as I've wikified it and incorporated the references. Frankly, it still reads like a promo, no doubt the main issue editors are having with it. Does her teacher have a Wikipedia article? --Wetman 09:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to find out more about Jewish people who survived WWII, while remaining in Germany or Poland, I already know about Shoah and the two men who escaped from Chelmno Camp. But any others would be greatly appreciated.81.144.161.223 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film The Pianist is (in my view) one of the most amazing WWII survival films. This is about a young pianist struggling to survive in Poland during occupation. Anne Frank's diary is probably the most famous from the war period and is more than worthy of a read. There is a category called Category:Holocaust literature which would maybe be a good area to start. There is also a tv-series (I forget the name) that if I recall is set in a German village/town and shows how german families survived throughout the war (it is supposed to be excellent but I have never tracked any of it down on tv/online). ny156uk 17:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Solomon Perel. His story was made into the movie Europa, Europa. BTW, Anne Frank did not survive the War. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (Very good point, sorry forgot about that!!) NY15UK[reply]

I see we also have a List of Holocaust survivors. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the people on the above list are, of course, Jewish. But there are a number of very good accounts, both by Jews and Gentiles, of the struggle for survival. I would specifically recommend the work of Primo Levi, If This is a Man, Elie Wiesel's The Night and Wieslaw Kielar's Anus Mundi: Five Years in Auschwitz But in my estimation arguably the most stunning treatment of all are the stories of Tadeusz Borowski, This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen. Casting the net still wider, you might also be interested The Last of the Just, a literary tour de force by Andre Schwarz-Bart, though the subject is courage, rather than survival. There is also Jiři Weil's, Life with a Star, set in the then Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, rather than Poland or Germany. Clio the Muse 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another worthwhile work is Still Alive by Ruth Kluger. Carom 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend Maus, a graphic novel in which the Jews are portrayed as mice and the Germans as cats, written by the son of a concentration camp survivor. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was just going to recommend the very same thing! You'd need both Maus books to get the full story. Skittle 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the movie/novel Everything Is Illuminated DDB 01:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a searching exposition of why some concentration camp inmates survived, and others died, go no further that Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning (written by a survivor). This is one of my favourite quotes from the book: "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." JackofOz 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the "rap" in rap sheet mean?4.244.195.135 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basic meaning "blow" (e.g. "a rap on the knuckles") has developed into the sense "rebuke; adverse criticism." The OED's first citation in this sense is 1777 ("The post master general..has lately had a rap, which I hope will have a good effect"), and here the connection to "blow" is still felt (approximately, "someone slapped the postmaster with some good criticism"). Within this sense, we get the more specific meaning "criminal accusation"; here the OED's first citation is 1903 ("What makes you look so glum?"... "Turned out of police court this morning."... "What was the rap, Mike?"). A "rap sheet" is a catalog of criminal charges. Wareh 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HA! I always thought it was 'rep sheet' as in reputation! You learn something new every day:). Thanks. Vespine 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading some time ago a set of poems (or maybe it was a single epic poem) that depicted the story of human pre-history. It was not from a religious point of view. Does anyone have any idea what this poem might have been and who wrote it. Sorry I can’t remember more about this. S.dedalus 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not certain it's right, the Epic of Gilgamesh comes immediately to mind. Wolfgangus 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility might be the Edda, although it covers more than the time period you mentioned. Carom 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the poem was 20th centory though. S.dedalus 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure that the poem is an epic, you might want to check the article on epic poetry, and see if any of the poems listed under "20th century" ring a bell. Carom 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Adam Had 'Em? Anchoress 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Nature of Things has a major section on purported human prehistory (it's not 20th century though).--Pharos 07:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Ovid or Plato? Both talk about it. Gradvmedusa 04:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How best is the attitude of the west towards the Muslim community? Recently there were reports of Muslims being harassed at the airports...French tourists are treated with utmost care and respect in almost every middle-eastern country and Asia particularly. The small discrimation of an american overseas sparks huge outcries in the western soil that people take it to the extent of dragging the issue to the legal system in the US..

Why are there such drastic disparaties in treatments? 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ppl are simply scared and angry. Flamarande 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) PS: Sign your bloody statements[reply]

For the most part I see no 'problems' in my day to day life. I have seen little (in the UK) of the huge-outcries you speak of. The airport attitudes are a different matter. Whilst it is discriminatory it is something of 'human nature' to feel anxious in surroundings where there has been a recent history of attacks/issues - this is not helped my media hysteria or people's inability to deal with probability (how many flights per years, how many attacks per year = v. small chance). Additionally as is noted ocassionally it is not merely Muslim-groups that are responsible for terrorism. It is this sort of divisive (spelling) mindset of them Vs us that is perpetuating the troubles. One needs to seperate those doing things from those not. Muslims as a whole did not commit the terrorist acts, a group did. Similarly the Western-world does not have an outcry (as a whole) when the treatment of a citizen is less than the excellent service expected across the globe. The day when we can change from grouping people in such large masses negatively is the day we can hope for a prolonged period of stability throughout the world. ny156uk 00:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your question: Why are Muslims harassed in the west more than French (people) beening harassed in Muslims countries? The answer is obvious. Because Muslims in Muslims countries do not fear that the French are terrorists. I wish to point out that prior to Sep 11, Muslims are not being harassed in the west. 202.168.50.40 00:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If you look at the percentage of terrorist attacks on airplanes committed by Muslims versus those committed by non-Muslims, the ratio of Muslims terrorists is much higher than the portion of travelers who are Muslim. This suggests that special security measures should be applied to Muslims. Here is a list of some terrorist attacks committed by Muslim against aircraft over the last 40 years:

• 1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.

• 1969: There were 82 recorded hijack attempts worldwide, more than twice the total attempts for the whole period 1947-67. Most were Palestinians using hijacks as a political weapon to publicise their cause and to force the Israeli government to release Palestinian prisoners from jail.

• 1970, September: As part of the Dawson's Field hijackings, PFLP members attempt to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeed on three and force the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blow up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages are freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners. The fourth attack on an El Al plane by two people including Leila Khalid is foiled by armed guards aboard.

• 1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 139 is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages killing all Palestinian hijackers and rescuing 105 persons, mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.

• 1977: Lufthansa Flight 181 (also known as the Landshut) was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists on a flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt. The ordeal ended in Mogadishu when GSG 9 commandos stormed the plane. Three hijackers were killed and 86 hostages were freed. The pilot was killed. The hand of German Red Army Faction was suspected.

• 1977 December 4: A Boeing 737 Malaysia Airlines Flight 653 was hijacked and crashed in Tanjung Kupang, Johore killing 100 people aboard.

• 1978: Two Arab guerrillas seized a plane in Cyprus. Egyptian commandos flew in uninvited to try to take the plane. Cypriot troops resisted and 15 Egyptians died in a 45-minute battle.

• 1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked and taken to Kabul, where one passenger is killed before the plane flies on to Damascus; the hostages are finally released after 13 days when the Pakistani Government agrees to free fifty political prisoners.

• 1981: The Hijacking of Flight Garuda Indonesia GA 206 on 28 March 1981. This was the first serious Indonesian airline hijacking, since the first case was a desperate Marine hijacker who was killed by the pilot himself. The hijackers, a group called Commando Jihad, hijacked the DC 9 "Woyla", onroute from Palembang to Medan, and ordered the pilot to fly the plane to Colombo, Sri Lanka. But since the plane didn't have enough fuel, it refueled in Penang, Malaysia and then to Don Muang, Thailand. The hijackers demanded the release of Commando Jihad members imprisoned in Indonesia, and US $ 1.5 million, as well as a plane to take those prisoners to an unspecified destination. The Kopassus commandos who took part in this mission trained for only three days with totally unfamiliar weapons, brilliantly executed this fast-paced operation. One of the Kopassus commandos was shot by the hijacker leader, who then shot himself. All the other hijackers were killed. All the hostages were saved.

• 1984: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces who were dressed as custodial staff.[3]

• 1985: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert TWA Flight 847 from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ends after Israel frees 31 Lebanese prisoners.

• 1985: Palestinians take over EgyptAir Flight 648 and fly it to Malta. All together, 60 people died, most of them when Egyptian commandos stormed the aircraft.

• 1986: 22 people are killed when Pakistani security forces storm Pan Am Flight 73 at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.

• 1988: Two Kuwaitis are killed in 1988 when Shi'a gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways flight from Thailand and force it to fly to Algiers with more than 110 people on board; the hijack ends after 16 days when the hijackers free the remaining hostages and are allowed to leave Algiers.

• The destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988.

• 1991: 26 March 1991, Singapore Airlines Flight 117 hijacked by individuals claiming to be members of the Pakistan People's Party. Elite Singapore Special Operations Force members stormed the plane, killing all four hijackers and freeing all 118 passengers and 9 crew in an operation lasting just 30 seconds. None of the passengers and crew were hurt.

• 1994: Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by four GIA terrorists planning to crash into the Eiffel Tower. After the execution of 3 passengers, GIGN commandos storm the plane killing all hijackers and freeing all passengers.

• 1995: Iranian defector and flight attendant Rida Garari hijacked Kish Air flight 707, which landed in Israel. No casualties.

• 1996: Hemus Air Tu-154 aircraft was hijacked by the Palestinian Nadir Abdallah, flying from Beirut to Varna. The hijacker demamded that the aircraft be refuelled and given passage to Oslo, Norway after landing at Varna Airport. All of the 150 passengers were freed at Varna, afterwards the crew continued the flight to Oslo.

• 1999-2000: Pakistan based terrorists hijack Indian Airlines Flight 814 and divert it to Kandahar. After a week-long stand-off India agrees to release three jailed Pakistani terrorists in exchange for the hostages. 1 hostage was stabbed to death and his body thrown on the tarmac as a "warning attack".

• 2001: September 11 attacks, American Airlines Flight 11.

• 2001: September 11 attacks, American Airlines Flight 77.

• 2001: September 11 attacks, United Airlines Flight 93.

• 2001: September 11 attacks, United Airlines Flight 175.

• 2001: American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris, France to Miami, United States survives a failed shoe bombing attempt by Richard Reid — an Islamic fundamentalist from the United Kingdom, and alleged/self-proclaimed Al Qaeda operative.

StuRat 02:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to start a war here, I consider myself a very tolerant and open minded individual, but I'm struggling to come to terms with fatwa, Ruhollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and The Satanic Verses.. Most hijackings are perpetrated by Muslims does not mean most Muslims are terrorists, I believe in equality and tolerance, BUT the people linked above aren't crazed pockets of extremists hiding in some cave in Afghanistan, they are the people in power! How is someone in the west expected to rationalise that? I'm struggling. Vespine 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ones doing the attacks are extremists. The fact we're camped out supporting a state that we gave control of their holy land to, and the fact that it's the second largest religion in the world are also factors. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their Holy Land? The holiest city in Islam is Mecca, the second holiest city is Medina. Both are located in the VERY Muslim kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Of course the "third" holiest city of Islam is supposedly Jerusalem. I'm sure there must be a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, and even a seventeenth "holiest city" of Islam. The fact remains that the two "holiest cities" of Islam are held very tightly in Muslim hands. How many other "holy cities" they expect to control is anyone's guess. Judaism's one and only Holy City is Jerusalem. That's it. Abraham was born somewhere in Iraq, but Jews have no interest in "claiming" that as a "Holy City". Moses was born in Egypt, but once again, Jews have no interest in claiming any part of Egypt as a "Holy Land". In fact the Torah explicitly forbids Jews to ever return to Egypt, as that was the land of slavery. The Torah itself was given to the Jews somewhere on the Sinai Peninsula, another territory Israel makes no real claim to, as it was clearly outside the "promised land", and given back to Egypt in return for peace. Judaism has but one "Holy City" and that is Jerusalem. How many "Holy Cities" is a religion allowed to claim? Mecca and Medina are clearly the two "Holiest Cities" of Islam. Perhaps Jews should do as their Muslim cousins and lay claim to each and every city of religious significance to Jews. That being the case, Jerusalem would still be the first "Holy City" of the Jews. Second? Brooklyn perhaps, along with Manhattan's lower East Side. Third? Well that one's easy: Miami Beach. Loomis 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Jerusalem is only third for the Sunni branch. After Mecca and Medina the Shia branch may also include Najaf, Iraq and Qom, Iran. You might also want to mention that Jerusalem was the capital of ancient Israel long before it was conquered by Muslims (long before Islam existed, even). The city is also of some importance to Christians, being the reputed birth place of Christ (although the evidence seems to support this having been made up later, but that doesn't prevent Christians worldwide from believing it). StuRat 23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only a test exists that would say "This muslim is an extremist. That muslim is not an extremist." Then there would not be any requirement to "harass" the vast majority of muslims (in the west).202.168.50.40 03:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Extremists" aren't the tiny group that is often portrayed. While not a majority of the Muslim community worldwide, they do have control or have strong influence in many Muslim governments, such as Iran (where the President holds a conference to claim that the Holocaust never happened), Palestine (where the Hamas terrorist group was elected despite their commitment to violence and the total destruction of Israel), Lebanon (where the Hezbollah terrorist group controls the southern half of the country), and formerly Afghanistan (under the Taliban). StuRat 04:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking, and I who truly (didn't :) believe that Democracy is always the best answer for everything and the best political system for every nation of this planet regardless of everything (I even know of a certain lobby (Neo-Conservatives) that humbly believes that Democracy is so good that it should be forced upon other nations at gun-point). But please, don't forget (or choose to ignore) that the elections in Iran aren't truly free when moderate candidates are barred by the Guardian Council. And it just might be possible that IF the Palestinian ppl weren't completly desperate and miserable Hamas might not have been elected, and that IF the Lebanese goverment wasn't way too feeble (because of the Lebanese Civil War) Hezbollah might have been kicked out allready (like the PLO was with the Black September in Jordan). And that the Taliban rose to power in consequence and during a civil war. Flamarande 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but those extremist groups gaining power shows that they are more than just trivial fringe movements. If only 1% of the population of a country were extremists, then they could never gain power by either democratic or nondemocratic means. StuRat 05:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baskets and Bombs

For the sake of some balance, and in full expectation that the following argument is likely to elicit a venomous response, let me try to introduce some objectivity and perspective into this thread. Yes, a war of terrorism is indeed a terrible thing, one where we cannot discriminate between guilty and innocent, soldier and civilian, participant and bystander. It breeds fear and suspicion, turning every devout Muslim man and woman into 'the enemy'; which might, in fact, be said to be Bin Laden's most significant political achievement to date. Yet has anyone paused to consider that it is Muslim people themselves who are the chief victims of terrorism, either of the state sponsored and official variety, or of the more home grown versions. Consider, moreover, the hypocrisy of past American policy on this whole matter, which encouraged and supported Bin Laden when the victims of terrorism were Russian soldiers in Afghanistan, and supported Saddam when the victims of poison gas attacks were Iranians. Yes, Bin Laden and his kind are monsters; but just who exactly, it is legitimate to ask, should be cast in the role of Dr. Frankenstein?

Now, let's look at the above list of 'Muslim' outrages, devoid of context, explanation or political genealogy. What purpose does this serve other than to turn a whole faith community into the enemy, into the 'other', it might be said, a uniform object of fear, and a suitable case for treatment? Some of you may think there is good reason behind this; but what would you think of an argument that lumped together ETA, the IRA, FARC and the likes of Timothy McVeigh as examples of 'Christian terrorism'? We preach time and again to the Islamic world about the values of democracy, as if this is some kind of universal panacea; yet when the Palestinian people vote for Hamas, somehow democracy is no longer the answer after all. But Hamas is a symptom, not the disease. Do we even begin to understand how desperately angry the Palestinian people are, locked up in the appalling ghetto of Gaza, under constant threat from a state which was itself partly built on terrorism, and continues to employ the tactic in a wholesale and indiscriminate fashion, against the innocent and guilty alike. Do we even want to know how much anger there is in the Islamic world against the West, against a hypocrisy that preaches human rights and justice in theory, but ignores gross breaches of these very ideals in practice?

Coming back to my original point, yes, terrorism is a terrible weapon, though it is still an open question as to who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter. But what, after all, is terrorism of the Bin Laden kind but a low-intensity war, a war of those without, it might be said, the big guns. I'm always mindful here of an exchange I saw in The Battle for Algiers, a documentary-style movie depicting the FLN's war of liberation against the French colonialists in the early 1960s. During this struggle Arab women dressed up as French civilians and left basket bombs in bistros and the like, killing many civilians. Later one of the captured rebel leaders is asked by a reporter Isn't it cowardly to use your women's bakets to carry bombs that have killed so many innocent people? Reply is given thus: Is it less cowardly to drop your napalm on defenseless villages, killing thousands more? Give us your bombers, and you can have our women's baskets. Next time you see reports (if you see reports) on the continuing injuries and deaths caused by Israeli cluster bombs, used in the recent attack on Lebanon, you may remember this. And next time you see a Muslim man with a beard, or a woman wearing a burqa, try to think a little more objectively. Clio the Muse 09:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the mask finally comes off. MY GOD!. The above statement has got to be one of the most perverse, twisted, disgusting and appalling secretion of pure excrement I have ever had the misfortune of reading here on Wikipedia. "For the sake of some balance...[Israel was] a state which was itself partly built on terrorism"? Yes, I'm intimately aware of the activities of the Irgun. Yes they were a guerilla force. But please tell me where they ever, EVER used tactics involving the targetting of civilians to achieve their objectives. Please, as you say so often to others, DO SOME READING before you proceed to subject the rest of us to such a disgusting discharge of pure verbal diarrhea. The sheer ignorance and perversity of your statement is so disgustingly vile, and so openly anti-semitic...I'd say more, but I must be off to the bathroom to vomit. Loomis 07:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis, you cite your familiarity with the Irgun but neglect to mention its more "militant" offshoot, the Lehi paramilitary organization that, despite its small numbers, carried out many assassinations (including of its Jewish rivals). Former Israeli prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin were members of Lehi and the Irgun, respectively. I can't, so won't, cite the targeting of civilians, though there were notable instances of what today is euphemistically (i.e. fooling no one) called "collateral damage" (such as the King David Hotel bombing). Regardless of whether the actions of pre-State paramilitary organizations are to be laid as charges at the present State of Israel's sovereign feet, the conduct of military actions, including against belligerents of a terrorist faction, are subject to such prevailing contexts as the Geneva Convention and world opinion. Citation of questionable practices, up to and including criticism of Israeli governmental policy, is not "openly anti-semitic" [sic]; it could be argued that such criticism is vital to the ultimate health and welfare of Israel per se and the Jewish people by extension. I say this as a (naturalized) Jewish citizen of Israel, and echoing the sentiments of Poland's former foreign minister Wladyslaw Bartoszewski (a "Righteous Among the Nations," and imprisoned under the Communist regime) on a recent visit to the Ghetto Fighters' House: "Of course we criticize our country - because we care about her so much!"-- Thanks, Deborahjay 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with your first two paragraphs (let me remind that everybody was against the Russian rules of engagement in Chechnia before 9/11 but since then everybody is happy to ignore the whole issue) and disagree completly with the last one. Bin Laden isn't fighting for the independence/freedom of his country/people, and he didn't began fighting against an invader (despite more recent speeches).

I think there was still some support for Chechnya until the Beslan school hostage crisis, which permanently turned world opinion against them. StuRat 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden created a network whose only goal is to kill ppl everywhere. He may loudly proclaim that the ultimate goal is to free the Palestinian ppl from Israeli ocupation (besides destroying the "Great Satan")and many really believe that propaganda-crap, but does anyone think that the actions of Al-Quaeda helped at all in that issue? Oh, his theory is that since the USA is the main supporter of Israel killing Americans (civilians, military, and employes of the US gov, but mainly civilians) is justified (and way too many idiots everywhere share that view). Too many believe that if they hurt the Americans hard enough they will somehow stop supporting Israel. Everybody is somehow convinced that if someone hurts the American ppl hard enough they will cave. But history shows exactly that it is the other way around: that if you hurt a ppl they will come after you and your own. That's what happened with Pearl Harbor and that's what happenend in Afghanistan. You hurt the Americans and they will come after you, storm your stronghold, and shot you between the eyes (unless you surrender like a cowardly dog like the late Sadam, then someone will judge you). Of course, that popular demand was used and manipulated by a completly incompetent US-administration for the invasion of Iraq (I like to think that anyone with two brain-cells wouldn't have done that mistake but sometimes I wonder).

Some might even say that was what Bin Laden wanted: A scared and angry America who in the ensuing fire-fight unavoidably kills a lot of innocent Muslim bystanders. I personally think that Bin Laden isn't that machiavelian; IMHO he is just a hate-filled fanatic blinded by his own legend and propaganda.

Look closely at his interviews; the guy is an actor (figurately speaking): his entire presentation, his clothing, his beard, his carefully studied speech, do you think that he doesn't groom himself for his role: the great and rightous leader of the Jihad?. Sadly, too many Mulims believe in his speeches and most importantly they believe in him. But truly Bin Laden isn't some kind of Muslim champion, he is directly (and indirectly) responsable for the death of tens of thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. I also believe that most insurgents in Iraq are fighting against the US-troops because they want to avenge dead relatives and of sheer desperation and not because they follow Bin Laden's views. Let's just hope that he is dead and that his corpse is feeding the maggots somewhere. Flamarande 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Flamarande, for that interesting contribution. But please look again at what I have written in my final paragraph. I in no way justify Bin Laden's actions at any level, merely describe in passing the forms of low-intensity war that he and his kind are pursuing. He is indeed a monster, and his war is probably one without end, it saddens me to admit. But he is also a monster that we have done much to create, one that waxes strong on deep reservoirs of anger in the Muslim world. On your final point, my deepest fear is that Bin Laden has become a semi-mythic figure, a little like Big Brother in George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, in that he will never truly die, if you understand my meaning. The countours may change, but that face may look down on us for generations to come. Clio the Muse 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that Islamist terrorism is a problem because Muslims are oppressed. I don't think Muslims, as a whole, are all that oppressed by non-Muslims. That's not to say none are, but I think most Muslims who are oppressed are oppressed by other Muslims in places like Iran, Turkey and Turkmenistan. True, some oppressive regimes in Muslim countries are supported by Western powers, but that doesn't relieve the countries' leaders of the primary blame. Arab countries, particularly, have little to complain about: Their oil, coupled with America's addiction to it, has put some of them among the world's wealthiest states. No Arab nation (save maybe the Sahrawi) lacks self-government. The Palestians have autonomy, and the Iraqis now have their own elected government despite the presence of foreign troops. The Palestinian Authority is the largest per-capita recipient of foreign aid in the world, although most of that aid has been suspended due to the election of Hamas. Western countries have opened their doors to millions of Arab immigrants, as well as Muslims from other places, allowing them to share in their prosperity.

I don't doubt that some Muslims in some places are oppressed or discriminated against. I know it can't be easy to be a Muslim nowadays in some Western countries. But compared to the Tibetians, the Degar of Vietnam or the blacks of southern Sudan, few Muslims have much to complain about. Yet we don't see much Tibetian terrorism. -- Mwalcoff 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what? We don't see Tibetan terrorists because there was no Buddhist revolution and there's never been events like the Tibet contra scandal. The west has been interfering in the middle east since ww1, there are many examples of it, I can easily see how Muslims can feel oppressed by the west. When almost every western nation condemns Israeli attacks time and time again and the United states fails to do so? A bit one sided but articles like this give the other side of the story. Vespine 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the Iran-Contra scandal and the revolution in Iran have to do with this. We don't see Tibetan terrorism because terrorism does not result from oppression like lung cancer results from smoking. And as you say, most countries don't support Israel as steadfastly as the U.S. does. Yet Islamists have attacked not only the U.S. but also Britain, Spain, France, Argentina, Thailand, the Philippines and tourists of various nationalities in Tunisia, Egypt and Indonesia. -- Mwalcoff 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting way beyond the scope of the reference desk. I don't see how you can fail to associate Muslim animosity towards the west with Iran contra and the Iranian revolution. Britain, apart from being US ally number one has also historically been involved in the region. As for the others, the fact they are allies is enough for the extremists. I don't believe terrorists exist just because a few evil psychos decided to give world destruction a shot, there is a cause. Vespine 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though i have no illusions that anyone here will even bother to respond to a request a posted a couple of times in the past, I'll repeat it once more, if anything, to at the very least provoke some thought on the issue:

The words "Islam is a Religion of Peace" have been repeated over and over and over again ad nauseum ever since 9/11, (even by GWB, to his discredit,) and that Islamic "fundamentalism", involving the targetting and murder of innocents is, by its very definition, relegated to a few "fringe" Muslim nutjobs, while on the other hand, the VAST majority of Muslims are moderates and reject such attrocities. My request therefore is a simple one: I'm wondering if anyone here can refer me to one, or perhaps two or three (three! now I'm being ambitious!) prominent Islamic clerics who are on record as denouncing such acts, without qualification. No "9/11 was a terrible thing, however, if it weren't for American policy...". No "killing of Israeli civilians is a terrible thing, however, blah, blah, blah". I'm just looking for one, or a couple, of prominent "moderate" Islamic clerics, representing what I'm lead to believe is the vast majority of "moderate" Muslims, who are publically on record as saying without qualification, "9/11 was a terrible thing. PERIOD." Or, "the killing of Israeli civilians is a terrible thing. PERIOD". I must confess some negligence on my part, the last time I asked this question I was actually referred to a certain Islamic cleric from, I believe, Portugal. Unfortunately, due to my negligence, I failed to follow up on this particular outspokenly moderate Portuguese Islamic cleric. If he indeed exists, I'd really like to find out who he is, as he's obviously worthy of the utmost of praise and admiration. If anyone is aware of this particular Portuguese Muslim cleric, I'd be grateful to find out more about him. This great man definitely deserves far more exposure than he apparently has. Otherwise, I'd be grateful if anyone out there is aware of any other such "moderate" Muslim clerics, representing the MASSIVE majority of the world's Muslims, as these good people have the potential to offer so much towards the aim of peace, and can be great partners to any of us who wish to establish a joint, multi-faith force, to counter the influence of these few nutty "extremists", who apparently have far too much influence on the direction of Islam, a true "Religion of Peace". Any references would be greatly appreciated. Loomis 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could also ask where are the prominent Christian ministers/clerics calling for an end to the War in Iraq. Gradvmedusa 05:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the parallel. I'm talking about terrorism. The targetting of innocents. You're talking of the toppling of a brutal dictatorship, which tragically, though clearly unintentionally resulted in the death of many innocents. Whatever position one takes on the war in Iraq, unless you're some sort of homocidal psychopath, even if it's a necessary tragedy, we all agree it's a tragedy. We don't "dance in the streets" upon hearing of the deaths of Iraqi civilians. I pray for an American victory in Iraq, a victory for democracy, and above all, a victory for the Iraqi people; the beginning to a path towards prosperity and peace. Yet, in the words of Golda Meir concerning the Israeli experience, "It is true we have won all our wars, but we have paid for them. We don’t want victories anymore." Or, perhaps even more profound, her words to Anwar Sadat: "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours". Likewise, even if I were able to forgive Saddam for all the attrocities he committed, I can never forgive him for forcing so many good, decent, young American men and women into becoming the unwilling, unintending, yet inevitable killers of innocents. This, to me, was Saddam's greatest crime. Loomis 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a quote in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that our own Ahamad (or Ahmad) Kutty did. Here's a related article: [4] Anchoress 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the definition of "cleric" is, but Abdul Hadi Palazzi is not only strongly opposed to fundamentalism but a hard-core Zionist. -- Mwalcoff 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anchoress and Mwalcoff! These are obviously two great men, and I should add that the way Kutty was treated was utterly unacceptable. Now all I'm wondering is why, despite heir tremendous efforts, these two great men and great Muslims, (and I'm sure there are quite a few more,) don't seem to have the moderate, peace loving Muslim world flocking to their support? If Islam and the Muslim world are so disgusted by Islamic fundamentalism, and so dedicated to peace, what aren't Kutty and Palazzi household names? (I've certainly never heard their names before, yet I'm uplifted to finally learn of their existence!) I'm honestly trying my best to not be cynical about the whole thing, but why, if the Muslim world is indeed like-minded, do these men not attract audiences of hundreds of thousands of followers at non-violent peace rallies such as, for example, Martin Luther King? Why do their messages of peace go so apparently unnoticed and unheeded? What a beautiful day that would be: "I have a dream ... I have a dream where Muslim, Christian and Jew hold hands in Jerusalem, Peace at Last!" Loomis 12:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a paper on the benefits of reserach for a community based advocacy group and would like some information about the benefits of good research to support the development of cost-benefit arguments to support advocacy. Many thanksCoastal blue 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably depend what the advocacy is for, and the nature of the research. Can you provide more informaiton? BenC7 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider the money-value of information. This is something to do with decision trees (last time I read this article it was very badly written and misleading as far as I recall) and can be specifically calculated. This topic will probably be covered on textbooks about operations research. 80.1.184.60 13:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My answer probably won't help you, but, FWIW: Based on my experiences with community-based advocacy, there is almost no benefit to good research. Most public controversies are decided by the alignment of interest groups. Research may give you some improved talking points with which to mobilize your allies, but it rarely changes anyone's mind. JamesMLane t c 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i ask a lot of fads questions on this page, this is one of the more vague: Are flip-flops a fad of the 2000's, as in they are acceptable to wear outside of beach and summer-related situations, or did this begin in the 90's. --Technofreak90 02:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article suggests that the change occurred in the late 1990's, which dovetails nicely with my own recollection. However, I cannot cite a source to support this (and the article does not provide one either). Obviously, not everyone agrees that wearing flip-flops outside the beach is acceptable, and there are some situations where wearing flip-flops has caused something of an uproar - one is mentioned in the article. Carom 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the fad started in a few pockets, such as coastal California or Florida, in the late 1990s, but I don't remember flip-flops breaking out across the United States until 2002 or 2003. See this article. I remember a conversation in one of those years with an American woman who had traveled to Europe and heard European women complaining about American women wearing beach attire in the city. It hadn't yet caught on in Europe. (I suspect it has by now.) Marco polo 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably true. I was thinking of Chicago's North Shore, where I remember them becoming fashionable as more than just "beachwear" in the spring of either '99 or '00. Carom 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean right about the time that MTV touted flip-flops as being the new cool thing to wear (as opposed to hiking boots, which they said were the cool thing to wear throughout the 90's). --Kainaw ^(talk) 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's about right. ; ) Carom 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been wearing flip-flops in Australia (although we call them thongs or pluggas) for a lot longer than the last 10 years! BenC7 06:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here in California, too. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 17:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better not call them "thongs" in the US, though: "thong" is more often used for a type of undergarment or swimwear. --Carnildo 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been wearing them here too for a lot longer than 10 years. More like 35. Here being inland Canada! (Well, we don't wear them in the winter!) --Charlene 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've been an integral part of informal Australian culture for at least 50 years. (Not sure if that's something I should be proud of, but it's a fact). JackofOz 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And New Zealand culture too (though they're called Jandals here). Grutness...wha? 08:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in New York to Australian parents. We wore flip flops all the time at home in the late '60s. DDB 07:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wore them from the mid-50s until I graduated to leather sandals about 10 years ago. JackofOz 02:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandals, Jack? You've just turned my world upside-down. I like to think of myself as tolerant, accepting, and extremely respectful of each and every human being, as we're all equally children of God. But I must confess that I draw the line at sandals. Perhaps that makes me an anti-sandalist bigot, but I cannot lie about my position on the matter. I'm now going to have to seriously rethink our friendshp, and the Jack I thought I knew. :--) Loomis 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go then, Loomis. You keep on discovering more of the real Jack, don't you. I'm amazed that you find sandals so reprehensible, what with your cultural history and all (Moses, Abraham, and all the others who did a lot of desert-walking, for which sandals are perfectly adapted). Personally, I loathe the look of rubber thongs/flip flops/jandals/whatever they're called where you are. Anyone who chooses thongs when they have the opportunity to choose sandals is exhibiting poor form, imho. A good sturdy pair of leather sandals is comfortable, protective, great for negotiating beaches, and looks good to boot. What could be wrong with that? JackofOz 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right Jack. Once again my remarks were based on ignorance and intolerance. Perhaps I was influenced by the fact that the snow up here is a good two-feet deep this time of year and the notion of wearing sandals in January just makes me green with envy. Yes, Moses and Abraham may have been my distant ancestors, but far more recently, my family has become far more accustomed to the far more frigid climates of North-Eastern Europe and now Canada. Still, it may take a while, and may require a great deal of meditation and self-reflection, but I promise you Jack, in the end, I'm commited to accepting you for the sandal-wearer you are. And perhaps, just perhaps, this coming summer I may actually muster up the courage to buy myself a pair of leather sandals and finally accept the fact that there may indeed be a bit of sandal-wearer in me! I know it's a big step, but for the sake of acceptance and tolerance of all of God's Children, I'm willing to do just about anything. :--0 Loomis 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that we truly have free will? I was thinking about it and I came to the conclusion that what makes us act how we do is how the molecules and chemicals react in our brain, which we have no actual have no control over, therefore we have no true free will. Do you think my conclusion is correct? Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. --The Dark Side 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we do or not, we might as well act as if we do. It's like Pascal's Wager - there's nothing to gain by believing we're biological robots. Clarityfiend 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the ability to manipulate others... Skittle 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between "acting like" we have free will and... whatever the alternative would be? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially, doing anything at all and just lying there. Some people would feel that if they had no free will there would be no point in 'choosing' to do anything at all. If you 'act like', or perhaps 'pretend to yourself', that you have free will, you avoid this problem. "I am the master of my fate/ I am the captain of my soul" is very seductive. Of course, some people find that they have no problem with living their lives in the knowledge that everything is inevitable. Oh and some people (not me) would find the idea of holding people responsible for their actions problematic if they 'acted like' people didn't have free will. Skittle 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm one of those people who's ok with inevitability, and the "just lay there" argument has never made any sense to me. Why would not having free will imply inaction? Wouldn't you have to decide to be inactive? I mean, the "no free will" position still allows that we have all the normal human motivations, to eat, sleep, reproduce, bungee jump, etc. It just takes the apparent forks out of the road.

As far as holding people responsible for their actions, denying free will does change that somewhat. In a world without free will, it's impossible to justify revenge, for example, and the only possible point of incarcerating criminals is to stop them from continuing to offend, and to rehabilitate them, since "punishment" stops making sense. Sounds pretty good to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this article on free will and neuroscience --The Dark Side 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents - humans have the "experience" of free will, i.e., we find ourselves in situations where we aren't certain what we'll do, and then when we do something, the impetus for that decision seems to have arisen spontaneously within us. This experience is largely conditioned by incomplete information of our own mental state. If we knew all the various causes at work in our minds, then we might feel that we "experience" determinism. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Will is practically unfalsifiable. If you can predict in advance the behavior of a human being from birth to death then you can prove that that person does not have free will. Unfortunately, to do so will require that you control the whole environment of that person (see Truman Show) to eliminate random variables, so it's highly unethical. Failure to predict in advance does not prove a person have free will, merely that you failed to prove that the person does not have free will. 202.168.50.40 03:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, at least. What would happen if... we could predict the future by analyzing a universe, a system, such as the Earth, while substituting in constants for outside variables? X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 10:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a mistake to talk about free will as a singular, distinct phenomenon, with each of us only having one. There's a lot going on in our brains and bodies, and to try to distill that down to a singular driving force is an extreme case of greedy reductionism. Ever had to scratch two itches at once? =) Vranak 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no choice but to say "yes". --Carnildo 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is "no free will," and our ability to choose a course of action is an illusion, or an epiphenomenon of mechanistic underlying processes, then think about the implications: If I choose to goof off instead of studying or going to work, and lay around, then that's fine because that's what I was going to do anyway. If I rob a bank, it was not my choice. Sure takes away guilt and fear, I suppose. Wow, now I'm completely unmotivated. I think I'll just spend all my time on Wikipedia. Edison 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're working with a misunderstanding there. You still have desires, even if those desires are determined by impersonal chemical and electrical reactions. You're still going to act to satisfy those desires, because you're alive, and life forms are desire-having-and-satisfying machines. Lots of people desire success and money and... to move out of their parents' house, all of which are sufficient reason to get off the Internet and get a job. If the only thing keeping you from spending all your time on Wikipedia was a sense of moral obligation, then I agree you should just sit online until some desire gets your attention and makes you realize that you want some things enough to work for them.

Whether or not the choice to rob a bank is determined by the chemicals in your brain, you're still the person robbing it, and you're the person who's going to get locked up for it, to stop you from doing it again, if for nothing else. If you're comfortable with the risks involved in robbing a bank, and are willing to live with the consequences as you understand them, then I guess you'll go for it, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humans have free will. Getting a plumber on weekends is hard, but not impossible for the more determined and devious. There is a misapplication of the butterfly effect theory that fails to transfer from chaos theory implicit to your question. The decision making of a person involves relationships that are not intrinsic to the body. Two genetically identical people who read a book and watch a movie do not experience the same as each other. In recent research it was shown spiders possess individual personalities, some being aggressive, others timid or curious. DDB 07:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uniquness of each individual doesn't contradict the idea of complete deteminism. Everything you said is correct, but it's still perfectly possible for those things to be true in the absence of "free will". As for the butterfly effect, it certainly tells us that human behavior is radically unpredictable, in the same sense that the weather is —- each of us has a whole climate system going on inside. Still, something that's totally unpredictable can still be totally determined, as long as there's nothing but deterministic laws involved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn'thave free will,you would not have posted on here!LOL!(hotclaws**== 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, let's assume we don't have free will and we're just really a bunch of atoms doing what they do because of random (perhaps even quantum) fluctuations "normalized" by an intricate system we call brain. We, as these atom machines, have gone so far as to even ponder about the fact we're just that. So we're at least self-aware. And now, we, as mere machines, begin to manipulate ourselves and our own workings by means of neurosciences. What will happen, then, once we have a reasonable control of our inner workings? Won't we , by definition, achieve free-will in that we will be able, as machines, to control ourselves? — Kieff 02:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We" already control ourseves. We just do it in a deterministic way. To get outside of determinism, you have to posit the existence of some non-material entity (a soul?) that introduces causes other than the laws of physics. Computers that are programmed to reprogram themselves are still just following the laws of physics in their self-altering. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The great Philosopher-Theologian Jonathan Edwards wrote a famous essay on the Free Will. All interested in Free Will should read it. We think that we freely choose at the time of the choosing...We do what we do because we think at the time that it is the best thing to do compared to all other options. It is a fallacy to say that we did not want to do what we choose to do...The reality is that at the moment of doing anything, we choose what we feel at that instant is the best thing to do. Any feelings that it was not the right thing to do must come after the instant of the initial "doing". We however are never "free" to do anything that God does not know that we will do....God because of knowing ALL of the end results of all future interactions in the universe MUST know the future of all outcomes...Many wonder as to how God could know the future. The question though should be how God could not know the future, given the endless knowledge that God has. Any non-ability of God to know the future must necessitate some lack of knowing on Gods part, thereby denying the essence of what God is. Zeno333 07:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In U.S. definitions, If an American car makers sales drop by one unit and a Foreign car makers sales increase in America by one unit will GDP change?Capt.Industry 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gross domestic product is consumption + investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

Consumption remains unchanged, investment remains unchanged, government spending remains unchanged, exports remain unchanged and imports rise by one car. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is assuming that the foreign car maker's additional car was actually manufactured outside the United States. But in fact, many car makers with headquarters outside of the United States actually produce cars for the U.S. market within the United States. If the "foreign" car was actually manufactured in the United States, and its sale price is the same as the "American" car that is not sold, then there is no change to GDP. Marco polo 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there's also the interesting fact that cars made in Canada (and a lot are) aren't counted as "foreign". In the same way, American cars aren't counted as "foreign" in Canada. Hence the girl from Vancouver who wins a new car on The Price is Right doesn't have to pay duty or customs charges on her new vehicle because it's not considered an import. --Charlene 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]