March 18

What is the number of ethnic Chinese deaths during World War II? I have already been to World War II casualties, and it gave a good estimate of the number of deaths in China. However, I could find nothing on the number of ethnic Chinese deaths. The figures that I am looking for include the total number of ethnic Chinese deaths, including those in Mainland China, Hong Kong, French Indochina, Singapore, and the rest of Asia. The ethnic Chinese casualties from the Wang Jingwei government/Japanese collaborators and the ethnic Chinese drafted to fight by the Japanese (ex: from Japanese occupied Taiwan and territories) should also be included. I want to know of the number of ethnic Chinese that died from the Mukden Incident until the end of World War II in 1945. So in all, I am looking for all of the ethnic Chinese deaths resulting directly AND INDIRECTLY from wars from 1931 to 1945. Thanks. Swang 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swang, there are some fairly comprehensive figures provided in China's Bloody Century and Statistics of Japanese Democide, both by R. J. Rummel. You will find these papers here [1] and here [2]. These may not provide all of the information you are looking for, but they still cover a lot of ground. Clio the Muse 00:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a book I read several years ago but cannot for the life of me remember the title or the author. The style of the writing was similar to that of Tom Robbins of Still LIfe with Woodpecker, in which as the story moves along, each short piece is given a title of it's own. For example, one of the titles of a chapter was "A Long Drink of Water". The text that followed began with "She was a tall girl." I have been looking for this book for approximastely 3-4 years with no clue where to begin. Help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert Robinson (talk • contribs) 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is this it? [3] A.Z. 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reading this book right now(well,not this minuete) and if that's not what it is I'd be intrigued to find out what it is.hotclaws**== 10:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea: Rauld Dahl wrote a book containing short stories for adults Rfwoolf 08:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my wiiiild guess: Little, Big, by John Crowley published only one year after Still Life wW. (If only for the Drinkwater family's sake!) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to all of the state property of the Soviet Union, like the heavy industry and collective farms when the Soviet Union collapsed? Who decided who owned it? --Demonesque 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find some of the answers you are looking for, Demonesque, in the History of post-Soviet Russia and the Economy of Russia. In short, a major programme of privatisation began in early 1992, proceeding at a break-neck speed, so that by late 1993 more than 85% of small enterprises were in private hands. By the summer of 1994 some 70% of the larger and medium-sized concerns had also been denationalised. The process was so fast, and so ill-organised, that it went hand-in-hand with a high degree of corruption. Former state companies often ended up being controlled by those with insider connections and, in some cases, by outright criminal elements. The pattern of rapid economic change proceeded in much the same fashion in the other former Soviet states. The information given here [4] is for the Republic of Kazakhstan. You will also get a good overview of the whole process of economic transformation and change in Building Capitalism: the Transformation of the Former Soviet Bloc by Anders Aslund, published in 2001 by the Cambridge University Press, and Understanding Post-Soviet Transitions: Corruption, Collusion and Clientelism by C. H. Stefes, published by Macmillan in 2006, which focuses on the examples of Armenia and Georgia. Clio the Muse 02:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say anything else, thank you very much to those encouraging and helpful words I got from some of you in response to my question on Wittgenstein the Weird. Now, you're right, I'm not educated in logic or philosophy or any other academic field, but I inherited a big case of books from my granduncle L., and I'm gonna read every single one of them, by golly. I was looking at Bergson's "essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience", and I have to say, I wish he were right, but is he? Won't brain science eventually turn our concept of free will into an old myth? What do contemporary philosophers say about this? Or do they even care about materialism winning the campaign? What might the legal consequences be? Can I still be guilty of a crime with an unfree brain? Again, thank you in advance for taking the time to answer me, the stubborn amateur with a case of books. Moneyhoped 04:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read all of the Tractatus? I think you are a brave individual, Moneyhoped, especially if, with no background whatsoever in philosophy, you are actually dipping into Wittgenstein and Bergson! Anyway, the pages of relevance to your immediate inquiry are, of course, Free will and Determinism. I am a historian first and a philosopher second, so my conclusions on these matters do not carry the same weight of authority, but I do not accept materialism will ever eliminate or replace free will, or the every present dilemmas of moral choice and conflicting existential paths; unless, that is, we cease to be human altogether. I first became interested in philosophical issues in my late teens, when I dipped into a little book called Thinking about Thinking by Anthony Flew. I would certainly recommend that you cast your eye over this, or a similar introduction to the subject, before scaling the Olympian heights! Alternatively, make out a list of the books you have and post it on my talk page (provided its not too vast!), and I will try to give you a personal reading guide, or at least provide you with a thread to see you through the labyrinth. Best wishes from Ariadne, who also goes under the guise of Clio the Muse 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't brain science eventually turn our concept of free will into an old myth? Can I rephrase and ask it back to you: "Won't physics eventually prove the deterministic nature of reality and be able to explain and predict everything that happens?" The metaphor of reality being like a machine or "billiard balls" has, if I understand it right, been generally been abandoned by physics. Contemporary physics seems almost mystical, what with its virtual particles, uncertainty principle, quantum entanglement, and all kinds of other weirdness. Brain science may change our concepts of free will, but I find it hard to believe it will eventually achieve a fully deterministic model of the brain and mind. Sorry I am not familiar enough with contemporary philosophers to know much about what they think on the matter. Pfly 08:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I've asked my last question on papal infallibility, I still don't completely understand. Do Catholics believe that God sometimes somehow, specially and supernaturally, perhaps in some kind of dream or vision, reveals and informs the Pope of some new important facts and information about Christianity and Christian ethics, and then the Pope would pass the message on to Catholics in general? The Anonymous One 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read over the information contained in the link I provided the first time this issue was raised. Clio the Muse 05:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody in Sabath School asked if since Jesus Christ was a Jew and not a Christian if a beleiver in Jesus Christ also rejects Jews then does he actually reject Jesus Christ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.10.21 (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In religion, everything is possible. It is very easy to reject all Jews and not Jesus by pointing out that Jesus is God and God is not a Jew. Then, kill anyone who disagrees in the name of God. --Kainaw ^(talk) 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, in his mortal form, was born, raised and educated as a Jew, as were all of his disciples. Anyone who rejects Jewish people, as Jewish people, not only rejects Jesus but they also have a deep misunderstanding of Christianity. Their world belongs to the secular and the anti-semitic. Clio the Muse 05:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly in your question you say "...if a believer in Jesus christ also rejects Jews..." - do you not mean "rejects Judaism? That is, the Jewish religion?
Secondly, although judaism and christianity are rather different religions, they both claim to believe in the first testament, whereas Judaism rejects the second testament (I forget why though?). So I believe this all comes down to what you mean by rejecting Jews. If you are asking what would happen if a Christian rejects the first testament, and what would happen, then I think that's an interesting question? :) Rfwoolf 07:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity didn't form till after Jesus died, as far as I know. The Christianity article says first century A.D. So Jesus was very much Jewish, and it began as a Jewish sect. It'd almost be similar to saying Mormons don't believe in God, or something of that nature. And like Rfwoolf said, the Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible as well, and the Jewish don't believe in the New Testament because they also don't believe Jesus was any more than a prophet. And there, the differences started to branch out more. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I should point out that the Old Testament is a Christian concept, and though to a great degree one and the same with the Jewish Tanakh, still has a few somewhat significant differences. Second, from what I understand of Christianity, though Christians accept the divinity and the factual accuracy of the Old Testament, much of the New Testament serves as a sort of "fresh start", and a rejection of many of the principles articulated in the Old Testament. In a sense, the Old Testament seems to serve as something of a prologue to the New Testament, which is by far the more relevant of the two texts to Christianity. In fact whenever I come across a Christian Bible at a hotel donated by the Gideons, from my experience these Bibles more often than not contain the New Testament only, and don't bother with the Old Testament.

I think you'll find that such books are clearly titled "New Testament". They don't purport to be the whole Christian Bible. JackofOz 23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Yet the very fact that the New Testament and the New Testament alone is provided, would seem to clearly imply that between the two, the New Testament plays a far more central, defining role in Christianity than the Old Testament.

I agree. Jesus did not consign the Old Testament to the rubbish heap; he still exhorted his followers to obey the law of Moses (eg. the 10 Commandments) - but the new Testament is where his teachings are found. JackofOz 01:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, one can't thoroughly deal with this question without dealing that most controversial of notions, that being deicide; namely, the alleged responsibility of the Jews for the killing of Jesus. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that for many centuries, and even today, many Christians interpret the Bible as clearly blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus, and therefore, as "Christ-Killers", to be, as you put it, "rejected". Indeed, all four Gospels of the New Testament ascribe the decision that Jesus be put to death to the Jews, while seemingly describing the Romans, represented by Pontius Pilate as being very reluctant to crucify Jesus, indeed arguing against his crucifixion, only to give in to the will of the Jews, ultimately ordering his crucifixion, and then, literaly "washing his hands of it". Though the good Christians of the world have indeed come to reject this notion that the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ, the Gospels are pretty clear on the fact that they indeed were. On the other hand, Christianity is heavily based on love for all of humanity, which would seem to imply love for Jews as well. As such, from an outsider's perspective, (such as mine), I can't help but maintain that to consider Christian anti-semitism as being unChristian, as noble and admirable the assertion may be, given the Gospels, cannot categorically be dismissed as being "unChristian", so long as these Biblical accounts remain unchallenged. Loomis 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Gospels do indicate that a certain number of Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, but I have never understood how this could be twisted into a blanket condemnation of all Jews. As such, I'm not really sure how it can be said that the New Testament somehow espouses anti-Semitism. GreatManTheory 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If anything, Christians should be grateful for that certain number of Jews for their part in the death of Jesus, since his death is said to be essential for the salvation of souls. How Christians can glorify the event, being their supposed stepping stone to Heaven, yet condemn those who brought it about, escapes me. Also, the crucifixion was ultimately carried out on the orders of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate - because he was the only authority with the power to order it, and therefore he, not the Jews who encouraged him, assumes responsibility for it - yet the church set up its headquarters in, of all places, Rome. JackofOz 23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying, Jack, that it would equally appropriate to refer to modern day Italians as being "Christ-Killers"? (Don't take this remark too seriously. It was only meant as a rather flippant remark to make a point. The Italians of today are obviously as equally innocent of deicide as are the Jews.)

We've discussed this several times before, Jack, and we seem to be in complete agreement. Of the four Gospels, The Gospel of John seems to be take the harshest of views concerning the part the Jews played in the crucifixion of Jesus:

John 19:6 "When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him."

John 19:7 "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."

John 19:8 "When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;"...

John 19:12"And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."

I can go on on and on. Note that according to John, those mentioned were not simply identified as "the Pharisees" or "the Priests" or "the Jewish authorities" but quite simply, and quite consistently "the Jews".

I have to admit, if I were a Christian, and if I were taught this particular story as a child in Sunday school, I'd naturally develop an animosity toward Jews. How else can these passages possibly be interpreted? Loomis 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your argument here, Loomis. It seems to me that the Gospel of John is not holding all the Jewish people responsible for the death of Jesus; instead, it seems clear that only the chief priests and other officials are mentioned in connection with his death. John 19, which you mentioned, details Jesus' sentence to Crucifixion. As Pilate displays Jesus after questioning: "As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, 'Crucify! Crucify!'" (John 19:6). A little later, Pilate asks if they really want their king (referring to Christ) crucified: "'We have no king but Caesar,' the chief priests answered." (John 19:15). As you've shown above, this chapter does sometimes refer to those demanding crucifixion as "the Jews." However, when read in context, I think it is clear that only the chief priests and certain select others are being referred to. It is dubious to assert that most people reading the Gospel of John would have to come away thinking that all Jewish people for all time are responsible for Christ's death. Instead, it is far more likely that people realize that when John writes of "the Jews" in this chapter, he is mentioning only the Jews who were at the scene, i.e. the "chief priests and other officials." Thus, this (in my opinion) much more accurate reading of the John 19 in no way espouses anti-Semitism. GreatManTheory 01:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that your interpretation of John involves no ill will toward Jews. But from your post, you're obviously a mature, open-minded, well educated adult. You have the capacity to understand context. The ugly truth of the fact though, is that even as recently as my parents' generation, shocking as it may seem, children, especially those in Catholic schools, were in fact taught that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. There's no two ways about it. It's simple fact. My home province of Quebec is a predominantly Catholic one. My parents have simply lost count of how many times their Catholic neighbours referred to them as "Maudit Juif!" ("Damned Jew!"). Now add to that the Gospel of John, and I can only see it as natural for a child to accept that notion, that the Jews are indeed a damnedable people.

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying here. I just want to make the point that the text itself does not blame the Jews as a whole. As I indicated before, the context of the chapter makes it clear who is meant by "the Jews." Using context to understand the chapter, however, is not just "my" interpretation, it is the correct interpretation. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, some have used this chapter to justify hatred of the Jewish people. But again, I want to stress that those espousing such a view are using a flawed interpretation so that the problem is with their understanding, not with the Gospel itself. Maybe you weren't actually saying that, but I felt it was important to mention. GreatManTheory 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "killers of Christ" canard has nothing to do with Christianity ... not if you define Christianity according to what is written in the "New Testament" ... which states in relevant part: "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." (John 10:18). Notice how no one ever substantiates the old canard with a direct cite. Similarly, claims that the "Old Testament" is "superceded" by the "New" is another widely-promulgated doctrine that no one ever seems to back up with direct references. This "anything goes" approach to religious intepretation seems to be common among both adherents and detractors alike; sloppy, just plain sloppy. dr.ef.tymac 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict)

Loomis, et al.:

1. The "law" that the Jews are referring to was only one which applied to their own people. The Jews didn't put Christians to death (they have no such law about Christians), they put one of their own to death. As a NON-Jew back then you would have no reason to feel threatened; Jews do not (and have never) recognize non-jews as subject to Jewish law. And, of course, they no longer put people to death, but that's a different issue altogether, which I will deal with in thing number...

2. You're really saying that, because this happened 2000 years ago, in cultures where death was a perfectly legitimate (if harsh) community response to certain community transgressions, you'd be afraid today? Isn't this kind of like saying because the ancient romans occasionally put people to death, you'd be afraid to go to Rome? Or like saying that Black americans who learn about the history of slavery would all "naturally develop" an animosity towards whites? And how far back becomes too far -- what is to say that because tribes warred once upon a time, we may not use your rule to assume that all people different than ourselves see us as enemies, and go 'round trembling all the time?

If ANY of that were true and reasonable, we'd never, ever go anywhere as a culture, would we. Since we seem to be making some progress, I suggest your "sense of animosy" is not at all natural. That it happens is sad. That does not make it either excusable or normative. And it does not make it okay, either. Jfarber 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I doubt it, I hope my remarks weren't taken the wrong way. But just in case, though it's obvious to most of the RefDesk due to my consistent pro-Jewish bias, I should point out that I'm a Jew and as such I'm particularly disturbed by the whole deicide "canard". Yet I can't help, in reading the Gospel of John, to be disturbed in the way it portrays Jews. All your points about it happening 2000 years ago are legitimate ones, except for the fact that it must be kept in mind that the New Testament isn't a secular historical account of what happened all those years ago, but rather an article of faith for Christians, one that to many is meant to be just as relevant today as it was at any time in the past. This is what I find disturbing. But your points are well taken. Loomis 14:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Loomis: To your credit, you expressed your concerns from a personal perspective, and made that point clearly. If more "scholars" and "theologans" followed your lead, these baseless and unsubstantiated stories masquerading as "doctrine" would find no place in serious discussion. I think the content of various religious texts would be far less troubling if the "experts" complied more faithfully with the spirit of what they convey. dr.ef.tymac 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks dr, your remarks are appreciated. I'm just uncertain as to where your praise of my post is coming from. It would be ideal if you told me that you're a devoted Christian, yet you feel that the true essence of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus are being distorted by a flawed and biased account of the death of Jesus. Is that your position? Whatever your position is, I'd be interested if you'd elaborate on it.

Jfarber, keep in mind that most of the values, both positive and negative that we carry on into adulthood are formed in our childhood, and come from our parents, teachers, clergy etc. I don't see why you find it so unnatural for an innocent child, in his or her most formative years, being taught the Gospel of John, to conclude that the Jews were a bunch of bad-guys who killed God. In fact, I can't see how a child could conclude any different.

On the other hand, I acknowledge the fact that except to the extent that they conflict with my faith, on the whole, most of Jesus' teachings are admirable ones, ones that only made a positive contribution to mankind. It's really only the account of his death that troubles me. In the sense that Christianity is defined simply as the teachings of Jesus, (along with the assertions regarding his Divinity, and the fact that he was the Messiah, which though I don't accept, I'm certainly not offended by), I have deep respect for Christianity.

What puzzles me, however, is the nature of the canonical status of much of the New Testament. From a Jewish perspective, the Hebrew Bible is authored entirely by God Himself. Therefore, to mess around with one word or even one letter of it would be sacrilege. Yet apparently, the New Testament is authored by various (assumedly fallible) humans, The Gospel of John being authored, assumedly, by the Apostle John.

What I'm getting at is the following question: If the New Testament was written by many different fallible humans, would it be considered sacrilegious to Christians to, for lack of a better word, "re-edit" the New Testament so as to exclude those books or passages that are, essentially, "unChristian"? For example, it would seem to me that Jesus himself would be rather disappointed with the way John described his death, and the role that the Jews played. Jesus preached love, and I would only imagine that he would frown upon such a harsh, unloving depiction of Jews by his disciple, John.

Please forgive me for my ignorance of Christianity, I suppose I'm just wondering if what otherwise is a profoundly admirable religion and set of ethics as enunciated by Jesus, can somehow be perfected through a rethinking of what has only rather recently been canonized by the various streams of Christianity (1546 in the case of Roman Catholicism) as the true "New Testament". To put it bluntly, is it beyond the realm of possibility for some future Pope to introduce some sort of Papal Bull, removing all passages which portray Jews in an unduly negative light as being "unChristian" from the canonical Roman Catholic New Testament? Would it be sacrilege, and fatal to Christianity if some Protestant leader were to say: "John got it wrong. The Gospel of John is unChristian and should therefore be removed from the Bible"? Loomis 00:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question has vexed theologians and historians for centuries. It also vexed the first Christians. The different arguments appear in the Acts of the Apostles and are prominent in the letters of Paul. I regret I don't have access to my references at the moment. The arguments continue still today.

I think the mainstream Christian answer runs something like this: Jesus was born a Jew, but he was also the Messiah. Jesus brought to an end the era of "the law" that began with Moses and introduced an era in which faith and salvation would be found in acceptance of Jesus as divine. Judaism was thus "obsolete." (There is probably a more elegant term but I can't but my finger on it and I apologize if that failing offends anyone. That is not my intent.) People who do not accept Jesus as divine are not necessarily "bad," but neither will they make it to heaven.

That last sentence is not mainstream Christian teaching. People who have never heard of Jesus, or who have but genuinely don't believe in him, are not necessarily barred from heaven. JackofOz 03:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I've been a little confused by this the last few times it's come up here. I've been raised in mainstream Protestant churches, and it is standard teaching that living a good life is not good enough, one must accept Jesus to enter Heaven. Of course there are exception for children and others who are totally ignorant, but the main point is that Jesus is necessary. Unfortunately the only verse I can come up with right now that supports this is John 14:6--"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." I don't mean to cause a big theological debate, but I am very puzzled by this. GreatManTheory 11:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Mam I was reading about my mothers hometown of McMechan West Virgina in Wikipedia. The article defined the geographics, populations, and other census information. As I was reading about how very small McMechan was and the statistical information about the citizens average yearly earnings, and ages and estimated number of persons living in the 500 plus white households, the next quite distinguishable statistic given full credit was a photograph of the notorious insane hippie killer Charles Manson as having been the most notorious resident of this "hick" town. I then clicked onto Charles Manson to read on and on and on about his personal information in great detail and did not see any mention of his residency in McMechan but having been born in Cincinnatti, and then basically a homeless prostitute. Im just curious, why did you do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.169.125.104 (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I just checked that article, and the "Charles Manson" thing was added by an anonymous IP address and no citation was given to prove it. I removed it. That edit was what we call Vandalism, which is a problem here on Wikipedia. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. GhostPirate 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I hope someone can help me? Does anyone know where I could find list of US Army bases that were situated in the United Kingdom during the Second World War? I thought this would be a fairly easy piece of info to find but I'm obviously looking in the wrong places. Look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards Rachel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rachey0108 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Rachel, I can give you a partial answer. Here you will find a list of the airfields used by the United States Army Airforce during the Second World War [5]. As you can see there was a heavy concentration across the south-east of England, especially Norfolk and Suffolk, which is hardly a great surprise. You will also find some details in the page on the United States Air Force in the United Kingdom. I have no information on the camps used by ground troops; but given the huge numbers present by 1944 there must have been a great many, scattered throughout the Midlands and the South, from Kent to Cornwall. The people who maintain the American Military Cemetery at Cambridge may be able to give you more exact details [6]. Clio the Muse 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Destroyers for Bases Agreement for a list of UK colonial bases given to US forces during WW2. StuRat 18:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a list which tells when does Big companies close their books. Example: Ford closes on 4th working day. Like this!!!

Slmking 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Assuming you're talking about the US, all public information available for public companies can be found at a set of sites all using the term "Edgar". The most user friendly of them would appear to be this one [7], but if that one doesn't give you precisely the information you're looking for, I suggest you just google the word "Edgar" and choose which SEC site best suits your needs. Loomis 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Loomis 02:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Categories would be appropriate to associate with my article Letter to Posterity? Perhaps one might be "Middle Ages"???--Doug ^talk 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has already been linked to the Middle Ages and Medieval Latin literature, which probably exhausts the options. However, it might help, Doug, if you expanded your existing outline to include a brief description of what the Letter to Posterity is actually about. As it stands it really only indicates that the letter exists. Clio the Muse 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Petrarch is considered a Renaissance, not a Medieval, author. I've corrected the categories accordingly. Wareh 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where I can find out more about the Powers of Attorney Act 1971? — PhilHibbs | talk 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google calls up this -- though the domain is australian, it appears to be the full text of the UK act. Jfarber 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Statute Law Database maintained by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, contains the full text of all current statute laws, as amended by subsequent acts. Entering "Powers of Attorney Act" and "1971" will bring up options for you to see the UK Act and the Northern Ireland Act. It's an interesting site - omitting the year will bring up all laws with "Powers of Attorney" in the title, back to the 1800s; searching on "Treason" will bring up the clauses of the Treason Act 1351 which are still in force... -- Arwel (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to a radio broadcast, one of the speakers participating in a forum alluded to a historical anectdote in which U.K. catholic nuns sponsored the shipment of food to distressed americans of african descent in Louisiana. The motivation for this action (impliedly) was that their needs (result of disaster or starvation) had gone unaddressed by local government, and these nuns who had witnessed this circumstance were shocked while touring the U.S., and decided to do something upon arrival back to their home.

I may have recounted this incorrectly, but can someone give confirmation on whether this account is true? Who When Where? NoClutter 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard this specific story, but -- you say "colonial" at first, then "U.S". Was this during the French or Spanish colonial era, or after the U.S. purchased Louisiana? Pfly 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, find this a little puzzling. This alleged relief work was presumably among the free black population, as responsibility for slave welfare would clearly fall to the owners? And if we are talking specifically about Louisiana as a colony of the United States then this falls in the brief period between the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the creation of the state out of the old Orleans Territory in 1812. This also happens to be at the height of the Napoleonic Wars, and a period of growing tension between England and America, leading up to the outbreak of the War of 1812. I simply cannot envisage a party of British nuns casually 'touring' the United States at such a dangerous time! Clio the Muse 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't read too much into my phrasing of the question. "Casual" (your word) touring may not be at issue here as I do not remember the speakers words verbatim. I presume the nuns could have been there as a part of a catholic charity or other religious work. I presume I could have interjected the word 'touring' without it actually being in the transcript. I may even have the time period completely wrong (perhaps it was Catholic Relief Services which would place it in the mid-20th century?). The additional factual context you provide does help fuel speculation, which I guess I will have to settle for absent something more specific, either from my recollection, or from others' familiarity the history of relief-work in that region. NoClutter 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not read too much into my impish sense of humour, NoClutter: casual in this context is the obvious corollary of touring. What I was trying to do here was to highlight the historical difficulties presented by your preamble. I think your assumption that this derives from twentieth century Catholic relief work is considerably more plausible. Clio the Muse 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have a feeling this may have had something to do with Hurricane Katrina, and not colonial Louisiana. Corvus cornix 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I may have recounted the anectdote incorrectly, even the time period may be wrong (e.g. pre/post louisiana purchase? not sure). I am, however, absolutely certain it was not about Katrina, as I heard the anectdote on public radio on a program recorded pre-Katrina. (Alternative Radio i think was the program, another non-certainty). It did remind me of Katrina, however. That and the puzzling nature of the story prompted my question here. Obviously a transcript of the show would help, but i dont have it. NoClutter 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the answer, but you may be interested to know that the word is "anecdote", not "anectdote".  :) JackofOz 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but i think i like my spelling better. (i mean my spelling of "i" by the way, in case you were getting ready to subtract points for that also :P ^_^. NoClutter 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way then. :) JackofOz 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the OP finds the story so unusual. To the credit of those involved, Christian relief efforts have been, at least in the period you mentioned, up until today rather widespread. I'm not sure what's so bizzare about the idea of a bunch of nuns, coming across others in need, deciding to take the initiative and help them. This happens all the time. (The only thing that puzzles me though is how these nuns seemimgly developed some sort of anecdote to the poison that is poverty and starvation.:-) Loomis 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last month I read a thick volume on slavery in the U.S. and globally. The title was Slavery something, written by a Yale History Professor and a new release. The story sounds feasible. Louisiana complicates the picture because of its unique history. If you can find the book to which I am referring, there are detailed notes. It is an invaluable resource.

I want to know how I find the author of a section. I have to know the author, date it was written. My section is Christianity70.238.253.157 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles (and sections) are written by many different authors and changed, in some cases, daily, hourly, or from minute to minute. So there is no one author or date it was written. If you are asking so as to give a reference, see the "cite this page" link in the Toolbox on the lefthand side of the article. Hope this helps - cheers Geologyguy 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article's history. Pick a version by clicking on the time and date, and see if the section is there. If it is, go further back; if not, try a more recent version. It's a bit tedious, but you'll get there eventually. Clarityfiend 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You could find out who first added the section the way Clarityfiend says, but if you indeed need the info to cite the article, I recommend you listen to Geologyguy. His explanation is the common way to cite a Wikipedia article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]