Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

July 18

how are WTO and globalization corelated?

how will globalization affect india's economy in the future?thank you--Angelofwrath 06:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like a homework assignment. --Wetman 06:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

At least two people have the same assigned question. See "What is the negative and positive effects of globalization on Indian farming sector?" above. Bielle 17:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

it isnt homework it is a project and i wasnt expecting you to give me a full answer i was wishing someone could be able to guide me in the right direction thank you--Angelofwrath 05:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You have asked two questions:

1. what is the relationship between WTO and globalization?
2. how will globalization affect india's economy?

I will try to outline an answer to both of these questions. I take globalization to mean the increasing foreign trade between states, that is economic globalization.

1. The World Trade Organization is one of the motors of economic globalization. The goal of the WTO is to make trade between its member states freeer by reducing tariffs and other protectionist policies. It is also in involved in settling trade disputes to prevent or end trade war and in ensuring that the trade policy of each member state is non-discriminatory, reciprocal and transparent. The WTO promotes foreign trade, and therefore economic globalization
2. Your second question is a speculative question. What will happen in India's future if globalization continues? This is obviously guesswork. Untill now specific sectors, classes and regions in the Economy of India have profited from increasing foreign trade and outsourcing. India has a very high growth rate, which was 9% in 2005. The IT-sector is the best example of this: computer help desks for American companies are administered by Indian IT-specialists in India, see this Dutch tv-report about this or read the first chapter of Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat (link to the first pages). However 60% of the workforce is employed in the agricultural sector, which is underdeveloped, underproductive and profits less from globalization. Moreover the profits from globalization are unequally divided between regions and classes, with 22% of India citizens still living below the global poverty level of $1/a day in 2002. Since 1990 this however has dropped from 50% to 22%. Economic pundits predict that India will continue to profit from this and grow to become the worlds fifth economy.

I hope this answers your question or gives you useful links to followC mon 08:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

thanx for the ideas and the info Angelofwrath 14:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon and Poland

I was amazed to discover that the Polish national anthem contains a reference to Napoleon Bonaparte, of all people. I would be grateful for some more information on the links between Napoleon and Poland, and why he is a cherished figure, hopefully more than I can find in the History of Poland (1795-1918) page. Thanx. Gordon Nash 07:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The article Polish Legions (Napoleonic period) may help. DuncanHill 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Although Alexander I of Russia had several children by his Polish mistress Maria Czetwertynska and his heir Constantine even rejected the Russian crown in order to marry a Polish lady, Napoleon also had connections with Poland on a more personal level: see Marie Walewska and Alexandre Joseph Count Colonna-Walewski for details. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

See Partitions of Poland for the historical background (how the Kingdom of Poland was gobbled up by Austria, Prussia and Russia) and Duchy of Warsaw for more about the Napoleonic period. The Napoleonic period awakened a spirit of nationalism among the Poles, which was kept alive after the 1815 Congress of Vienna dismantled the country by a sequence of attempted revolutions (the November Uprising of 1830, the January Uprising of 1863), but they had to wait for the 1919 Treaty of Versailles for independence again. Gdr 10:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Napoleonic period awakened a spirit of nationalism among the Poles". I'm not sure this spirit has ever been dormant. Ever heard about Tadeusz Kościuszko? --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We have. -- JackofOz 06:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, as Gdr implies, Napoleon liberated Poland after Austria, Prussia, and Russia decided that a nation in Europe with a constitution was more than they could handle (and thus destroyed the country as an independent entity—now you see it, now you don't). Napoleon came through, in the process of kicking Austria, Prussia, and Russia's butts in the Napoleonic Wars, and propped up a new Poland, of sorts, based on the Napoleonic Code, played up their nationalism, etc. Now obviously Napoleon's motives in this were not entirely altruistic (and he never totally came through for the Poles as much as they would have wanted), but they were pretty happy with his actions, which mitigated (for a very short period — unfortunately the history of Poland is one of invasion and occupation) their domination by the three '-ias, recognized that Poland had an independent identity (and once was a great kingdom!), and put Poland "back on the map" in a literal sense. (Unfortunately it was only a few years before the Russians came in and made Poland subserviant again, but at least it was on the map.) --24.147.86.187 13:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw was one of Napoleon's main jackals during his infamous invasion of Russia. Poniatowski and other Polish nobles, far from understanding how cruelly there were used, accompanied Napoleon to the very gates of Moscow. It seemed to them that the good ol' Times of Troubles returned, when they had invaded Russia, occupied Moscow, and attempted to force Roman Catholicism on the Russian population. Although the second occupation of Moscow did happen exactly 200 years after the first, there was a lot of other striking coincidences that foreshadowed the Russian victory. For instance, Mikhail Kutuzov, who led the Russian armies in 1812, was the son of M-me Beklemisheva, a namesake and distant relative of M-me Beklemisheva whose son, Dmitry Pozharsky, had driven the Poles from Moscow back in 1612. The collapse of Napoleon's Russian adventure dealt the decisive blow to the Poles' hopes of independence. The Tsar came to believe that a Polish buffer state west of the Russian border would always be used against Russia by her enemies, and the Congress of Vienna duly conferred the Polish crown on him. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid comparing other nations to animals, shall we? Reification is not only a fallacy, but can be offensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Check Napoleon and Polish identity article by Andrzej Nieuwazny; History Today, Vol. 48, May 1998. Unfortunatly I couldn't find a free link, but see [1], [2] and [3].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Gordon, Piotrus, and everyone else, I have access to the aforementioned piece by Nieuwazny, and can offer the following by way of summary. My own position is one a strict neutrality and scholarly detachment.

The important point is that Napoleon's creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw gave every appearance of resurrecting the Polish nation from the political grave to which it had been consigned in 1795, though in real terms the 'independence' was no more meaningful than that of Congress Poland, which emerged from the Vienna settlement. However, the Duchy represented the hope of true independence, whereas Congress Poland was always in the shadow of Russia.

The other lasting significance of Napoleon's Grand Duchy is that it 'cast off' the old feudal Poland, which still existed, to some degree, under the rule of the partitioning powers. Serfdom was abolished and a modern legal code, on the French model, introduced. But the truly important thing was the contribution the Napoleonic period made towards the creation of a national legend or myth, which was to sustain and comfort Poles down the decades that followed. Amongst other things, it contributed to a belief that the rest of Europe had an abiding interest in the fate of Poland, arising from Bonaparte's support in 1797 for the formation of Polish Legions, recruited from amongst émigrés and other exiles living in Italy. The Polish national anthem is really a celebration of the Legion's commander, Jan Henryk Dabrowski, and Napoleon is only mentioned in passing. Indeed, Napoleon's treatment of these soldiers was cynical in the extreme. After the Treaty of Luneville in 1801, they were sent to the West Indies to suppress the slave revolt in the French colony of Saint-Domingue, the future Haiti. Most never returned.

Napoleon continued to use Poles where it suited him best. Of the fresh forces raised after the creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, some 10,000 were actually sent to fight against the Spanish and the British in the Peninsular War. However, it is reasonably safe to assume that the Poles were most enthusiastic about the 1812 war against Russia-which Napoleon called the Second Polish War-as they formed by far the largest foreign contingent of the Grand Army. We have no precise information on what form the peace would have taken if Napoleon had won his war against Alexander, but many Poles held to the belief that it would, at the very least, have led to a fully restored Poland, including Lithuania; a return, in other words, to the situation prior to the first partition in 1772. The whole experience of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw is one of Polish confidence in the promise of Napoleon, a promise of a better future, though there is really nothing that proves he would have fulfilled these expectations.

It really is only fair to say that Polish national determination did make an impact on Tsar Alexander I, because he accepted that there could be no return to the position prevailing in 1795, when Poland truly had been extinguished. On his insistance, lands that had fallen to Prussia on the Third Partition, including the city of Warsaw, became part of his new 'Polish State', a satellite, yes, but one with a high degree of political latitude, and one that preserved the Code Napoleon. Alexander may have hoped to transfer some of the fierce loyalty the Poles had formerly shown towards his great rival towards himself; but he merely perpetuated a myth. The hope of a liberal Poland, of Napoleon's Poland was kept aliive, until it was all but destroyed in the uprising of 1830-1. Thereafter, most of those who went into exile sought refuge in France, the home of the Napoleon myth, which gave it fresh life. In 1834, from his Paris exile, Adam Mickiewicz wrote his epic poem, Pan Tadeusz, which celebrates Napoleon's entry into Lithuania in 1812 thus; All sure of victory, cry with tears in eyes/God is with Napoleon, and Napoleon is with us!

Although the legend declined over the years , especially as Napoleon III offerd no support to the Polish rising of 1863, it did not altogether die. It received fresh encouragent in 1918, as France was the only western power that offered unqualified support to the newly independent Poland. May 5 1921, the hundredth anniversary of Napoleon's death, was formally marked by commemorations across the new nation. And he lives, and will continue to live, in the national anthem. Clio the Muse 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Print of Mrs Duff

I remember a print of a Mrs Duff who appeared to be standing on a globe (or the earth). No further information. Does this ring a bell for anybody or where might I find out more please? - CarbonLifeForm 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you search Google images for Mrs Duff, it's the first hit. What exactly did you wish to know?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to turn of safe search for it to come up on Google. -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't come up as the first result for me when I hit the link above.... but anyway here is a link to the picture [4] DuncanHill 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture is dedicated to "James Duff, Earl of Fife" DuncanHill 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Which Mrs Duff is she? - CarbonLifeForm 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicolas Poussin

Blind Orion Searching for the Rising Sun, 1658

What would you call the intellectual tendency of French painter Nicolas Poussin when he employs an obscure mythological theme with semi-mystical connotations, as especially in Blind Orion Searching for the Rising Sun and the ideas this has inspired in other artists and writers? Thanks.--Pharos 19:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I really do not know if these mytholgical subjects are known under a given intellectual rubric, Pharos. They appear so often in European painting, and in a whole variety of styles, including Poussin's baroque; some mystical, others simply erotic. The mythological, I suppose, was one of the better vehicles for an artistic imagination, otherwise restricted by political, cultural or moral taboos from taking too close an interest in contemporary life. Clio the Muse 02:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking of something a bit more specific in this instance. For one, the mythological Orion is just so obscure—it seems like a purposeful esotericism really. It's sort of a trend I see of an exaggerated sense of allegory, a mysticism without the messy supernatural context, at work in various corners of art, literature, philosophy etc. Shades of whatever led to the Freemasonry system of symbols, perhaps. Surely there's a name for this trend, something written on the subject?--Pharos 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to discover the significance of Orion in painting, and of the kind of symbolism you hint at, Pharos, looking through a variety of art dictionaries, but have to report a complete lack of success. I hope you have better luck! Clio the Muse 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Entente Cordiale

How effective was the 1904 agreement between Britain and France? Queen of the Nile 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Entente cordiale appears to answer this question in the first paragraph. The rest of the article provides the evidence. How long an essay do you need? Bielle 23:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I personally feel that the page on the Entente Cordiale verges on the, well, banal. There is not nearly enough on the wider implications of the agreement, and nothing at all on background and context. In a sense it might be said to be England's very own version of the Diplomatic Revolution, reversing its position towards a traditional enemy; and like the first Diplomatic Revolution, it had a profound impact on international relations. It was born out of a British loss of confidence after the early humiliations experienced in the Second Boer War, and a growing fear the the country was isolated in the face of a potentially aggressive Germany. But in fact the agreement did little to advance British interests, and simply linked the country to the kind of Continental rivalries which it had managed to stay clear of hitherto. Convinced that they had British support, the French became ever more belligerent in their attitude towards the Germans, fully demonstrated in the Morrocan crises of 1905 and 1911. Concerned by possible encirclement, the Germans grew ever more alienated. The 1907 link between Britain, France and Russia also encourged the Tsar towards a new Pan-Slavism in the Balkans, to replace his disastrous far-eastern policy, with a further adverse impact on European security. An arrangement that had been intended to improve Britain's standing in the world merely added to the tensions within Europe, and became just another milestone on the road to the Great War. Is that effective enough? Clio the Muse 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Having copied two or three sentences from Clio's reply to Entente cordiale, I noticed that the article was moved to this title from Entente Cordiale several days ago. Unfortunately, the move was not discussed on the relevant talk page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf still copyrighted?

Is Mein Kampf still copyrighted? (Not as legal advice, just curious.) Does a copyright still effectively remain in place if a works author is accused of Crimes against humanity? (And apropos of that, was Hitler actually ever convicted of any crime postmortem?) Thanks! --S.dedalus 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and no. The article on Mein Kampf has information on the copyright status in various states here - Mein_Kampf#Current_availability DuncanHill

Edit: I wrote this (below) before reading link (above). Imagine not. Available free online [5] which is unusual for copyrighted books to go online fully, and this obviously. It has been online for sometime - I imagine the copyright holder would probably have asked for it to be shut down by now, or deindexed by Google. Google have done that before on copyright grounds. At any rate, it is 62 years since the author (obviously Hitler's) death (commited suicide 1945), which in most countries, I think, comprises expiration of copyright (anyone be more specific?). As for date of copyright, could that be held by a translator, thereby making it more recent than its date of publication (1933)? As for his conviction... well, believe it or not, in April 1965 (I think - possibly 66) authorities in West Berlin published an arrest warrant for Hitler! The logic for this was that a 20 year limit on arresting Nazis was almost up (later extended). Do it just in case. His body was never found, as he had it burnt under 200 litres of petrol (to prevent the humiliating fate which befell the body of Benito Mussolini, so common sense says that at the time, the Coroner couldn't be absolutely certain that he had died, if he didn't have a body. I do not think the poliice were surprised when they did not find him. And how, I wonder, can you convict someone without an arrest? I would also question the point of putting a dead person on trial - they cannot be punished. Hence suicide isn't a crime. Sometimes people are re-trialed post-mortem if new evidence has arisen suggesting that they are not guilty, but I have not heard that to prove that they are guilty. Source for arrest warrant info: "Hitler and Germany", by somebody Lee. Can't recall precisely. I can tell you, though, that it is illegal to sell Nazi memorabelia in France, but is in the US under the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech. Does anyone know of any other case when people have been tried post mortem (other than on new evidence suggesting innocence, and thus miscarriage of justice)?martianlostinspace 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright in the EU is for 70 years from the author's death. DuncanHill 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong about this, but I think copyright violation isn't the kind of a crime where the state prosecutes you automatically; it merely gives the copyright holder the right to go after you, should they choose. Thus, if there is substantial reason to expect that the copyright holder won't prosecute, no crime. Gzuckier 14:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's no assurance at all. Create a way to make money and some sort of copyright holder/estate heir/whatever will show up and sue. --24.147.86.187 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a particularly recent example of a posthumous trial, but there is always Pope Formosus... Carom 00:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says a dead person can't be punished? Here are a few who have! Clio the Muse 03:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and sometimes in the most suitable manner. William Burke, one of the West Port "bodysnatchers" was sentenced to death, and further, to have his body dissected for the benefit of medical students (the same fate that befell his victims.) I once had the fortune to view his preserved remains, which are held in private collection at the old University of Edinburgh Medical school, the site of the dissection in 1829. Rockpocket 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah!, the sack 'em up men. Yes, that's another good example, Rockpocket; and the knowledge that one was not to be buried in consecrated ground was far more dreaded then than it is now. Clio the Muse 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose being convicted of a crime posthumously does have some symbolic value; even if it is done for non religious reasons. How about for someone convicted of murder? Do they still retain the rights to copyrighted works? Thanks for the enlightenment. --S.dedalus 05:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in any US or international copyright law that changes the ability of an author to hold copyright if they have been accused or convicted of a crime (no matter what sort of crime). Criminal records have nothing to do with copyright law. --24.147.86.187 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Berne Convention extends copyright for a minimum of 50 years beyond the author's death, but each signatory nation can set longer limits. The EU and U.S. both extend copyright for 70 years beyond the author's death. International copyright laws Some nations, such as the U.S., also have (or had) laws related to copyright renewal. See U.S. copyright renewals. 152.16.59.190 06:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read that the copyright to Mein Kampf resides with the Land of Bavaria, which refuses to authorise new editions. Rhinoracer 11:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct, Rhino, as the link from Duncan (above) confirms.martianlostinspace 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not quite, because it does not own the English language rights to the book. It is freely available in the United Kingdom, as it should be. My own copy, translated Ralph Manheim, with an introduction by D. C. Watt, was published in 1996. The most recent edition was, I believe, released last year by Jaico Publishing. It's a nonsense for any book to be suppressed in a free society, especially this one. I would give free copies to all people with fascist leanings, on condition that they remain in a locked room until they had read every boring word. I cannot conceive of a better cure for ignorance and extremism! I'm sure those of you who have read it will understand the point I am making here. Clio the Muse 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If they own the German rights to the book, they own the right to translation, technically. Translations are derivative works. --24.147.86.187 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Clio, a very good case could be made for prosecuting Hitler for crimes against prose. DuncanHill 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you answers! --S.dedalus 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

German property in the United States was confiscated at the beginning of the war, and belongs to the Alien Property Custodian. This included copyright; Max Born had to prove the date of his British citizenship to receive his royalties. I would not be surprised if Mein Kampf had been specifically released to help the war effort. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

July 19

Indo-Caribbeans

I have read the article of Indo-Caribbeans living in the region, but is there any Indians living in Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis? After all, the term "Indo-Caribbean" means the whole region, right? and is it true that there Indo-Caribbeans living in Cuba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.207 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 July 2007

The following quote from Cuba certainly describes a very mixed population, which is reflective of what I have seen there: "Its people, culture and customs draw from several sources including the aboriginal Taíno and Ciboney peoples, the period of Spanish colonialism, the introduction of African slaves, and its proximity to the United States." I don't know that there is a large number of descendents of peoples from India in the country, but there may well be some. Once Indians were in the area, having been brought over originally as indentured servants, and later as professionals and traders, moving from one island to another was often a very informal process. The name Indo-Caribbean just refers to a mix of Indian and Caribbean bloodlines; there don't have to be populations of such peoples on every Caribbean Island for the term to be a valid description. Bielle 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that prior to about 1720 fairly large numbers of Native Americans from the colonies that became the USA (especially South Carolina) were enslaved and shipped to the Caribbean Islands. Although the numbers are dwarfed by the African slave imports, estimates of about 50,000 Native American Indian slaves were exported from Charleston, South Carolina, to the Caribbean, between 1670 and 1720 or so. Thus even on islands where the native populations were essentially wiped out, Native Americans from elsewhere were brought in. For a while, back in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, Indian slaves were common in the Caribbean and in the English mainland colonies as well. The South Carolinians were able to compete, for a while, with the import of African slaves for various reasons, such as the shorter sea voyage, the small ship semi-smuggling, "under the radar" aspect of the trade, the avoidance of taxes on slave imports from Africa, the sometimes cheaper price of Indian slaves over Africans, and the old trade network existing between South Carolina and Barbados, among other islands (South Carolina was founded by Barbados colonists). So although imports of African always outnumbered Indians, and although the enslavement of Native Americans in the mainland ceased in the 18th century, there are probably people living in the Caribbean today with some ancestry from the mainland, such as Creek, Choctaw, Apalachee, Tuscarora, etc, etc. Finally, while African slaves brought from Africa tended to be male, if I understand right, Native American slaves were more often woman and children. The possibility of interbreeding seems likely. Pfly 08:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization question

Is it "Boston Mayor Tom Menino" or "Boston mayor Tom Menino"? I should know this, but am drawing a blank. BenB4 05:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Answering my own question: the former. Pretty easy to google this answer, duh!

Why not "Tom Menino, Mayor of Boston" ? 68.39.174.238 10:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that mayor should be capitalized unless it is being used as a title before a name, regardless of how many such mistakes Google finds. In each of the instances above, the word mayor is being used descriptively. The word is used in apposition to Menino's name, not as his title. His title is not Boston Mayor. It is Mayor. The only case in which Mayor should be capitalized, in my opinion, is when it immediately precedes his name and is not used appositively. For example, Boston mayor Tom Menino or Tom Menino, mayor of Boston but Boston's Mayor Tom Menino or Mayor Tom Menino of Boston. (Oddly enough, Menino is my mayor, as I live and work in Boston.) Marco polo 15:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Same rules apply for pope or bishop, though you'd scarcely know it from reading Wikipedia. --Wetman 06:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Heart of Atlanta Motel

Does the Heart of Atlanta Motel of Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States still exist? What happened to it? In any case, this should be mentioned in the Heart of Atlanta Motel article)Neutrality^talk 07:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears to now be a Hilton Hotel. See [6][[7][8] Neutrality^talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

First gay knight

Who was the first openly gay man to be knighted in Great Britain? --Jacobstry 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian McKellen was the first openly gay actor to be knighted. I'm not sure if he was the first openly gay man to be knighted. 152.16.188.107 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is impossible to answer. Knighthood goes back over 1000 years and homosexuality a lot longer. AFAIK being "open" about it was not an issue until fairly recently.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

They weren't Knights and it wan't great Britian, but you might be interested in looking at the article on the Sacred_Band_of_Thebes. They were the elite fighing unit of the Theban Army and consisted of 150 pairs of gay lovers, under the theory that 1. A man wouldn't want to be cowardly in battle in front of his lover, and 2. The lovers would perform heroically to protect each other. - Czmtzc 18:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So the gay bomb would never have worked.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Greeks and Gaveston, thank you. I'm curious about modern Britain. I think may be it was Benjamin Britten or John Gielgud or maybe Noel Coward. They did not say they were gay, but everybody knew it. --Jacobstry 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that your definition of "openly gay"? --Dweller 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gielgud's cottaging conviction was a bit of a giveaway... DuncanHill 23:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If so, then perhaps Edward II of England? Adam Bishop 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, I was going to say Edward II, but then I wondered if the Garter was operative at the time, and if every monarch was automatically installed, and...lots of things. James I would definitely have been knighted, but how openly gay he was is a bit of a question. In fact, whether "gay" means anything in regard to James I is up in the air. Edward II is unusual in fact because he seems to be solely same-sex oriented. Geogre 01:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The order of the Garter was started by Edward II's son Edward III, and Edward II's sexuality is disputed I believe. His enemies may have called him a sodomite, and he was close to Gaveston and the younger Hugh Despenser, but is that a sure sign he was gay? I'll admit it's certainly a strong hint. I have even read a suggestion that he was having an incestuous affair with his cousin and Despenser's wife Eleanor de Clare! Cyta 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Jacobstry made it clear above that he's not interested in Gaveston. If you think that Edward II may be described as "the first openly gay man to be knighted in Great Britain", you may look even further back in history and examine the case of the Lionheart who seems to have had to interest in women, including his wife, but is known to have shared the bed with Philippe Auguste. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And back on topic, Benjamin Britten wasn't knighted, he was a life peer (Baron). Cyta 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lionheart

What is the story behind the monicker of Richard the Lionheart? --Jacobstry 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This question has been asked before, though I'm not certain (and this is no false modesty) that it was answered brilliantly. I also note that the article's not been updated; perhaps because of the uncertainty. See here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_January_15#Richard_the_Lionhearted --Dweller 08:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The best story is that he fought a lion and ripped its heart out through its mouth. (And by "best" I mean "coolest" not "most accurate"!) Adam Bishop 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

These appellations have a tendency to be awarded after death, often under no very precise circumstances, and recall some characteristic that is felt to be worthy of note, in this case Richard's courage. The other one that springs to mind is that of Edward I, known as Malleus Scotorum-Hammer of the Scots-which only appeared on his tomb at Westminster Abbey in the Tudor period. Clio the Muse 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I must be more tired than I had thought, as when I read Edwad's Tudor-era appellation in you post above, it appeared to me as Malleus Scrotum - most unfortunate! Carom 16:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Ha! If no-one else wants to go down in history as The Ball Breaker (loosely translated) I will happily assume the title! Clio the Muse 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and Mexican Independence

Your page on Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and his role in the Mexican War of Independence is a little too brief, considering his importance. I would be grateful for some more detail on his army, the campaign of 1810 and any other information that can be given on the political background to his rising. Thanks in advance. General joffe 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason you do not want to read a few books and expand it? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime I can offer you one or two additional items of information to help you on your way, General joffe.

We do not know exactly when Hidalgo turned his thoughts towards rebellion against the colonial power, but the break is thought to have come sometime after Joseph Bonaparte replaced Ferdinand VII on the throne of Spain. This was one of the decisive moments in Mexican history, breaking a political link that had united the country with Spain for three hundred years. Literary clubs began to emerge, expressing a whole range of radical views, united by a general discontent against the new political realities in the Spanish Empire. Hidalgo, a priest of unconventional views, attended one such provincial group in Guanajunto.

Growing up in a hacienda, where his father, a Creole, was employed as a superintendant, Hidalgo developed an early sympathy for the unskilled Indian workers. Though he trained as a priest, he retained an interest in political and social questions, which he carried with him to his first parish in the town of Dolores. By 1809 his sense of discontent was turning openly to revolutionary politics, and the possibility of a rising against the vice-regal government of what was then New Spain. He was joined by Ignacio Allende, a young officer from the nearby town of San Miguel, also a Creole, frustrated by the inherent racism in colonial administration, which preferred to advance immigrant Spaniards, rather than people born in Mexico, no matter how 'pure' their blood. The fall of Ferdinand created a vacuum which Allende, and other ambitious Creoles were determined to fill.

Early on the morning of Sunday September 16 1810 Hidalgo and Allende received a warning that the authorities had intelligence of the planned rising. Hidalgo's parishioners had been coming in from the surrounding countryside, expecting to hear mass; instead the heard a call to arms. As well as invoking the name of King Ferdinand and the Virgin of Guadalupe, he denounced the Gauchupines, a derogatory term for the Spanish-born overlords, specifically designed to appeal to an Indian audience.

From Dolores, the rebel force moved on San Miguel, gathering support along the way like a rolling avalanche. In the process the movement began to be openly anti-Spanish rather than pro-Ferdinand, and Hidalgo dropped his own pretence to loyalism in favour of outright support for Mexican independence. So, what began as a conservative reaction turned into a popular, largely Indian, anti-colonial revolution. The army then moved on Guanajunto, the provincial capital, where Antonio Riano, the governor, attempted to organise a defense. But he was only able to assemble some 500 men, Creole and Spanish, against an Indian force now estimated at 20,000 strong. The town fell to onslaught on 28 September, during which many of the defenders were massacred. The rebel army then moved south-east towards Mexico City, close to which General Felix Calleja had placed some 3000 cavalry and 600 infantry at the pass of Las Cruces.

In the ensuing Battle of Las Cruces the tiny defending force faced 80,000 rebels. The Royalists managed to hold off the advance in two days of hard fighting, assisted by the fact that Hidalgo's men had scarcely any firearms. But in the end they were defeated by sheer weight of numbers, and 200 survivors of the battle fell back on Mexico City, now virtually defenceless. Hidalgo now stood like Alaric the Goth before Rome, but unlike Alaric he did not press his advantage, and the rebels moved away from the capital, to the north-east in the dirtection of Valladolid, present-day Morelia, and from thence on to Guadalajara. Calleja, with a enhanced Royal army, followed in close pursuit, finally forcing Hidalgo and Allende to make a stand on the banks of the Calderon River, where a battle was fought on the morning of January 16 1811.

Although numerically weaker, Calleja's force was far better armed. Hidalgo, moreover, had organised his own forces badly, ignoring the advice of the more experienced Allende. Under sustained attack by cavalry, infantry and artillery, the rebel army collapsed in panic when one of Royalist shells struck an ammunition wagon. Calleja's victory was complete.

Allende, who had grown increasingly frustrated with Hidalgo during the campaign, a mood that was compounded by the murderous indiscipline of the Indian army, promptly relieved his chief of command, and carried him northwards with his tiny remaining force, towards the American border, where he hoped to gain the help and support of President James Madison. However, on March 21, he was intercepted by Royalist forces, and the two leaders taken prisoner. Both men were subsequently executed by firing squad. Prior to his death Hidalgo expressed regret for the bloodshed unleashed by the revolt, though he remained firm in his conviction that Mexico had to be free. Clio the Muse 01:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I used the details provided by Clio to expand Miguel Hidalgo, which now looks more or less complete. Unfortunately, it is unreferenced, as is Mexican War of Independence. Both articles note that Hidalgo was decapitated rather than executed by firing squad. It would have been great if somebody with a command of Spanish translated es:Batalla del Monte de las Cruces and several other pages on the key battles of the campaign. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, the sources I referred to are The Birth of Modern Mexico, 1780-1824 by C. I. Archer, The Hidalgo Revolt by H. M. Hamill, and a Concise History of Mexico by B. R. Hamnett. And Hidalgo was definitely executed by firing squad! Clio the Muse 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I infer that Hidalgo was shot dead and then decapitated. [9] [10] --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

French National assembly

a. What current member of the French National Assembly has served the long? b. When was he first elected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.123 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, while www.assemblee-nationale.fr has various lists of members, they don't seem to have one based on this criterion. I looked at the list of members by age and checked the individual pages for all of those 65 and older, and the longest-serving one that I found was Didier Julia, who was first elected in 1967 when he was 33, and is now 73. It would be hard for anyone under 65 to have served longer, but of course not impossible. --Anonymous, July 19, edited 21:53 (UTC).

British India’s political status.

Was British India in a personal union with the UK or was it merely a colony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.123 (talk • contribs)

According to our article Personal union, such a union can exist only between sovereign states. British India, as such, was never a sovereign state; it was a British dependency. India was in a brief personal union with the United Kingdom from 1947, when it gained independence, until 1950, when it became a republic. Marco polo 15:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alien abduction.

a. How do believers in Alien abduction explain the ability for aliens to abduct their victims in urban and suburban areas without being observed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.123 (talk • contribs)

Generally, no explanation is given, or an untestable hypothesis used (the spacecraft had a cloaking device and stealth shielding for example - any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic). However, there are a few cases where some sort of UFO was seen at the time, and one famous case where several witnesses saw a woman who later claimed to have been abducted rising from her New York city apartment (can't find the link at the moment though). Laïka 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually studies of people who claim to have had alien encounters have been done, for example, "Toward an Explanation of the UFO Abduction Phenomenon: Hypnotic Elaboration, Extraterrestrial Sadomasochism, and Spurious Memories," by Roy F. Baumeister, Leonard S. Newman; Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 7, 1996. Baumeister wrote or co-wrote a number of articles on the topic in the mid-to-late 90s while he was on the faculty of Case Western Reserve University. I think, though, you'll need to go to a university library to find hard copy to read these. Donald Hosek 16:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the government covering everything up, men in black and all that. Plus how to believers in alien abduction explain why aliens seem to prefer American's, abduct more after popular shows like the x-files are on and have a strange interest in probing areas that probably shouldn't be probed. Cyta 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And have never abducted notable humans. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fast Track Authority

Is Fast Track Authority a form of an Executive Agreement? Thanks. - MSTCrow 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely confident in my answer, but I believe fast track authority means that the President is completely in charge of negotiating the treaty, with Congress merely providing the yes or no vote on the treaty as a whole, rather than making their own changes and then voting on it. An executive agreement, on the other hand, is made only by the President, with Congress playing no role. Our article on Executive agreement is a redirect, but it does provide some useful information. GreatManTheory 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The average ethnicity/original nationality of the (white?) USA-er

Hello,

when I see a Caucasian USA-er, I think of "British". But how "British" or "English" are they really? They speak English alright, but the population of the USA is like five times that of the United Kingdom so....(as a mathie :) ).... I came up with this system : give each immigrant who left for the United States a certain "original nationality". If he or she marries someone with nationality B, then their kids are 50% A and 50% B. If he or she marries someone whose 50% C and 50% D, then their children are 25% A, 25% B, 25% C and 25% D, and so on.... So everyone in the USA has a set of percentages now. Let's add all of it up and divide it by the total number of people in the USA. What would the result be like? What would it be for British (40%, 20%?) or for French, German, Italian, Russian? Maybe making the distinction between black , white, asian.. is important, but then again : who is 100% black or white...? And borders in Europe and other continents have changed (is someone from Alsace-Lorraine French or German?). Is an immigrant from Glasgow a Scot, or British?

Anyway, I'm not expecting someone here do calculate this for me :), but all related studies or articles or whatever about this are welcome :). Thank you,Evilbu 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

From personal experience I can tell you that many descendants of Scottish immigrants tend to be well-aware of their Scottishness, and almost never lump themselves in with English, perhaps because large-scale English immigration to the USA occurred earlier and as a result English-Americans tend to occupy different socio-geographical positions.

Religion is often a more important factor anyway. My paternal grandparents are German Catholics, and they certainly identify more with (for example) Irish-Americans than Protestant Germans. Yet they would never have identified with the Italians. There are a million different factors.

Certain ethnicities are quite distinct, even today. Italians, for instance. If you're an American with Italian ancestry, you know it. If you have German ancestry, you may or may not know it, and probably don't care. Bhumiya (said/done) 15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See Racial demographics of the United States#Majority group. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but here "selfidentification" seems to be the criterion, which is quite different?Evilbu 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Many white Americans, especially those whose ancestors immigrated more than two generations ago, do not know their full ancestry, and there is really no easy way that that information could be recovered, except perhaps through genetic analysis. Based on immigration figures and fertility rates, though, you could come up with some rough estimates. Marco polo 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Using your own ad hoc system is not going to be very useful. In the US most European immigrant groups assimilated completely within two generations or so and as a consequence referring to them by previous nationalities is not useful, unless you are trying to attach a biological component to nationality, which is an entirely different and more intractable problem.

In any case, what you would need to get the sort of answers you want is: 1. how many people from what countries in Europe immigrated to the US at what periods of time, 2. how many children they had. Different groups of immigrants had different levels of reproduction and different periods in US history. At different times in US history, different groups of immigrants arrived (and were sometimes forced to not arrive; see Immigration Restriction Act).

Though frankly the self-identified nationalities listed on the page linked look reasonably correct to me, and I doubt you'd come up with radically different answers. --24.147.86.187 23:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The long form of the US census allows people to list two ancestries. It's a fill-in-the-blank form, so people can put anything. (Except "Jewish," since the Census Bureau is legally prohibited from counting anything having to do with religion.) The top choice in 2000 was German, listed as the top ancestry by 30.2 million people and the second ancestry by 12.7 million. Behind German (in combined first-second ancestry listed) were Irish, Englsh, African American and simply "American." -- Mwalcoff 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

An admittedly limited data point -- my own ancestry -- traced back via the paternal surname line runs all the way to 1650 or so, when the first known family immigrant arrived in Virginia. He was from England. The surname being old in America, there is a relatively robust family genealogy research network. In looking into my own ancestry -- especially the often-overlooked or poorly-documented maternal lines -- I found that despite the original (and frequent) connection to England, there were also many lines that traced back to Germany, Scotland, North Ireland, Finland, and a variety of other non-England places, including a few Native American lines. Some African ancestry is not out of the question either. Despite (or because) of all this, I'd say I was "white" and "American" if asked for a simple ancestry. Whatever "Britishness" there was became "American" long ago. Pfly 08:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Self identification has some flaws in that you choose one group from many. I will now deal in stereotypes, I know, but they must originate somewhere. A lot of American's seem to want Irish blood, and with one Irish ancestor may consider themselves to have Irish roots, however many English or other ancestors they have. England is (sadly in my view) not so good on national pride, I can't imagine many people feeling a strong English American identity, whereas maybe Scottish is more likely. Germans formed, apparently, a huge immigrant group, which I didn't realise until recently, they seem to have been quieter than the Irish, Italian etc immigrants. Also two world wars against Germany will no doubt make an outright German identity seem unwanted, but surprisingly to me, it still comes out top. Also things like the one drop rule, that anyone with any black ancestry counts as black, although maybe not strictly used any more, will mean people being counted as black, even if of mixed race. I have a feeling, though no stats, that a lot of mixed race black/white people would identify as African-American for surveys and things. Anyway, the majority ethnic identity seems to be American, so I guess it's interesting but difficult to answer. Cyta 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The national origins of the US population in diferent eras has been a subject of study, and I recall seeing an exhibit at Ellis Island showing the overwhelming Northern European origin of the early inhabitants, particularly (if I recall correctly) Britain, Scotland, Ireland, and Germany. In the 1940's there were still many German-speaking communities in the US, in which German was spoken in the home, in school, in church, and in stores, with English taught in school as a second language, among people whose ancestors came to the US in the 1840's through 1860's. After Ellis Island opened, there was an influx of Asian, Russian, Polish, Italian persons and others. The US has asked nation origin in the once-per-decade census since 1850, and kept to some extent lists of passengers arriving from foreign countries since colonial days, so source analysis is possible. DNA analysis [11] makes it possible to determine the populations which are ancestral to a person, allowing somewhat objective characterization of immigration patterns. The completeness and accuracy of this should improve over time as more populations get characterized. Many a person has been surprised by what populations they found. Edison 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Britain and Scotland? As Cyta said "England is ... not so good on national pride, I can't imagine many people feeling a strong English American identity". QED. Skittle 16:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Care to tell me what nationality/ethnicity I am? Besides a smattering of Cherokee here and there, I have Dutch, French/Flemish, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English ancestors. I think that makes me of American ethnicity. Corvus cornix 21:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your ethnicity is Cherokee, Dutch, French/Flemish, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English; your nationality is American. You really can't be "ethnically American," unless by "American" you mean Native American. Neutrality^talk 06:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"American", in this context, is generally how Scots-Irish self-identify. If you look at a map of ethnic identification, like this one, you'll see that "American" identification corresponds to Appalachia, an area dominated by Scots-Irish immigrants. It is also common among English-Americans outside of the northeast - if you look at the south, you'll see that just about every non-AfAm county is marked either "English" or "American". Later European immigrants, such as Italians, Germans, and Scandinavians, are more likely to identify with their country of origin, or at least acknowledge it. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Google earth blocked area

Why google earth want to blocked/censored the area in the image below? Based on what they blocked it? roscoe_x 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC) File:Blocked area.jpg

In what way is it blocked? The area works fine in my version of Google Earth; I can see Cairo, Cyprus, Athens and Beirut all in high definition. Perhaps a brief server fault blacked out that area for a while. Laïka 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Blocked area1.jpg

Here's the image of Beirut from 20km

File:Blocked area2.jpg

Here's the image inside and outside the blue line

roscoe_x 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be a fault with your Google Earth cache; selecting "Clear disk cache" (Tools>Options>Cache) may fix it; there's no logical reason to seemingly indiscriminately block out a massive chunk of the Med. Laïka 18:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote glitch, since Google Maps for me shows the portion of İskenderun below the blue line just as well (i.e., same poor low-resolution image). (The "blue line" image is of Iskenderun, Turkey, not of Beirut. All of Beirut shows up in much higher resolution for me—individual cars and trees visible—on Google Maps.) Wareh 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think its Google's servers error. It's already working by now. I thought it was blocked, cause I never seen this error before. Thanks for the responses. roscoe_x 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Forklift certification

Where can I learn how to drive a forklift and get certified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.95.29.154 (talk • contribs)

Just do a localized web search for "forklift training". You'll get plenty of suggestions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My "Yellow Pages" directory lists several training companies too.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good intro to British history?

Hi all,

I am looking for some suggestions to a good intro to British history book, something of the same general style as http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-History-Latin-America/dp/0140125590 for Latin American history (ie. brief but detailed when needs be). I'd be particularly pleased with something that starts in the paleolithic era, until the present (but it could end before the 20th century, if need be). Any good and recent books to recommend?

Thanks! Richardmtl 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, the one I would recommend would be The Oxford History of Britain by K. O. Morgan, though I think, perhaps, that The British Isles: A History of Four Nations by H. Kearney might be closer to what you are looking for. Slightly more demanding, though still very good, is The Isles: A History by N. Davis. Clio the Muse 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clio is the expert listen to her, but as an aside I was wondering what Clio thought of Simon Schama's three volume history of Britain. It was a well known BBC tv show as well, I read the first volume but wasn't hugely impressed, and a historian friend (though only undergrad) scoffed at reading Simon Schama, but provided no better suggestions!. Cyta 09:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you for your suggestions! Maybe now I'll finally learn how to turn Canada into a Republic! :) (kidding). Richardmtl 13:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Schama is a excellent historian, Cyta, and I have a particular admiration for his work on the golden age of the Dutch Republic. I have to say, though, without a trace of condescension or snootiness, that the British History is not of a high scholarly standard: it is not even of a standard one expects in the best popular history. I think that is a reflection of the medium it was created for. It's 'telly history'; and telly history, by its very nature, is, well, glib, clever and superficial. Big bucks, though; very big bucks! And who can resist that? Clio the Muse 22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as I said I wasn't highly impressed with the book of the series, and have enjoyed some better popular histories, even once as I mentioned to you, looking into a historical journey. I would be curious to read Churchill's History of the English speaking people, but mainly because of my admiration of Churchill as a war leader. Cyta 07:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Civil war

Why do both proponents and opponents of the Iraq War claim that the US intervened in a Civil War between Shiites and Sunnis which has been going on for "hundreds of years", when large scale fighting between Sunni and shiites only began a year AFTER US intervention? --Gary123 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What proponents and opponents? I (in England, main news sources BBC website and The Guardian) have never heard such a bald statement. Algebraist 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I follow this issue closely and also have never heard such a statement. It is true, according to various sources, that Sunnis have politically dominated Iraq, and its Shiite majority, for over 100 years, but that is not the same as a civil war being underway. Marco polo 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So the Shias and Sunnis got along without fighting until just a few years ago? Even before the Saddam Hussein regime? Lots of sources say things like "Sunnis and Shiites ..have a history of violence dating back almost 1,400 years." describing relations throughout the Islamic world. [12] . [13] describes violent conflict for over 1000 years in various countries. Sunni-Shia relations describes repression of Shia or Sunni minorities in Islamic countries where the other faction is the majority, and also describes repression and violence back to the 8th century. The article also mentions a Shia rebellion in Iraq in the 1920's. Edison 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute between Shias and Sunnis dates back to the first century of Islam, but there is not a continuous historical link to the present conflict. According to Yitzhak Nakash's scholarly acclaimed book The Shi'i of Iraq, Iraq's Shi'i majority dates back only to the 18th or 19th century, before which the region's Arabs were mostly more-or-less Sunni. The Shi'i identity was not as strong as tribal identity until recent years, and some tribes included members of both major Islamic sects. According to our article on the British Mandate of Mesopotamia, the 1920 rebellion involved Sunnis and Shias working together. While Iraq's Hashemite monarch was Sunni, I am not aware of any unrest between the sects during the monarchy. I think that the roots of the current conflict do not really go back further than the regime of Saddam Hussein, whose Baath party and government were dominated by Sunnis, particulary from Saddam's own tribe, and which repressed the Shias, whom they saw as potential subversives. Still, repression is not civil war. This repression ironically strengthened the group identity of the Shias. Partly as a result of this repression, Shias in the south rebelled at the time of the Iraqi defeat in the First Gulf War in 1991. This rebellion brought intensified repression by Saddam's regime and increased animosity by the majority Shias toward the Sunnis who were favored by Saddam's regime. The U.S. invasion in 2003 gave the Shias the opportunity to turn the tables, whence the current conflict. Marco polo 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the article Sunni-Shia relations looks to me as if it is distorted by POV, even though some of the biased statements are sourced. Marco polo 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As Marco says, although there was no civil war before the invasion, this doesn't mean everyone was getting along swimmingly, there was just an oppressive regime preventing any oppostion. Cyta 09:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Similarly there was no open civil war in former Yugoslavia as long as Tito ruled with an iron fist under the job description President for life. Of course in a country like Iraq, with daily car bombings, mortar rounds flying and mass murders, any given leader may quite unknowingly be "President for Life." Edison 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Pirates

Could you recommend some books, fictions and non-fictions about pirates? I already have A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates by Charles Johnson and Pirate utopias by Peter Lamborn Wilson. Thank you. 83.182.152.239 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You could try "A General History of the Pyrates"; it's an old book (1724), but it covers a lot of the more infamous pirates of the time (which was just after the "great era" of piracy in the Caribbean). The problem with the book is that it blurs the line between fact and fiction; some tales are embellished and three of the pirates seem to be fake... Laïka 23:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry; I missed the extended version of the title in your question. For fiction, I'm sure you've read the most famous one (Treasure Island); see Category:Pirate books for more. Laïka 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The shortest one I could come up with, yet highly recommendable: The Widow Ching, Pirate. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For a nice addition to your usual reading, go with She Captains: Hellions of the Sea by Joan Druett. She has a nice, populist overview of female pirates. Geogre 01:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To your non-fictions I would add A General History of the Pyrates by Daniel Defoe and The Buccaners of America by Alexander Exquemein, two contemporary accounts from the 'golden age' of piracy. You might also try Under the Black Flag: The Romance and Reality of Life Among the Pirates by David Cordingly, The Mammoth Book of Pirates edited by John Lewis, Villains of all Nations:Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age by Marcus Rediker and The Pirate Wars: Pirates Versus the Legitimate Navies of the World by Peter Earle. For a pirate-related theme in fiction I suggest that in addition to Treasure Island, the greatest of them all, you might look at "The Gold-Bug", a short story by Edgar Allan Poe Clio the Muse 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd second Villains of all Nations:Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age by Marcus Rediker. For a book on pirates, most of which are sensationalized junk, I was surprised by its scholarly well-researched tone. Plus it was an enjoyable read. It also revealed many details about the so-called "golden age" pirates that I had been clueless about before -- sometimes portraying them as a kind of early labor force rebellion against capitalism, a social, almost communist uprising -- albeit not without a strong dose of violence and terror. Plus the book opens with a chapter on William Fly, an long lost many-times removed distant cousin of mine! Pfly 08:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that A General History of the Pyrates by Defoe is the same book you have already read. Clio refers to the theory that Johnson is a pseudonym of Daniel Defoe (now somewhat discredited, according to my edition). Algebraist 10:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting piractical fiction came from Frederick Marryat, especially "The Privateersman", which you may or may not like. It's on Wikisource. Also, have you turned up a copy of "Pyrates" online? I'm looking for it as it should be out of copyright and so freely availible. 68.39.174.238 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

General History of the Pyrates online here - [14] - I posted it on the language desk a few days ago when someone was asking, but I don't think anyone noticed. DuncanHill 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blast it, I asked that and yes, I noticed. I was wondering if anyone had found my long-lost ".edu" source of it, but I don't think it matters: Wikisource should take that as well. 68.39.174.238 15:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Google advanced search, with "only results from domain .edu" turns up many hits, including this one from Eastern North Carolina [15] DuncanHill 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Francophobia?

I have also have a question concerning Richard the Lionheart. Your page on Francophobia says that that the antagonism between the English and French contributed to the rivalry between Richard and Philip of France over the leadership of the Third Crusade. Can this be right? It makes no sense to me, especially as the previous sentence says that England was divided since the Norman Conquest between a French-speaking aristocracy and an English speaking population. Onedollarbaby 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a little strange; their antagonism had nothing to do with being English and French. Indeed, Richard was not English at all. I suppose he may have had a lot of English troops in his army although he would have had a large number of French troops as well, as he ruled just as much French territory as he did English. No, the antagonism between Richard and Philip was that they were both after each other's land, and were constantly plotting against each other at home. The crusade was an attempt to stop their constant warfare and unite them in a single cause, but neither could stand to let the other take the lead while on crusade, and they even ended up allying with different Christian factions in the East when they got there. Philip eventually returned home, allied with Richard's brother John, and forced Richard to end the crusade in order to come home and deal with them (meanwhile, he also got on the wrong side of the Duke of Austria and the Holy Roman Emperor, and was imprisoned by them on the way back, much to the delight of Philip and John). Adam Bishop 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd, like much of the information in these rag-bag X-phobia pages, among the very worst, in my estimation, in all of Wikipedia, a catch-all for this prejudice and than misconception. As Adam has indicated, Richard was far more French that English; he spoke French, not English and, when he was not crusading, preferred his Duchy of Aquitaine to England, a 'cold, wet country', in which he spent about six months of his entire ten year reign. His rivalry with Philip Augustus had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with English dislike of France, a truly ludicrous contention. Indeed, the whole course of Anglo-French relations is about politics and power, and not about xenophobia. During the Hundred Years War the English monarchs loved France so much that they wanted to grab and hold as much of it as they could manage. After all -No King of England, if not King of France! These phobia pages are little better than an excuse for a rant, on which note I will bring this rant to an end! Clio the Muse 02:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet the article on wikiphobia was deleted four times this year! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is hope: no need to write my Phobiaphobiapages page after all! Clio the Muse 05:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

One point folks need to bear in mind: it has become fashionable these days to take -phobia onto things when that is not what is intended. What people are here calling "francophobia" is really just good old anti-gallicism. We've got boat loads of anti-gallicism among folks who feel not the slightest tinge of fear of Frenchmen. Anti-Americanism is not "Americaphobia," after all. (Although David Bowie did have "I'm Afraid of Americans" as a song about madness.) Geogre 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the additional meanings have become a lasting trend. Phobias describing negative prejudice are accepted terms, homophobia being a very common amd established example. -phobia in science, hydrophobe for instance, "can express "predispositions ... against certain conditions", resulting in shying behavior, avoidance, maybe even conscious dislike, but not necessarily fear. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. You see, homophobia does mean fear, and the hostility is secondary to the fear. At least as a psychological principle, it is supposed to be an irrational fear of homosexuals, and this fear sublimates and leads the victim to act out violently. To extend that to anything else doesn't seem justified in usage, at least yet. In molecular biology, "phobic" is analogous and does mean "repellent" ("hydrophobic compounds" repel water molecules, while "hydrophilic" compounds bind "avidly"), but scientists know -- I hope -- that these are all personifications. After all, a molecule cannot truly be "avid" or "ardent" or "phobic" or "philic." When we go from social behavior among humans to social behavior, there is a really serious danger of mistaking chauvinism for psychosis and thereby weakening the meaning of the psychological terminology and confusing what it is we're talking about. Geogre 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This inflationary effect of carelessness is no cause for celebration, I agree. From a descriptivist point of view, journalists and other writers do use -phobia for aversions unequal to fear, though usually the intended connotations are not psychiatrical, but socio-political. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

July 20

fidel

why is fidel castro considered a dictator.

can email to <e-mail removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.141.179 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 20 July 2007

This sounds like homework. Have you read our article on Fidel Castro and dictator? And please do not post e-mails, they are spam fodder. Splintercellguy 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

its not homework

I'm sure it's not; but you have been given the windows through which to look for your answer. You can, however have this from George Orwell, which might help to focus your thoughts; Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. Clio the Muse 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely using seemingly arbitrary quotes to try and add substance to a point your trying to make can be quite a contentious thing to do seeing as out of the social and political context it was said within it is left relatively meaningless (particularly as that point was made very much from one side of the Iron Curtain, in fear of what lay on the other). As there are various situations at which the converse of that statement would have to be the case, a benevolent dictatorship, or martial law, for two examples. Philc 15:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And what point would that be, Philc? By their very nature quotations from an author's work are arbitrary but not irrelevant; it would be impossible to use them in any other way. Orwell's words were written, not said; and therefore not abstracted from any 'social and political context.' I would be using them out of their literary context if this passage was followed by a statement to the effect that Fidel was a wonderful guy, and by no means a dictator; and I assure you they are not! The quotation was really intended to help the questioner reflect on the relationship between revolution, power and dictatorship, and to feed these back to Cuba and the structure of the Castro regime. No conclusion is outlined, or offered; and I make no suggestions myself about the nature of a particular dictatorship, or dictatorship in general, benevolent or malign. Clio the Muse 23:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I have to admit, my post was made with a certain voyeurism to see how you'd respond. It's nice to see someone who's not dismissive of obviously, possibly even deliberately contentious points, but simply tackles the point for what its worth. You have a certain eloquence about your posts, but here is neither the time nor the place for that. Though I would have to contest that Orwell's point implies nothing of a dictatorship. As I would argue that it is possible for a dictatorship to be established to safeguard a revolution, and that therefore the statement does eliminate certain possibilities, and thus does have implications. Also that Orwell's work, as conducted at the height of the Cold War, must be considered as the fruit of such times, not of times like these. Philc 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds! Clio the Muse 00:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

making money

how can i make money without doin wrk. the only thing i know of is for women and im not one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.141.179 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 July 2007

The answer is, you can't. If everyone could make money without working, all of society would collapse. Splintercellguy 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You could beg, but I hear that's hard work. Or you could magically win the lottery, but you have a better chance of being struck by lightening twice in a row, I think. - MSTCrow 03:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Be born a Rentier. One cannot be too careful in the choice of one's parents. Alternatively, you could try to be a kept man, though I understand that that's hard work too. Ah, for the good old days of ancient Rome, when being a do-nothing Client was an honorable calling! Rhinoracer 10:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "only thing i know" you allude to is not "for women". There are plenty of men in the business as well. You just need to lower your standards. However, I'm reminded of a story I heard from an actor (I can't remember who at the moment) who worked for a short time as a bodyguard. A hooker went in to "visit" the guy he was guarding. She came out an hour or so later and, as she passed him, said, "At least you can read the newspaper while you work." -- Kainaw^(what?) 12:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You can be a wizard investor or business-person. You borrow money from other people, make clever investments and/or pay other people to work for you, and due to your business skills you make a profit which exceeds the cost of borrowing the money, leaving you with spending money. Its called capitalism. The difficult thing is getting started - after that it gets easier and easier as you have more equity to invest. A common example is investing in property or what our American pals would call real-estate. You may have to do a little work, and take risks, but the amount of work may be miniscule in comparison to the amount of $$$$ you make. People have also made fortunes in the internet bubble this way. If you are considering this as a future career then paying attention in maths class is a good starting point. [User:80.0.105.59|80.0.105.59]] 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend paying close attention in English class as you will be required to sign a lot of documents under 80.0.105.59's proposal, and most documents require a strong understanding of formal language and its constructs. Of course, if your cradle tongue is not English, and you don't live in an English speaking country, then substitute your national language for "English" in the prior sentence. Bielle 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Although all the answers here are decent, I think Bielle hit the nail on the head. In fact, your ability to speak English (or whatever language you choose) can be considered an "asset" in and of itself. More generally, your cognitive, motor, and interpersonal abilities are all "assets" for you to hone and develop to whatever extent you can. Therefore, to the extent that other people without these basic skills (nor the ability to develop them further) would be willing to pay a fortune to have what you have, you are already wealthy beyond measure.

If you want to maximize the return on those assets without "working" ... that depends on how you define "work".

If you define it as "doing something when I'd rather be doing something else" ... then avoiding work is a simple matter of adjusting your perspective towards (or changing) whatever it is you happen to be doing.

If you define it as "not expending any stored energy" ... then avoiding work is not going to be easy, since even a dead and decomposing body violates this definition. dr.ef.tymac 15:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Join a band. --Dweller 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Song title and artist?

I know I don't have a lot of info here, but also know a lot of well-read people read this page, I am trying to find the name and artist of a particular song.

It was a pop song, receiving some mild airplay in the early 1980's in the USA, and sounded noticably like Chris de Burgh, a singer at about the same time, but I am pretty sure was not. The song was in a major key, with male tenor vocals with a good deal of harmonizing in the choruses. Two parts I can still hear: 1) Its chorus started with the line "And we'll all come down", with the "and we'll" eighth notes on the previous measure's 4 beat, and the next three words half notes. For sake of discussion assuming it was in E major, "all", "come", "down" were in D major, A major, and E major respectively. 2) At one point either before a chorus or a solo (can't remember which), the lyrics want "...to the United States of America", with all syllables but the last of "United States of America" each the same duration, probably tripled half notes (2/3 beat each), in D major.

Any ideas who/what this was? Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The only lyrics I could find with "we'll all come down" didn't include anything related to the U.S. We Rigged Our Ship. 152.16.59.190 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, "The Walls Came Down," by The Call, a San Fransisco group that received some airplay and had Garth Hudson on keyboards. The singer's son is now in Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. Geogre 11:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Thanks for posting. I know The Walls Came Down, and it is definitely not that. And it doesn't seem to be Ship either. What a tough nut... thanks again. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to stick to The Call, but "Let the Day Begin" has been heard a lot without being on the radio much, and it does have "this is for the ___ of the Western World! And here's to the...." Anyway, if it doesn't sound like that singer, then it's not The Call at all. I assume we're in the right group of years, though? Geogre 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, although Day is one of my favorite songs! Yes, if I recall it too was in the early 1980s. The vocalist I am looking for had a more falsettoey (sp?) sound to it, not unlike the vocalist in The Outfield, yet another artist of the period. The Call's vocalist sounds more masculine, even in the higher ranges (e.g., "and there ain't no Yanks!"). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, or only muddies the water, but I can say I thought the overall feel, timbre and production of the song were not unlike that of many Styx songs of a slightly earlier (pre-Kilroy) time. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely sure that this won't help, but Styx did have a song called "America" on The Grand Illusion, and it was a "suite." (One wag once pointed out the problem with Yngwe Malmstrom was that even dumb kids in Iowa could figure out that a song called "Fugue Part #5" should have parts 1-4 somewhere. The same was true of the mania for "suites" in the early 70's.) I'm kind of stumped, unless it's in the Presidents of the United States canon. Geogre 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you may be mind-melding "Miss America" and "Suite Madame Blue" (the latter having the word "America" anthemically repeated in its climax). "Miss America" is far more rocking than what I'm looking for. And I like Suite even better than Let the Day Begin! Let me check out Presidents, but I too am starting to lose hope. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Eep. Presidents were formed in 1993 :-( Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PROOF USA FOUNDED ON JUDEO CHRISTIAN PRINCIPALS

I was taught that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists. Perhaps there were other framers of the Constitution who were also Deists that are unknown to me.

I hear over and over again that this country was founded on Judeo Christion principals. Can you please give me specific references to confirm this statement? I am aware of recent insertions of the word "God" that have been placed into the pledge to the flag and our currency, but was it really what was intended in the beginning?

I am also aware that the very first settlement, Jamestown, was based on greed. They were here for the gold and jewels they hoped to find.

If I am wrong in any of what I believe to be facts, please do not hesitate to correct me.

Thank you very much.

Limbicseizure 03:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Limbicseizure

If you read the constitution, you will find that the USA was founded on the principles of John Locke's liberal and empiricist thought, rather than dogmatic Christianity. Indeed,

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11 "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..."

The Rhymesmith 04:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of the colonies that eventually became the USA were founded with strong Christian roots. Colonial New England comes to mind as an example. And speaking of Jamestown, in colonial Virginia is was illegal to not be a member of the Church of England for some time, although pockets of nonconformists such as Quakers and Methodists took root early on. Still, the "state religion" of colonial Virginia being Anglican meant that many of the early Virginian politicians claimed (sincerely or not) to be Anglican (or, after the Revolutionary War), Episcopal.

Nevertheless, the creation of the United States itself made explicit the seperation of Church and State -- something the colonies did not in every case do themselves. Part of the reason was Enlightenment Era thinkers such as Locke, but another reason was the need to unify a diverse collection of colonies adhering to different religious sects (although largely Protestant Christian). Regardless of the political philosophy of the era, the fragile union of American colonies would not have remained long in union were a national religion to be set into law. What would it have been? Puritan style Congregationalism? Church of England style Episcopalianism? Nonconformist Quaker, Methodist, or Baptist? The new nation needed its government to be seperated from religion, and had the Enlightenment philosophies of the time to back up such a move.

Still, even if the government was set up to be seperate from religion, I think it is fair to say that most of the people of the time were of a Christian, probably Protestant sect. As the US evolved, a number of new, strongly devout Christian sects emerged, perhaps most famously in the case of the Mormons -- an American Christianity if ever there was one.

So I think it is not wrong to say that the United States was founded in Christian principles -- with the strong caveat that the government was set up to be separated from religion. Regardless, Christianity played a major role in the develop of the country. Pfly 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I speak as a strong atheist, but to deny the influence of Christianity, just because we don't believe in God is wrong (not morally, factually!). The vast majority of people were Christian, even the 'deists' who may not have believed in the exact Christian god, would have been brought up in a largely Christian country, gone to church and had Christian moral influences. While it would be crazy to suggest that a countries founding principals defined it once and for all, there is no need to deny those principles were there. On the other hand we must remember that the Church also adapts to the views of society to some extent, rather than exclusively dictating societies principals. Whatever we like to think about god, religion and the like, the majority of people in the west in Christian countries follow values that are roughly reflective of, and reflected in Christian teachings. I heard a good quote from Rod Liddle on Richard Dawkins' secular humanism. 'it's just the Church of England without God' (not word for word sorry). That even the 'more logical than thou' humanists are preaching the same values the Church does, because of the culture they come from. But of course, both groups claim the moral high ground! Cyta 09:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof." Evidence that it was not founded on such principles, perhaps?martianlostinspace 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember the difference between being founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and being founded under a Judeo-Christian religion. It seems that the USA countinues to operate under Judeo-Christian principles, more or less; golden rule, all men are brothers, etc.; but also Mankind has dominion over all the creatures of the earth, etc. Gzuckier 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Gzuckier makes an excellent distinction. Cyta correctly points out that Judeo-Christian principles, particularly in the area of ethics, have always informed the political and legal institutions of the United States and other Western countries. However, that is very different from claiming that the United States as a political or legal entity was founded on a Judeo-Christian faith or religion. It very explicitly was not and is not. Marco polo 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that when people say things like "the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles", they are saying that because some principles believed by Jews and Christians (and really they just mean Christians, but they want to sound more inclusive) are accepted in the legal system, everyone should accept all principles believed by members of those religions. Their logic might be caricatured as follows:

1. Christians say "thou shalt not murder"
2. The law says "thou shalt not murder"
3. Therefore the law says the same as Christianity
4. Christians also say "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy"
5. Therefore the law should prohibit unholy activities on the Sabbath.
6. Oh yeah, Jews believe in those things too. Okay, change the wording to say "Judeo-Christian principles".

Obviously step 3 here is fallacious. Christians (and Jews) are not the only people to observe a religious prohibition against murder. And I admitted that this was a caricature. But when Marco writes "Judeo-Christian principles have always informed the political and legal institutions", the issue is, did that happen because they were "Judeo-Christian principles"? Or on the other hand, is it more the case that they are principles that most practicioners of other religions, or no religion, would accept equally well; that they are simply good ethical principles that any well-run country's laws would follow?

As an atheist myself, I'd like to believe it's the latter. (And for the US in particular, the prohibition of an established religion certainly argues for that.) But in fact I imagine there's some of each. So the question is, how much of each, and how do we tell? --Anonymous, July 21, 2007, 17:12 (UTC).

John Toland

I would like to know something more of the ideas of John Toland, the Irish philosopher. Pacific231 16:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

See John Toland (Irish Philosopher). Wareh 17:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Toland was a man not of his time; one who advocated principles of virtue in duty, principles that had little place in the England of Robert Walpole, governed by cynicism and self-interest. His intellectaul reputation, moreover, was subsequently eclipsed by the likes of John Locke and David Hume, and still more by Montesquieu and the French radical thinkers. Edmund Burke in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France" wrote dismissively of Toland and his fellows- "Who, born within the last 40 years, has read one word of Colllins, and Toland, and Tindal, and Chubb, and Morgan, and that whole race who called themselves Freethinkers?"

In Christianity not Mysterious, the book for which he is best know, he laid down a challenge not just to the authority of the established church, but to all inherited and unquestioned authority. It was thus as radical politically and philosophically, as it was theologically. This, and his political views, have given him an afterlife that could never have been dreamed of by Burke. It has even been argued that he was the 'first Marxist' because of his views on the relationship between matter and motion.

Bit by bit Toland's views grew more radical. His opposition to hierarchy in the church also led to opposition to hierarchy in the state; bishops and kings, in other words, were as bad as each other, and monarchy had no God-given sanction as a form of government. In his 1704 Letters to Serena-in which he coins the expression 'pantheism'-he carefully analyses the manner in which truth is arrived at, and why people are prone, as the Marxists might express it, to forms of 'false consciousness.' In politics his most radical proposition was that liberty was a defining characteristic of what it means to be human. Political institutions should be designed to guarantee freedom, not simply to establish order. For Toland, reason and tolerance were the twin pillars of the good society. This was Whigism at it's most intellectually refined, the very antithesis of the Tory belief in sacred authority in both church and state. Toland's belief in the need for perfect equality among free-born citizens was extended to the Jewish community, tolerated, but still outsiders in early eighteenth century England. In his 1714 Reasons for Naturalising the Jews he was the first to advocate full citizenship and equal rights for Jewish people.

Toland's world was not all detached intellectual speculation, though. There was also an incendiary element to his political pamphleteering, and he was not beyond whipping up some of the baser anti-Catholic sentiments of the day in his attacks on the Jacobites. He also produced some highly controversial polemics, including the Treatise of Three Imposters, in which Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all condemed as the three great political frauds.

His republican sympathies were also evidenced by his editing of the writings of some of the great radicals of the 1650s, including James Harrington, Algernon Sydney, Edmund Ludlow and John Milton. In his support for the Hanoverian monarchy he somewhat moderated his republican sentiments; though his ideal kingship was one that would work towards achieving civic virtue and social harmony, a 'just liberty' and the 'preservation and improvement of our reason.' But George I and the greedy oligarchy behind Walpole were about as far from Toland's ideal as it is possible to get. In many ways he was indeed a man born both too late and too early. Clio the Muse 00:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of integrating your reply, Clio, into John Toland (Irish Philosopher). If you would happen to have a source citation or two at hand, I'd be glad to integrate these also. Thanks! Sandstein 06:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

All is liberty here, Sandstein, and you are welcome to take what you wish! As for sources I would suggest, apart from the work of Toland himself, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650-1750 by J. I. Israel and The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons and Republicans by M. C. Jacob. Clio the Muse 23:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 05:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Whew. Brava, Doctor Clio! Corvus cornix 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Gracias, amigo! Clio the Muse 23:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Putney Army Debates

And also a little more, please, on the Putney Debates of the New Model Army in 1647. Thank you. Pacific231 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

See Putney Debates. In the future, simply type the name of the topic that interests you into Wikipedia's search box (in the column at the left edge of your screen). Wareh 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific231 ( do I detect an admiration for Honegger?), if you wish you will find the full text of the Putney Debates in in Puritanism and Liberty by A.S.P. Woodhouse, published in 1938. This book was reissued in 1992 in an Everyman edition, though I think it is presently out of print. A decent library should have a copy, though. You may also be interested in The Putney Debates of 1647: The Army, the Levellers and the English State by Michael Mendel, published by Cambridge University Press in 2001. This is the best and by far the most exhaustive exploration of the issues behind the debates, and their lasting political impact. It's available on Amazon, but is still fairly pricey. So, off to the library! Anyway, here is a flavour of what you can expect. In responding to Henry Ireton's contention that covenants freely made and entered into must be kept, John Wildman responded You take away our sense, which was that an unjust covenant is rather to be broken than kept...it would be unjust to covenant with the King in such a way as he may again be able to destroy the people. Clio the Muse 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

China catching up with USA as world top-dog

Are there any estimates available of when China will catch up with and exceed the USA as the world top-dog? Which reminds me that you could argue that the US has now lost top-dog status to the EU. 80.2.202.130 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarify what makes a dog top. Is it size of standing army, GDP, balance of trade, standard of living, worker productivity, life span, environmental health, level of education, per capita income? In some of those, the USA hasn't been tops in a very, very long time, and in others it still has no near rivals. Geogre 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but 2038 is a reputable guess. [[16]].82.152.205.214 22:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

by GDP Algebraist 22:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Danke.82.152.205.214 22:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Total GDP is not the same as becoming "top-dog". Also, anybody trying to predict 30 years into the future is smoking something. It wasn't too long ago when it was Japan that was going to take over. That didn't quite pan out. Clarityfiend 00:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"By the year 2000, leisure time will be the #1 problem for most people, as robots will be doing all their chores for them." The Wilson Quarterly this month ran a small note on its back page on "paleofuturology": people going back to dig up all the old predictions about life now. Projections into the future on national rising and falling always assume present trends continuing without interruption, and they always assume that states are stupid. Furthermore, they almost always carry significant footnotes that need to be read. For example, the panic over Japan had been "worker productivity" because "the gap between worker productivity in the US and Japan is decreasing at a faster rate than ever before." I.e. "US workers are way more productive, but Japan's workers are getting more productive faster than others are." Well, one needed to ask, "What is worker productivity?" E.g. the US achieve a big jump by firing workers and using temporary and consultant workers, which kept the same number of workers doing the same amount but shuffled the labor off the books, so now it appeared that very few full time employees were producing a vast amount. Was that good for "productivity?" Yes. Was it good for the national economy? No, probably. Then we have questions of GDP and debt, GDP and per capita, GDP and military spending, etc. Geogre 01:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I can also ask, when did britain stop being top-dog? Or going back further, the Roman Empire, or the Spanish Empire? Thanks. 80.0.133.53 10:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

britain somewhere around WW1, AFAIK.martianlostinspace 14:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Briatin ceased to be top nation at the end of the First World War, when "America became Top Nation, and history came to a ." DuncanHill 15:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

See List of regions by past GDP (PPP). Unfortunatley for our American friends, in an economic and political sense, largest GDP=top dog. It would be beneficial if U.S politicians realised the inevitable and focussed on managing their (relative) decline, like the U.K has done so succesfully Willy turner 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting set of tables. If you added together all the PPP GDP of the British Commonwealth, in other words more or less all the countries formerly known as the British Empire, what position would it have in the later lists? And I expect if the there was a more recent final table, the EU may be at the top.

I also see that even at the height of the Roman Empire, it was not the top-dog. Its odd that the more wealthy empires are less well-known. 80.2.214.69 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the Commonwealth of Nations. It has officially not been "the British" for decades. Hu 10:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

With reference to the question about empires in decline, or ceasing to be 'top dog', this tends to be a process, rather than an event, though the cycles of time got tighter and tighter in the three cases mentioned.

The Roman Empire reached its apogee during the reign of the Five Good Emperors, but by the time of Marcus Aurelius the signs of future trouble were already evident, achieving full expression in the Crisis of the Third Century. Thereafter, the history of the empire was one of periodic recovery, punctuated by periodic decline. It never quite recovered from the effects of the Battle of Adrianople in 378, after which the Goths were a permanent presence within the imperial borders. The Eastern Roman, or Byzantine Empire began its own terminal decline after the death of the emperor Basil II in 1025.

The decay of the Spanish Empire can also be dated to the death of a king, that of Philip II in 1598. The seventeenth century was one of almost continuous decay, climaxing in the reign of Charles II, the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, whose death in 1700 was followed by the War of the Spanish Succession.

Of all the great empires the decline of the British was arguably the most dramatic, because it was both rapid and unexpected, dating to the period from the end of the Second Boer War in 1902, to the end of the Second World War in 1945. In a sense it might be said to have been battered to death in two great wars, the second of which left the British not that much better off in economic terms than the defeated powers. Clio the Muse 23:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

don't forget, for most of human history China has been top dog, punctuated by slow periods. Gzuckier 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

July 21

The Hells Angels 'wing system'?

When a member of the Hells Angels earns his 'wings' for his exploits, what do the different colours signify? There used to be a long list on the web. I can only remember the more commonly known 'wings' now - but there were loads.

• Red wings - oral sex performed on a menstruating woman
• Brown wings - anal sex
• Black wings - sex with a black woman

Any others? --Kurt Shaped Box 03:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Spicy wings - sex with a habanera pepper. (not recommended)

  Wing tips - sex with a Florsheim Shoe. Edison 03:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this the list [17]? Donald Hosek 05:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Na, the list I saw was sourced from various books on the Angels. Some of that may be correct though. Thanks, anyway. --Kurt Shaped Box 08:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I used to be friends with a biker. He wasn't a Hell's Angel but he'd heard of the 'wings'.

Yellow wings - getting pissed on sexually

Blue wings - having sex with a cop

Pink wings - recieving anal sex

Grey wings - sex with a woman older than your mom

They sound like scout badges for 'guys who do laugh at other guys doing grody stuff'. It's a big boy's club really, isn't it?

C.A. White - Author

Hello, I was looking for information on an author of the 1800's by the name of C.A. White. I have searched the web top to bottom, but can only find people selling his book, "The Student's Mythology." As far as i can find, it's the only book he ever wrote. I even tried asking a reference librarian, but there was still nothing. If you could uncover any information regarding this author, I would greatly appreciate it. If it helps, the only information I have on his book is that the first publication date was 1870, and the last was 1927. It's called The Student's Mythology and has information on many different mythologies from Greece, Persia, China, Tibet, Ireland, etc. I own the copy from 1900 and it was published by Armstrong and Son. For that matter, if you could find any information on the publisher as well, that would be great.

71.105.116.54 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Rachel

The publishers appear to be A.C. Armstrong and Son. Check through the linked search. Corvus cornix 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Library catalogs show that the author is Catherine Ann White (1825-1878). Her publisher described her as "an experienced teacher."[18] She also published Classic literature, principally Sanskrit, Greek, and Roman, with some account of the Persian, Chinese, and Japanese, in the form of sketches of the authors and specimens from translations of their works (editions include H. Holt 1877 and an undated 19th c. edition by The Baker & Taylor co.). For queries of this kind you might want to try Worldcat. Wareh 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Neville Henderson and Appeasement

To what degree was Neville Henderson, the pre war British ambassador in Berlin, implicated in the appeasement of Hitler? S. J. Blair 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Implicated? In what way, implicated? ie. to suggest that he was the main person driving appeasement?martianlostinspace 12:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Inevitably. Britain was then in no position to pursue any other course. - CarbonLifeForm 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article Nevile Henderson is rather short, but does suggest that he was of the appeasionist school. Perhaps Clio could enlighten us further. DuncanHill 15:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Henderson was British ambassador to Germany at a crucial stage in diplomatic history and must, therefore, have been party to the policy of the Chamberlain government. I was hoping for a more detailed answer, but thank you all for the responses so far. I look forward to Clio's response. S. J. Blair 22:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, she is now here, and will try to live up to the expectations of both Duncan and S. J. Blair!

The post of ambassador to Berlin during and after Munich was never going to be an easy one. No ambassador, whatever his private views, can afford to take a different public position from the Prime Minister or the government of the day and expect to remain in place. Henderson has thus been targeted as a leading appeaser, sometimes in quite distasteful terms, though he was never more than a scapegoat for policy failings elsewhere. Lewis Namier, called him an 'ill-starred man', and in The Appeasers Martin Gilbert and Richard Gott even refer to him as "our Nazi Ambassador in Berlin." So, what's the evidence? Does he deserve such opprobrium. No, quite frankly, he does not.

During his career Henderson made steady progress in the Diplomatic Service, and was particularly successful in Belgrade, where he enjoyed a good relationship with King Alexander. It was because of this that he was given the important Berlin posting in 1937. But from the outset there was a problem: he loathed Ribbentrop, and Ribbentrop loathed him, conveying his feelings to Hitler. He did, however, enjoy good realtions with Hermann Göring, whom he considered to be a 'moderate', who might exercise a restraining influence on Hitler. As far as Hitler himself was concerned Henderson believed him to be so abnormal that he might, as he put it, "have crossed the borderline into outright insanity."

Henderson's chief weakness was a failure to recognise the insanity of the whole Nazi system. He continued to believe that he could operate within the reasonable parameters of classic diplomacy. In this he was no different from many others, including Josef Stalin, who right up to the German invasion of Russia in 1941 believed that Hitler was moved by the same pragmatic considerations as he was himself. For Henderson, Hitler was simply an 'aggrieved nationalist', who could be expected to move down reasonable paths with proper encouragement, and the right kind of concessions. The story of his mission in Berlin is the story of increasingly desperate attempts to save the peace. Yes, he supported Munich, not just because of sympathy for the 'grievances' of the Germans, but because he was aware of Britain's military weakness at that time. If a war was to be fought it had to be winnable; and Henderson's appeasement went hand-in-hand with support for rearmament.

Like Chamberlain himself, Henderson recognised that the German occupation of the purely Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 marked a new point of departure in international relations, and he warned both Ribbentrop and Hitler of the consequences of further aggression. He was fully behind the British guarantee to Poland. During a face-to-face interview with Hitler on 29 August 1939, he even had the courage to yell "I and his Majesty's Government did not give a row of pins whether Germans were slaughtered or not." And this to Hitler! All of this is detailed in Failure of a Mission, the memoir Henderson published in 1940.

In the end, no matter how vigorous a voice, Henderson was merely a messenger. And, as such, he has been unfairly shot, both then and since. Clio the Muse 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Clio, I have just found an etext of Failure of a Mission at this link [19]. Good to see a book written at the suggestion of a stationmaster! DuncanHill 01:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was worth the wait! Thank you for this, Clio. Are you a student of diplomatic history by any chance? S. J. Blair 07:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading Clio's User page may answer your questions.  :) Corvus cornix 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Very true! I thank you for your appreciation, S. J. Clio the Muse 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Camelin

Was camelin really made of camel's hair? Colors or natural? What colors? Was it called "wool" or anything else? When was it most popular in use? What medieval clothing was made from this? What countries used it and when? --24.247.236.10 13:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:33WIt-CiSk8J:www.medievaltextiles.org/reprintNMMcamelin.pdf+%22camelin%22+camel+hair&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=opera this explains it pretty well.

Who is Charles F Horne, author

This individual has 364 books published by Kessinger Publishing; but I haven't been able to find out anything about him.

Listed below is a partial list of his books from Kessinger's web-site.

Thanks, in advance, for any information you will provide. --Kathygilders 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A Profession Of Faith Of Omar Khayyam • Adapa And The Food Of Life • Al Biruni's Existing Monuments Or Chronology • Al Maqqari's Breath Of Perfumes • Ama-Terasu The Sun Goddess: Early Japanese Literature • An Ancient Babylonian Moralist's Council • An Ancient Babylonian Penitential Psalm • An Arabic New Testament Apocrypha Gospel Of The Infancy • An Introduction To The Kabbalah Or Secret Tradition • An Introduction To The Koran • Ancient Arabic Science And History • Ancient Assyrian Literature: Sennacherib's Boast • Ancient Assyrian Literature: The Black Obelisk Of Shalmaneser • Ancient Assyrian Literature: The Inscription Of Sargon II • Ancient Assyrian Literature: The Nimrod Inscription • Ancient Business Documents Of Belshazzar • Ancient Chinese Hymns And Eulogies • Ancient Chinese Songs For The Greater Festivals • Ancient Chinese Songs For The Lesser Festivals • Ancient Chinese Songs Of The Various States • Ancient Egyptian Hymn To Re As Sole God • Ancient Egyptian Hymns To Aton The Creator • Ancient Egyptian Hymns To The Nile • Ancient Egyptian Hymns To The One Universal God • Ancient Egyptian Literature Of The Age Of Weakness • Ancient Egyptian Literature Of The Great Empire • Ancient Egyptian Literature Of The Middle Empire • Ancient Egyptian Romance Literature • Ancient Egyptian Tales Of Romance And Travel • Ancient Hebrew Biblical Songs • Ancient Japanese Shinto Purification Ritual • Ancient Japanese Shinto Ritual For Evil Spirits • Ancient Japanese Shinto Rituals To The Sun Goddess • Ancient Moorish Literature • Ancient Records Of The Assyrian Conquering Kings • Ancient Texts In The Akkadian Or Oldest Semitic Tongue • Ancient Turkish Legends And Poetry • Ancient Turkish Literature • Ancient Turkish Poetesses • Artists and Authors: Great Men and Famous Women V7 • Artists and Authors: Great Men and Famous Women V8 • Autumn Of The Palace Of Han: An Ancient Chinese Historical Drama • Avicenna On Medicine: The Work Of The Arab's Chief Scientist • Babylonian Moral And Philosophical Texts • Babylonian Proverbs • Basho The Chief Japanese Poet • Biography Of A Soldier Under Thutmose III • Buddha And His Birth Stories From The Burmese • Buddha And The Red Fish • Buddha And The Strider Over Battlefields

Charles F. Horne, MS, PhD, was a professor at the College of the City of New York. He graduated from the College in 1889. The earliest title I could find (co)authored or (co)edited by him is from 1907 (Mosenthal, Philip J., and Charles F. Horne (editors). The City College Memories of Sixty Years. Edited for the Associate Alumni of the College of the City of New York. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, The Knickerbocker Press, 1907). In spite of his prolificacy in producing books, I don't find any further biographic detail.  --Lambiam 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the electoral college system used in U.S presidential elections irrational, illogical, undemocratic and perverse?

Gore won half a million more votes than Bush in the 2000 election. how can a system in which Bush wins possibly be justified? Willy turner 17:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How can it be? See United States Electoral College#Arguments for the current system. And don't try to start political debates here, please; note the guidelines at the top of the page. --Anonymous, July 21, 2007, 17:17:17 (UTC).

The non-arguments on that page are pathetic. Does anyone have a decent argument? Or should we accept that the U.S isnt a democracy? Dont accuse me of trying to start a debate (heaven forbid, a debate!, what a terrible way of rationaly forming an opinion) what happened to assuming good faith? Willy turner 17:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it value-term, value-term, or value-term? That depends on the judge. The best argument against the abolition of the electoral college I have heard has been a cynical one: to do so means a constitutional convention, and, if a constitutional convention were opened, vast quantities of bullflop would be introduced (flag burning bans, gay marriage bans, equal rights guarantees that trip over their own language, rights of privacy delineated and therefore limited, property rights insistences that end up being only for one group, taxes specified as prohibited, balanced budget amendments, term limit amendments, ad nauseum). Few people argue that the college is particularly wonderful, but it's hardly the most compelling anti-democratic part of the US system (all or nothing voting, e.g. creates "landslides" when a person gets 50.01% votes). No citation of AGF, though: you have already said that you want to create an argument, and that's not what this page is for or what Wikipedia is for. Geogre 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't require a constitutional convention, it could be amended out of existence. But since smaller states are disproportionately powerful with the electoral college, that is unlikely. The most likely scenario where the e.c. becomes irrelevant is a series of state laws giving states' electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national vote total, with laws going into effect only if a sufficient number of states have them that they will determine the election. But eliminating the e.c. also means getting rid of the cool red v. blue maps on election night. Donald Hosek 18:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The smaller states would not have ratified the Constitution if they had not had the protection afforded them by extra electoral votes due to the 2 Senators per state in additional to the proportionally allocated Representatives. Today, the little states would still lose out in the Presidential electoral process if they lost the extra electoral votes, so they would have little incentive to ratify an amendment which made the Presidential election solely by popular vote. But the Constitution and laws leave it up to the states how they select the electors. It is now by popular vote within each state, but there is no legal barrier to making it largely proportional, which would make it unlikely one candidate would have 500,000 more popular votes, but lose in the Electoral college. Supreme Court opinions have noted that a state could have the legislature select the electors, or it could appoint any person to decide who the electors aree, or it could have it be by tossing a coin or any other predefined method. So like Maine and Nebraska, a state might pass legislation to assign an electoral vote for each Congressional district to the winner of the popular vote majority or plurality in that district, and provide a method for allocating the electoral votes representing the 2 Senators to 2 geographic portions of the state, or both to the candidate with the most popular votes in the state or by some other scheme more proportional than the present. Such measures would result in more elections where no candidate got a clear majority, since minor candidates would win a majority in a few congressional districts and more elections would be decided in the House of Representatives, with parliamentary maneuvering and coalition forming more like a parliamentary government. In the House, each state would get one vote, which would somewhat disenfranchise voters in the more populous states. A state could also pass legislation allocating all its electroal votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally, or to the candidate with the most popular votes in all the states who decided to allocate their votes by that method. If the people want popular election of the President, it can thus be implemented state by state. An elector can choose to be a Faithless elector and vote for anyone he chooses, which can be either a benefit or a detriment of having an actual living Elector cast the ballot rather than having "Electroal votes" cast without a human Elector. The present "winner take all " state electoral vote allocation has one benefit: if the voting in a state is completely corrupt and fraudulent, the most they can do is give all their votes to their favorite. They cannot stuff the national ballot box by adding hundreds of thousands of fake votes and thus swing the national election. Edison 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that the Framers of the Constitution assumed the electors would be chosen by state legislatures (as they were for most states at first), not by popular vote. So we can't really blame the Framers for the faults of the system; they would not have envisioned a situation like what happened in 2000. The system is an anachronism. -- Mwalcoff 02:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The best explanation of the way the president is elected in the US, that I've seen, is that given by James Madison in Federalist Papers, No. 39 (available here). As described at United States Electoral College#Arguments for the current system, Madison's argument is that the US is both a federation of states and a nation of people, so its government should reflect both aspects. In Congress this is achieved by having two houses, one of which is elected via a population-based method (the House, reflecting the "national" aspect of the US), the other via a state-based method (the Senate, reflecting the "federal" aspect). The electoral college, Madison argues, is a similar mixture of national and federal methods. I never understood the electoral college until I read Federalist 39. Makes sense to me. Pfly 07:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One way of making the Electoral College irrelevant would be if the individual states divided their EC votes proportionately based on popular vote within the state. There is some movement in that direction. Corvus cornix 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it makes sense in the context of an alliance of states where the smaller ones don't want to get marginalized. What doesn't make sense is assigning electors by a winner-take-all system in each state. Gzuckier 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A true democracy is impossible, no systems are perfect. There is no method of implementing the philosophy behind a democracy in such a manner as to be completely inline with it, and as Rousseau wrote “Taking the term in its strict sense, there never have existed, and never will exist, any true democracy . . . It is impossible to imagine that the people should remain in perpetual assembly to attend to public affairs”. So really the question is pointless, yes the system is imperfect, but a balance has to be found between the various justifications of different systems. Where the balance lies is up to the discretion of the person whose opinion is formed. I would argue that no system of democracy could ever correctly represent the general will of the public, so effectively it is a pointless exercise trying to do just that. Philc 16:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any individuals, organisations or political parties calling for an upper house in a bicameral legislature to be made up of professors?

what i mean is a system whereby legislation could be vetoed by a vote in an upper house composed of academics. ie if a bill regarding sentences was passed by the lower house it would be reffered to a panel consisting of criminologists, penoligists etc. If a bill regarding drugs was passed by the lower house it could be vetoed by the nations proffesors specialising in addiction, drug use etc, etc Willy turner 17:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the Technocracy movement? Never mind. This group advocates "abolishing political controls". Clarityfiend 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Totall off topicness, but one of the characters in Iolanthe tried to get the British House of Lords turned into a merit system-civil service legislature. Also, under the original constitution of New York State there was a (noxious) "Council of Revision" composed of various people who could reject legislation after it was passed, and the (unicamerial) Reichstag at some point was composed of a massive number of professors. None of that answered your question though, but as far as I know noone advocates that. The harder problem would be, how would you get them there? Election? Seniority? Retirement? 68.39.174.238 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

how would you get them there? no elections- if youre a professor in a certain field then you get to vote on legislation that is within that field. obviously it would would require investment to recruit a lot more profs Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That would lead to a MASSIVE upper house. 68.39.174.238 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, against such ideas I think the most famous statement is William F. Buckley, Jr.'s that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. I would have to agree with him there.John Z 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

really? you dont think the faculty of harvard might have a little more expertise than the average voter? Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying that John Stuart Mill advocated more voting rights for university graduates, based on the value of education. Not because these people should feel entitled to have any more rights, but because they are more educated and can by held that by extension, more knowledgeable, and more intelligent than arbitrarily selected members of the general public. Philc 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Technocracy (bureaucratic) appears to be the most relevent article we have. Rockpocket 23:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

yes but isnt there anyone who is advocating what is described in the Technocracy (bureaucratic) page, even just an upper house being chosen that way? Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This happened in an episode of The simpsons. Llamabr 01:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And that article links to geniocracy. —Tamfang 08:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Westminster before 1948(?) had a few seats elected by alumni of Oxbridge. —Tamfang 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Free City of Kraków (1815-1848) had a bicameral parliament where 3 out of 41 members of the House of Representatives, as well as 2 out of 13 senators, were elected by the Jagiellonian University from among its doctors and professors. Additionally, only university graduates (with few exceptions) could be elected to either house. The cathedral chapter had the same number of representatives (canons and prelates) in both houses as the university.

The Irish Senate is elected in different ways: 6 out of 60 are elected by university constituencies, graduated from the University of Dublin and the National University of Ireland; 43 are elected by specialist boards, to represent people with knowledge of and experience in specific fields such as culture and arts.

And indeed Tamfang, since 1603 until the Representation of the People Act 1948 there were University Constituencies in the United Kingdom elected by graduates from universities. Famous representatives include William Pitt the Younger, Ramsay McDonald and

"India had university constituencies before independence, but these were abolished with the adoption of the modern Constitution of India. Nevertheless, today the President of India has the authority to appoint not more than twelve scientists, artists, or other persons who have special knowledge in similar fields, to the Rajya Sabha."

Just as a side note: of the 75 members of the Eerste Kamer, the Dutch senate, 15 members are also professor and 5 hold lower positions at universities. There are no requirements to create this situation other than the fact that Senator is a part time position and it is a chamber of reflexion.

C mon 10:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Law - Finding U.S. Federal and State Code Sections

I'm writing a humorous story where individuals can trade in violations of the law, much as the current Emissions trading market trades in violations of pollutant emissions limits (think eBay, but you can literally buy your way out of a speeding tocket). In doing so, I need to cite criminal code (presumably Code of Federal Regulations and California Penal Code) for several crimes ("I just sold a CPC 1234, insider trading, for $30000!"). The problem is that it's intimidating as Hell to tackle these documents cold. I'm looking for advice on how to go about this. Is there a database to look up key terms? Am I stuck slogging through the whole online documents?

Here are the crimes/infractions I'm using in the story along with the code I think applies:

• Excessive Speed (Speeding) - California Vehicle Code.
  • I am also willing to relocate this story to a different state, as long as I have a citation for handicapped parking, below.
• Insider Trading - Federal Code.
• Wire Fraud - Federal Code.
• Failure to have enough handicapped parking at a store/shopping mall - California Building Code
• Failure to obtain a street performance permit - I know this would be specific to a particular municipality, so I don't need a code, only need the proper way to phrase this in conversation ("Well, I have this old street performance permit violation I had wanted to sell, but finding a street musician with good credit is a lost cause...")

Also, I understand that these offenses might actually break multiple laws. For puposes of the story I'm ignoring that fact and simply need a single code section to cite.

Thanks. --KNHaw ^(talk) 17:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking someone to lookup and provide citations to all these statutes by topic area? If this is for a humorous story, and not for legal research, why don't you just make up phony citations? If it is for legal research, you will need to do more than just look for code sections, you will need to do research to validate your conjecture that the code applies in the way you think it does. Phony citations may help you there because it will help prevent unjustifiable reliance on the accuracy of your cites.

The end goal is for me to write something realistic looking, as 99% of readers will never look past the line on the page. It's the other 1% who will either care enough about the story to send me an "attaboy" if they find the citations authentic or a nasty letter if I screw it up. Note that I did not expect anyone to look these up for me - just point me to a resource so I can do my own work. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If all you want to know is the proper format for constructing official-looking legal citations, find a copy of the Bluebook and just follow the very cumbersome rules. Better yet, go to "google books" and type in "user's guide to the bluebook". They may have a limited preview online. If that's not good enough try Westlaw or Lexis.

Thanks. This is exactlywhat I wanted out of this post. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, this kind of request raises eyebrows though, because some might think it is simply a subterfuge for obtaining free legal research. dr.ef.tymac 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the concern, but no this is entirely for a story. I don't want advice - just a pointer to a resource that lets me write a realistic (preferably authentic) little scribbling to stick inside the story. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the articels? I went to Wire fraud and it gave me the exact citaytion: 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The rest could probably be accomplisht by simple Googlewhacking of various sites in the .edu, .gov and .gov.ca TLDs. 68.39.174.238 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I honestly hadn't expected to find such a cite in articles on individual offenses. I'll check all the individual wiki articles before I dive into the U.S. code. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The US code is here: [20]. There's a search function you can use, or you can browse by title. The California code is here: [21]. -- Mwalcoff 02:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Between all these resources, I expect this will be short work. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are Scots disproportionately vastly over represented in the U.K armed forces?

Surely the answer is more nuanced than we like/are good at fighting? Willy turner 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

One would have to guess, but I would think that volunteer armed forces draw members from economically limited areas and from families with a tradition of service. Therefore, if the economy of Scotland is disproportionately depressed, there would be higher enrollment. Additionally, if such had been the case, the families might well grow to see the military as a familial trait. Geogre 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be a historical reason for this, regarding the formation of Scottish regiments. Perhaps one of our resident historians could opine. Rockpocket 23:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I would have to ask what the evidence for this contention is? Are there figures to prove that the Scots are over-represented in the modern British Army? Clio the Muse 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

% of british army that are scots is 13% [22] % of british population that are scots- 5 million out of 60 million- 8.3% the proportion of scots in the SAS is much higher than that though, ill get a figure Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Scottish troops made up more than a quarter of the British forces who took part in the Normandy landings.[23] Willy turner 01:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

N.B. It says Armed Forces, which would include the Royal Marines as well as Her Majesty's Navy. Llamabr 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does; but the same questions still stand! Clio the Muse 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thus, the N.B., rather than some sort of contradiction. I meant to note that marines and sailors don't consider themselves to be in the modern British Army (one reason for which, is that they are not). Llamabr 03:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the answer does indeed relate to issues of relative economic deprivation, as well as a pre-existing martial tradition. Recruitment, I imagine, is best in those areas, like Glasgow, with high levels of local unemployment, and in those parts of the country with strong links to a locally based regiment, like the Black Watch. It's an open question, I suppose, if the formation of the Royal Regiment of Scotland will impacat in any negative sense on this tradition. Clio the Muse 02:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Scotland doesn't have a lot of exportable resources, so they make the most of what they can export; whiskey, wool, and Scots, by ensuring that exported goods are of the highest quality. Similar to the reason it's not just the Enterprise, but half the ships at sea which have an engineer known as "Scotty". Gzuckier 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How many indigenous people have been murdered in the area currently constituting the U.S, and does it constitute genocide?

ie the entire country was full of people before Europeans came, and where are they now? Was there a deliberate policy of extermination of 'Native americans'? and why does nobody seem to care? Willy turner 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Population history of American indigenous peoples says that estimates of the indigenus population of the present US at the start of European colonization range from 8.4 million to 112.5 million. There were no census records, or historical population surveys before the arrival of Europeans, so only estimates are available. An historian quoted describes "the modern trend of high estimates as 'pseudo-scientific number-crunching.' " A 1976 "consensus count" estimate of the pre-Columbian population was 54 million. Europeans had a degree of immunity to devastating diseases which killed many of the indigenous population. Warfare also had a severe toll, both conducted by Europeans and by other indigenous tribes. Indigenous peoples of the Americas says in the section "Modern statistics on indigenous populations" that the indigenous population in the US is presently 2%, and with part-indigenous included, 7%, per the 2000 US Census. In the section "History and status by country" it says "Native Americans make up 2 percent of the population, with more than 6 million people identifying themselves as such, although only 1.8 million are registered tribal members." The 2007 US population is estimated at 302,104,000, yielding a present indigenous population of 6 million indigenous and 21 million part indigenous per the 2000 Census percentages. They live throughout the US, with some living on reservations. At some times and in some places there was certainly a policy of extermination. In other instances there was a policy of purchasing land and displacing the indigenous population as in the Jackson Purchase , or simply displacing the indigenous population to less settled land such as Oklahoma , which was then Indian Territory as in the Trail of Tears , or to reservations. Where are you looking that you find no one who cares? Some indications of concern are the American Indian Movement , movies and books such as Cheyenne Autumn , Little Big Man , Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee , and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (film) . There have also been Native American rights movements recently which have banned Native American mascots , names, or symbols from athletic teams, such as Chief Illiniwek . Indigenous populations on reservations have limited sovereignty, which allows them to operate Native American gambling enterprises which presently bring in $14,500,000,000 a year in revenue. Edison 19:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your excellent answer edison Willy turner 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC) could it be called genocide though? Willy turner 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some cases of actions that qualify as genocide, especially toward the end of Indian independence (mid to late 1800s). Wounded Knee might be the prime example of this, although earlier, less well known examples abound. There were definitely some individuals who advocated policies of genocide. But I would say that for the most part the colonial and US governments, and people in general did not practice what we would today call genocide, although it depends on what exactly one means by genocide. If genocide is the systematic rounding up of people for the purpose of executing them, then no, such things occurred only rarely and on a small scale. On the other hand, if genocide means something less direct -- like forcing people into reservation "ghettos" and not helping much when disease and abject poverty cause deaths, or deliberating destroying the economic foundations of a people (like wiping out the bison), then the case for genocide is stronger. But genocide usually denotes something more than that. Wikipedia's page on it begins by saying that genocide is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group". While the history of US-Indian relations is pretty ugly, I think it only very rarely reached that level. Typically what was deliberately targetted and destroyed was the power of Indian Nations, not so much the lives of individual Indians themselves. After an Indian Nation was thoroughly defeated, the survivors were usually not rounded up and "systematically exterminated".

Even among people who forced Indians to give up land for reservations and worked to undermine traditional ways of life, many or even most were not trying to kill Indians outright. A great many such people were actually trying to "save" Indians. Sometimes their motives were misguided, at least as seen from hindsight -- such as the policies of "de-tribalizing" Indians via boarding schools, or the extinction of tribally owned land in exchange for individual owned parcels. Many people saw the fate of the Indians as disturbingly grim, and felt that the only way to avoid general extinction was to work to transform Indian societies and cultures to "fit in" better with the newcomers way of life. Many or most Indian societies resisted such assimilation to the point of war, but this does not mean they were resisting genocide so much as cultural destruction.

A slightly better term might be Ethnic cleansing. But even that does not apply in general. Many people advocated policies like Indian Removal without wishing to see Indian ways of life destroyed. Thomas Jefferson comes to mind. Also a great portion of the destruction of Indian societies came about through warfare between, or within Indian tribes themselves. In any case, while I certainly don't mean to downplay the catastrophe that occurred, I think genocide is too strong a word for the big picture. Pfly 08:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "genocide" was introduced into international legal discourse in the 20th century. Although many attempts have been made to accuse Ancient Persians, Romans, Huns, etc, etc of "genocide", this fallacy of anachronistic reasoning is little more than an exercise in empty rhetoric. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note more clearly the widespread and lasting impact that outbreaks of imported diseases had. The tale of 'smallpox-infested blankets' is relatively widely known, but focusing solely on that would be a mistake: it brings to mind a picture of Europeans deliberately infecting tribes to gain a local advantage. This is historically incorrect, both in time as in scale.

When the first Europeans landed in the Americas, they did not land alone. They brought with them their animals, their plants, and also their germs. These germs caused diseases that, after centuries of lurking endemically in the sewers and hospitals of Europe, were lethal mostly to children and those that survived to adulthood, often had immunities for life. Europeans had lived with these maladies for generations: the genetically vulnerably had long died off and the hardy had spread around their genes, so that a relatively high level of resistance was present.

Of course, the native Americans had no such resistance. When the Europeans landed, their germs spread quite literally like wildfire. The Americas had had woefully little experience with epidemics of any kind; their medical knowledge and practices were catastrophically unable to cope. Disease, not only smallpox but also measles, typhus, the plague, cholera, malaria, influenza and many others, rode ahead of the invaders, wiping out entire villages and consuming the very fabric of society. Where the Europeans followed in its tracks, they encountered only ruins, ghosts, and weeping.

The following tale might illustrate. 'The Kiowa of the southern plains of the United States have a legend in which a Kiowa man meets Smallpox on the plain, riding a horse. The man asks, "Where do you come from and what do you do and why are you here?" Smallpox answers, "I am one with the white men - they are my people as the Kiowas are yours. Sometimes I travel ahead of them and sometimes behind. But I am always their companion and you will find me in their camps and in their houses." "What can you do?" the Kiowa asks. "I bring death," Smallpox replies. "My breath causes children to wither like young plants in spring snow. I bring destruction. No matter how beautiful a woman is, once she has looked at me she becomes as ugly as death. And to men I bring not death alone, but the destruction of their children and the blighting of their wives. The strongest of warriors go down before me. No people who have looked at me will ever be the same."'

More on this can be found in, among other books, Alfred Crosby's Germs, Seeds & Animals. Random Nonsense 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Funerals in Nottingham

Is it just me or are the funerals in Nottingham completly different then anywhere else in our country? Cause I`ve been to one yesterday,and I never seen anything like it before,coming from London...If anyone got some kind of explanation,please go ahead?? 81.133.89.171 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What did they do that was out of the ordinary? Was it the flaming Viking longship drifting out to sea with the remains? Edison 19:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Was it a funeral for someone with a different relgion/ethnicity; Nottingham has quite large populations of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, who have funerals which seem odd from a British perspective (sombreness and mourning are smaller components of the service, especially in the Antam Sanskar (Sikh funeral)). Funeral services are usually the choice of the family or departed anyway; people often make idiosyncratic requests of their burial services anyway, whether by being buried in a Kiss Kasket or wearing a football kit in the coffin; I doubt that overall Nottinghamtonians are any stranger than Londoners or Novocastrians or Leodensians. Laïka 20:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a Morris Minor is used as a casket [24] . A Dr. John Jakway in New York requested burial standing upright with his skull exposed so people could crack nuts on it [25] . Edison 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above and in the header, be specific/give details. Can you mention anything about it, or what caught your eye? Also, what's "normal" for your country? 68.39.174.238 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My experience of recent funerals in the UK is that nothing is "normal" any more. In fact people take pride in arranging funerals that are creative, individual and more appropriate than the old-fashioned ones.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Panzer Army

What was the 'Death Ride of the Fourth Panzer Army'? Secret seven 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt someone with much more expertise will expand upon this answer, but, the short form appears to be that it is a term for the German defeat at Prochorovka (which has a number of spellings)in 1943. There was nothing about it in Fourth Panzer Army, but History.net calls it "death gully" in this article [26]. Bielle 23:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps the Death Ride refers to a later stage, on January 12 and 13, 1945, when the 4. Panzer-Armee was employed as a tank reserve force near Kielce and waited in vain for orders from Berlin in order to defend themselves against the overwhelming Russian superiority. (See Vistula-Oder Offensive) The order didn't arrive until 30 hours later, by when the Russians had already overrun and destroyed a number of tanks. The Russian troops under Konev already were behind "enemy lines" on their way to Berlin. The motto was "Run for your lives!" at that point. (From a German site on missing soldiers)---Sluzzelin talk 00:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what this is, it's a reference to the Battle of Kursk in 1943, part of Unternehmen Zitadelle, the last German summer offensive in Russia. So Bielle is partly correct in her mention of the Battle of Prokhorovka, which forms a part of the bigger struggle, in which Hermann Hoth's Fourth Panzer Army was engaged. The Wikipedia article describes this as 'one of the largest tank battles in human history.' I personally do not know of any larger. One German formation, the Grossdeutschland Division, which began the battle with 118 tanks had only 20 left after a few days of fighting. Clio the Muse 01:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As so often happens, the article about Prokhorovka was eroded by anonymous edits. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Bielle called Duncan too? :) DuncanHill 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; wrong attribution; I meant Bielle! I was still thinking in terms of the Henderson question above. My error has now been corrected. Clio the Muse 01:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Britain and Germany 1933 to 1939

What are the main factors causing the deterioration in the relationship between Britain and Nazi Germany leading up to the outbreak of war? S. J. Blair 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We should have an articel on Causes of World War II... 68.39.174.238 22:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here a rocky road is to be followed! We know from a reading of Mein Kampf that Hitler thought the foreign policy previously pursued by Germany during the Second Reich had been a mistake, and that he hoped to draw Britain, as well as Italy, into a working partnership with the Third Reich. There were early moves towards establishing better relations, with the mission of Alfred Rosenberg in 1933 and later by Joachim von Ribbentrop. This 'honymoon period' reached its most successful expression in the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935, which in establishing a bilateral understanding on naval armaments undermined both the provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the whole notion of collective security. Thereafter relations went from bad to disastrous. Oddly enough it came not from any aggressive move by the Germans, but from Ribbentrop's complete misreading of the mood and attitude of both the British people and the political establishment.

As a reward for his part in securing the Naval Agreement Ribbentrop was appointed ambassador to London, one of Hitler's worst appointments. Shallow and vain, and completely incapable of understanding the political process at work in Britain, Ribbentrop made one faux pas after another, even at one point throwing a Nazi salute to King George VI. The cartoonist David Low started to refer to the hapeless ambassador as 'Herr Brickendrop'. Hitler, in defending him, said that Ribbentrop was useful in the position because he knew some important people, Göring responded by saying "Yes, but the trouble is, they also know Ribbentrop." Ribbentrop remained politically influential with Hitler, but left Britain with a violent sense of resentment, which was to play an important part in the outbreak of war in 1939.

The other thing was that Hitler was under the impression that Britain's interests were focused on the overseas empire, and that he would be allowed, in the right circumstances, to have a free hand in Europe. But he completely failed to grasp one simple point: the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe was one of the constant features of British foreign policy. The Munich agreement seemed to confirm Hitler's view that Britain was keen to disengage from Europe. The real position was summarised by Richard Overy in The Road to War (1989); The lesson that Hitler took from the crisis was that he could take the next steps in Eastern Europe without war; the British lesson was the exact reverse, that Hitler's next violent step would bring conflict. Hitler took the British concessions as evidence of weakness, and was all too ready to listen to Ribbentrop, now foreign minister, that they had no appetite for war. So, what were the main factors causing the deterioration in Anglo-German relations? Why, the usual wierd sisters who walk in the company of dictators of all kinds: ignorance, ambition, arrogance and stupidity. Clio the Muse 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for this answer also. It's quite admirable. S. J. Blair 07:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

July 22

Robbie and the 2nd Law of Robotics

Hi all. In Isaac Asimov's Robbie. Doesn't Robbie break the 2nd law by (initially) not letting Gloria ride him even though she asks him to? - Akamad 00:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(I don't know the story.) If giving Gloria a ride was at all dangerous then no: the Second Law explicitly yields priority to the First. (Three Laws of Robotics) —Tamfang 06:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Maritime costume circa 1290

I am in the process of doing a historical illustration and I'm trying to locate some credible source on which to base the depiction of the work-clothing of English sailors in the late 13th century. I'm at a disadvantage for accessing British hard-copy material on this as I'm in Western Australia! Can someone suggest an online source or an internationally-published book? Retarius | Talk 08:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

1290? Yeesh. That's a tough one. First, there weren't really uniforms at that point -- those came later -- and so you really want just general clothing of the time, and the navy wasn't quite a navy yet. Hmm. Geogre 13:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What to look for? Look for on-line illuminated manuscripts of saints whose hagiographies involve episodes at sea, and the "fishers of men" episode in the New Testament. All illustrations of events in Antiquity were shown in "modern dress" in the late C13. --Wetman 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A very nice idea about the manuscripts, I'll try that. Thanks to Wetman & Geogre. Retarius | Talk 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the History of Western Fashion for some general ideas. Also, if you google 'Medieval Costume' you will get lots of useful links. You may also wish to consult Medieval Costume and Fashion by Herbert Norris, and Medieval Costume in England and France: the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries by M. G. Houston. In addition to this, the Penguin edition of Langland's Piers Ploughman has an illustration of peasant dress on the cover, taken from a fourteenth century Psalter. The essential point is that there was little or no difference between the 'working clothes' of sailors and any other land-based occupation of the day. Men would wear hose and doublet, often belted round the middle and usually hooded. Clio the Muse 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's powerful plenty! Many thanks, Clio. Retarius | Talk 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin

I would be interested to know what the Southern slave states' reaction was to the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Irishbard 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Uncle Tom's Cabin#Reactions to the novel and Anti-Tom literature. Short version: they did not like the book. Sandstein 12:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The true measure of how deeply Harriet Beecher Stowe reached into southern sensitivities lies the hack literary response generated by Uncle Tom's Cabin. I'm sure someone somewhere must have used the subject for a doctortal dissertion, considering the insight it gives to the culture, politics and psychology of the Old South. My favourite is J. W. Page's Uncle Robin in His Cabin in Virginia, and Tom without One in Boston, which contrasts the 'security' enjoyed by slave labour in the paternalist south as opposed to free labour in the capitalist north. Clio the Muse 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

See also George Fitzhugh... AnonMoos 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

examination of management

why is it immportant to examine management from different perspectives? what do we gain from this type of examination? think of other possibel perspectives we could use to describe managemnt (e.g. management is a profession; management means " being in charge"). What does our new perspective tell us about management that adds to our understanding? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.125.143.67 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 July 2007.

This looks very much like a homework question to me. We don't answer those here. You could try putting the word "management" into the search box in the left panel at the top of any Wikipedia page - that might be a good starting point. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

English Poor Law

I mean no offence but I find your article on the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 fragmented and perplexing. I would like to know something of the background to this measure and the impact the legislation had on Victorian society. Mr. Crook 13:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fragmented" is correct, but such is the way of the wiki. Look also at Reform Act of 1832, which is another coverage of essentially the same thing. Our Reform Bill articles in general are not up to par, and we could use all the help we can get. (The flippant answer would be sofixit.) I'm in a poor position to help with anything that late, but the articles can benefit from more eyes and hands. Geogre 13:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a poor piece on Poor Law! Amongst my favourite reading on this important subject is The English Poor Laws, 1700-1930 by Anthony Brundage, The Poor Law in Nineteenth Century England and Wales by Anne Digby and Poverty and Poor Law Reform in Nineteenth Century Britain, 1834-1914: From Chadwick to Booth by David Englander. Beyond that, Mr Crook (Bleak House?) you could do no better than read Charles Dickens, particularly Oliver Twist and Our Mutual Friend for a contemporary view.

The New Poor Law, guided into existence by Edwin Chadwick, was essentially intended to streamline and rationalise the whole system, along conceptual and organisational lines envisaged by the Utilitarian philosophy popular at the time. It also had the supplementary aim of making poverty 'undesirable', if it can be so expressed.

Chadwick and his commission set themselves the task of overhauling the Elizabethan Poor Law, that had been in operation for over two hundred years. By this each parish appointed overseers, local officials who collected a poor rate (a tax) from all householders. The money was then used as a form of 'income support' to enable the able-bodied poor to continue living in their own homes, a policy known as 'outdoor relief.' This was supplemented in 1782 by the Gilbert Act, which enabled parishes to group together and share the cost of building Union Workhouses, places where the sick, the elderly and the starving could be accommodated. According to Anne Digby, some parishes were effectively working in much the same fashion as the modern welfare state, providing housing, food, medical care, clothing allowances and fuel.

Though effective in a limited way, the old system broke down in the face of the huge social and economic changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution. Rural poverty became every more acute, a consequence both of the enclosure movement and a rapid growth in the population. In response, some of the parishes modified the forms of outdoor relief allowed for under the existing Poor Law. In Speenhamland in Berkshire local wages were toped up in accordance with a sliding scale, determined by the price of food and the size of each labourer's family, a practice that came to be known as the Speenhamland System. As can be imagined, this had the effect of driving down wages still further. It also caused resentment among local rate payers, upon whom the burden got ever greater. By the early 1830s poor relief was accounting for as much as 80% of local rates expenditure, some £7 million pounds in all. Central government's total expenditure at this time, on all matters, amounted to £19 million, which gives some idea of the magnitude of poverty spending.

Unpopular with rate payers, and economically ruinous, the final blow to the old system came with the Swing Riots, which swept across southern England, as agricultural labourers protested against low wages and new machinery. The Poor Law had been conceived of as a guarantor of social stability. As such, it was no longer of any effect.

Discontent with the Poor Law among farmers and land owners of all sorts was reflected in economic theory-known at the time as political economy-in which it was argued that it was an artificial distortion of the free market. By the Utilitarian calculus the old Poor Law was outmoded and inefficient. Thomas Malthus maintained that outdoor relief actually created poverty by encouraging people to have large families. For him the only solution was outright abolition of the whole system. Few others took such a radical view; but there was a widespread acceptance that the system needed to be overhauled.

In theory the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, set up in 1832, was meant to gather evidence before making recommendations; but the leading members, including Chadwick and Nassau Senior give every indication of having made up their minds in advance. For both men local relief had to be replaced by a centrally directed system of poor law administration, which had the twin values of rationality and economy. In 1834 the Poor Law Amendment Act passed through Parliament with the support of both the Whigs and the Tories. Now the 'Workhouse Test' was the only way to obtain relief. Outdoor relief was a thing of the past.

The principle was simple enough: the regime in the Union Workhouses, the backbone of the New Poor Law, was made deliberately harsh, a disincentive to all but the destitute. On the concept of 'less eligibility', the relief offered would be worse than the living standards of the lowest paid workers in the general community. The new workhouses, referred to as 'Bastilles', created a culture of dread among the working class, reflected in the attitude of Dicken's Betty Higden, who preferred to die by the roadside than enter the 'House', and in monologues like Christmas Day in the Workhouse. There was opposition, and not just among those most affected. Tory paternalists were outraged by the new system, in much the same fashion as liberals less motivated by market and utilitarian values. There was a huge outcry in 1846 when it was discovered that the inmates of the Andover worrkhouse in Hampshire were driven by hunger to gnaw the bones that they were supposed to crush to make fertiliser. But Victorian attitudes towards poverty as a moral failing in the individual were to persist right into the twentieth century. Only gradually were they replaced with new concepts of welfare provision, urged forward by classic investigations like Henry Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor, and Charles Booth's Life and Labour of the People of London Clio the Muse 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

influnce of environment on industries

are there industries that will be immune to changes in the global environment and as a consequence will be influnced primarily by their domestic external environment? Name at least two and explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.67 (talk • contribs)

That looks very much like a homework question to me, and we don't answer those here. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, we do assume good faith and try not to bite newcomers. DuncanHill 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Name at least two and explain why" makes it pretty clearly a homework question. We are not a one-stop homework shop, and students who use us as such should be reprimanded (though not mocked), I think. --24.147.86.187 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I don't need to say this, but I didn't intend to reprimand anyone, or mock them. People who ask questions here should read the instructions at the top before asking a question, but if they don't, or if they mis-understand, they should not be reprimanded, they should just be told, politely and in plain language, what they need to know. I hope that's how my post came across. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Communism during WWII

Hello. For my year 12 Modern History, I am doing an essay on how events during WWII contributed to the rise of communism. Was this a good topic to write about or should I do something else? I am having trouble finding stuff to write about. I currently have:

Stalin's leadership- His good leadership in WWII allowed Russia to stop the German advance. He was a good negotiator. He was prepared for war with Germany before it broke out.

Allied Indecisiveness- Compared to Stalin, the allies were not interested in anything other than stopping Germany. Stalin was given plenty of room to grow and unite countries under the USSR.

I guess I could also talk about Russia helping out the communist party in China.

Does anyone know any other events in WWII that contributed towards the rise of communism? I'm kinda stuck and just a few more things for me to write about would be great. I'm not asking for you guys to do my homework, just to provide a few pointers, as I'm sure you guys had to do this too. Thanks. --Babij 14:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You really need to think about your framing term, "rise." You can immediately split this into two wide areas. The first is the revolutions developed by nations in a post-colonial era and those that were imposed from outside. These are quite, quite different. The former might be aided by an existing "communist" power, but they are essentially homegrown. Secondly, you need to have a concrete and useful definition of "communism." Be aware that the term encompasses both a political and an economic system in a peculiar formation. If you have these distinctions in mind, you can see how you have "rise of Soviet sphere of influence post-war" and "rise of socialism as a form of economic and political system after the experience of late capitalism and colonialism." Geogre 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I can give you little detail on this, but I am suspicious that this might have something to do with China. Communists and Nationalists had been fighting for some time, and it may be possible that the War, and the Communist victory of Russia, gave an impetus to the Communist Chinese forces.

Other than that, I would like to point out the case of Yugoslavia. Josip "Tito" Broz was, AFAIK, an immensely popular anti-German resistance leader during the Nazi occupation. Without the war to establish a sense of popularity (is that correct Clio?) he may not have been able to establish a Communist government in Yugoslavia. It is an interesting point to note that the Yugoslav regime was the first non-Russian Communist country: the rest of Eastern Europe was behind the infamous Iron Curtain - which was not just communist, but effectively the USSR's Empire, if you wish to take that perspective on it.

You could, I suppose, argue that Stalin had a excellent reasons for making "colonies" of Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. The economy of Russia utterly obliterated, it provided a useful place to get reparations. Defence buffer against Germany? Quite possibly. Russia had been invaded twice by Germany. Or was it just sheer Russian imperialism - for example, you could question - why did Stalin have to spread Russian Communism, and not be happy with the independent Tito regime in Yugoslavia? But then that may be erring into the area of how did WW1 contribute to the establishment of the Iron Curtain, not quite the same as the spread of communism.

If your question concerns how much WW2 contributed, you could have a section on other causes of the spread of communism. For example, would Cuba ever have became communist without WW1? My first impression is yes, because its revolution took place many years after the end of WW1. An automatic consequence of the Cold War? If the USA was supported by capitalist Western Europe, it may have been natural for the USSR to acquire communist allies.

I would also like to point out a note of caution of using my terminology of Eastern Europe being Russian "colonies". That is open to debate, and people will argue, though preferably not here. This is how I see the Russian policy there, your teacher may see it differently. And thankyou for saying "Can you help me with..." and not simply posting an essay question here. A much appreciated and commendable attitude.martianlostinspace 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Though please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong.martianlostinspace 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad topic at all. I think you are right to think about both China and Eastern Europe as the two important bits here. WWII allowed Stalin to consolidate and expand his regime (you might look at Yalta Conference for thoughts as to why he was able to do that), and allowed enough destabilization in China for the Communists there to gain a footing and eventually (1949) overthrow the Nationalists. I would avoid counter-factual speculation ("What would have happened if X Y Z?") as it is impossible to prove, easy to go astray, and often useless even in the hands of very knowledgable people.

The one thing that comes to mind that you haven't noted is that there were a lot of people who basically saw the world as a spectrum between Communism and Fascism on account of Hitler's rise to power. As a consequence, many people believed that if you didn't have Communism, you essentially had Fascism, and as a consequence embraced Communism very strongly. This is true both in Europe and in the United States, though in the U.S. this sentiment dies down quite a bit after the war. But that's a much harder thing to gauge, so you might want to leave that aside.

Lastly, you might want to consider the effects of the atomic bomb. It often gets the credit for creating a Cold War rather than a hot one; there is also an argument that it allowed Stalin et al to consolidate and cement their power, since it set a very high threshold for war and thus allowed the Soviets to act with impugnity with covert activity (the US wasn't going to start a nuclear war over a little issue like trying to get Communists elected in Greece, were they?). Instead of being a useful bargaining chip, it was often a straightjacket — when one party is not willing to "leave the table" (here meaning start a nuclear war), then it reduces their bargaining power to almost nothing. --24.147.86.187 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK then, possibly, but not definitely, what else contributed.martianlostinspace 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, contrary to what you seem to think, the USSR was one of the allies.

Communism was on the rise before WWII began, as was fascism. Democracy was an experiment that people felt wasn't too much of a success. So they were looking for alternatives. Some wanted the strong leaders back (sound familiar on the modern political scenes?). But they didn't want royalty back (they had finally gotten rid of those egocentrists). So fascism rose. But another alternative had also been making inroads for about half a century was communism. In Germany, people were almost forced (by peer pressure) to choose between those two alternatives. I suppose that they realised communism was too far out, so fascism won (and not only in Germany). But after the war, the atrocities were blamed on fascism, so that alternative was out the window. Communism hadn't gained much appeal, despite the good work of the communist resistance. People were also beginning to hear stories about bad goings-on in the USSR and they blamed that on communism (which it wasn't - it was state socialism and it's not even true that that necessarily means death camps and such, but I'm talking about public perception). So of the four alternatives (royalty, democracy, fascism and communism), democracy all of a sudden looked like the best bet. So WWII didn't so much help in the rise of communism, but in the revival of democracy. And in an odd sort of way it also caused it. DirkvdM 19:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Babij. You have chosen a great subject for your essay, and I could offer you a guide to some practical reading, if you wish. You should not really have too much trouble in finding sufficient material to support your argument. All I would really seek to do here is to give you some general guidance, and perhaps shift your perspective ever so slightly.

First, I think it more accurate to say that the Second World War, and its immediate aftermath, created the conditions for the spread rather than the rise of Communism. Soviet Russia itself was created out of the First World War, and may conceivably have remained the only Communist power but for World War Two. Second, do not concentrate overmuch on personalities. Stalin's leadership, though undeniably important, was not necessarily among the most descisive factors; and the contention that he was ready for war with Germany in 1941 is quite wrong. Stalin's biggest mistake was to trust Hitler, ironic, when one considers that he trusted no-one else. For most of the war, moreover, he was, like the western allies, far more interested in the defeat of Germany than the promotion of Communism; he even went so far as to abolish the Communist International in 1943. Also, his policy in the 1920s actually impeded the advance of Communism, particularly in China. where the Communist Party was urged into co-operation with the Nationalists, which led to its near destruction in 1927. The ultra-left Third Period which followed was even more disastrous, leading to a serious underestimation of the Fascist danger in Germany and indirectly to the destruction of the KPD, the strongest Communist Party in Europe at the time.

So, the decisive factor in the spread of Communism, in the first place, to eastern Europe was the success of Russian armies against Germany, which saw the imposition of a Soviet-style system in various countries, and the descent of the Iron Curtain across the Continent, for reasons of Russian security, as much as anything else. The two exceptions to this process by 'external imposition' were Yugoslavia and Albania, where Communist resistance and a war of national liberation became one and the same thing; and yes, martianlostinspace, you are right about Tito. But there again, if it had not been for the presence of Soviet armies Tito might conceviably have been defeated by nationalist forces, supported by the western allies, much as the Communist party was defeated in the Greek Civil War. Elsewhere in Europe, outwith the sphere of Soviet influence, Communist parties associated with the Resistance made considerable advances in post-war elections, particularly in France and Italy, though further progress was hampered when they reached a ceiling of support. They could not take power in the kind of coup that came in Czechoslovakia in 1948 because they did not control the state security apparatus.

In the world at large, the war severly weakened the old colonial powers, leading to various national uprisings with Communist support. That in Vietnam succeeded under the Communists because Ho Chi Minh was able to unite all shades of national opinion in the struggle against the French; that in Malaya failed because the Malayan Races Liberation Army was dominated by the Chinese, and always appeared more foreign than national. Communist forces in Indonesia were eventually crushed by the nationalists, supported and aided by the United States.

China is an unusual case. Since the early 1930s the Communists under the leadership of Mao Zedong, had been involved in a civil war with the Nationalists, a period which saw the legendary Long March and the formation in the north of the country of the Chinese Soviet Republic. Although the Nationalist and Communists were 'at truce' after the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, both sides were more than ready to renew the struggle in 1945. Yes, Mao got some help from Stalin, but he seemed more interested in advancing his own position, taking more in the way of resources from Manchuria than he ever gave to the Chinese. This is a hugely contentious issue, but there is a strong argument that the Chinese Communists could have been defeated, much as they were in Indonesia, if the United States had give sufficient support to Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. But they did not, and China was 'lost' in 1949. Further Communist attempts to advance in Asia were defeated in the Korean War, and in Europe by the Berlin Airlift.

So, this only leaves Cuba, where what was a peasant war, and understood to be a peasant war by the United States and others, only saw the creation of a Communist state after victory under the leadership of Fidel Castro. The Revolution, in other words, was not lead by the Cuban Communist Party, nor did it have a specifically Communist programme, at least to begin with. Once again Communism fruited on the tree of war. Clio the Muse 03:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, 'communism' fruited on the tree of former oppressors, which led to uprisings at a time when communism was in fashion. Maybe it's a shame for the ideology, but indeed, all examples we have of rule by a communist party are the result of war. Which leads to war-like leaders, which would be enough to explain some things about their rule. Btw, the only example of real communism (not state socialism) that I know of, the Kibbutzim in Israel were also formed in a sate of war. Which is ironic because real communism is based on the assumption that everyone will be nice to each other (how else will they willingly share everything?).

Clio, you make it sound like Castro joined in a spontaneous uprising, but his 'invasion' of Cuba started it all. Or do you mean to say that an uprising was already 'in the air'?

About Vietnam, an interesting thing there is that Ho Chi Minh at first asked help from the US and had even based his new constitution on that of the US. Only when he didn't get help there did he turn elsewhere and the big neighbouring country was an obvious choice. Ironically, when that happened, the US did all of a sudden get interested in Vietnam and even as a result started aiding a colonial force (France).

I wonder now if a different attitude by the US might have affected the way state socialism developed. In Europe, socialism killed the communist revolution. In the Netherlands, for example, a left-wing uprising shortly after the Russian revolution of 1917 gave the right-wing government such a fright that they started taking all sorts of left-wing measures, just to appease the rebels. Maybe if the US had helped Ho Chi Minh, they could have 'softened' him. Talking is always better than fighting, not only for the killing, but also because it is not very likely to resolve an issue - it just aggravates it. But now I digress. :) DirkvdM 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The point was making about Castro, badly expressed perhaps, was that he only declared himself to be a Communist after the victory over Fulgencio Batista, and even then not immediately. He was not understood to be so when he visited the United States in 1960, and met Vice-President Richard Nixon. Clio the Muse 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh provincial government?

Does Bangladesh have a provincial government like Canada does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

Although the article Politics of Bangladesh mentions subdivisions, I can find no evidence of federalism in this article, or devolved provincial governments. I assume that such administrations would exist, but they may be little more than administrative units of the central government, and not so much legislative or executive bodies.martianlostinspace 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh municipal government

Why Bangladesh allow its federal gov't political party to participate in municipality election and be elected as mayor of the town or city? in Canada, they don't have any politicians from the federal gov't political parties participating in their municipality election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

Why not? If what you say is true, then Canada is rather unusual. In the UK we certainly have candidates from all the major political parties (and many minor ones, and independent candidates) standing in our local elections. -- Arwel (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what they mean is that they don't have people at the state level running for posts at the city, etc. level, not that the parties don't field candidates for them. I KNOW all the Federal Canadian parties have provincial versions, or maybe that's what they mean, that there's no difference, it's all one party? 68.39.174.238 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify about Canada: the major federal parties do have separate counterparts in different; thus we have a Liberal Party of Canada, a Liberal Party of Ontario, a Liberal Party of Alberta, and so on, all separate organizations that consider each other as friends. In a federal or provincial election each of the major parties at that level will nominate one candidate in each riding. Municipal elections, however, are typically non-partisan. There is no "Liberal Party of Toronto" and there is no Liberal candidate for Mayor of Toronto or for Ward 1 Councillor of Toronto. There is no law prohibiting parties from running candidates in municipal elections: in the 1990s some candidates for Toronto city council did advertise a party affiliation (I assume with the provincial party). But the parties have not pressed to get involved in municipal elections, that's all.

Now, back to Bangladesh? --Anonymous in Toronto, July 23, 00:51 (UTC).

Left-wing

Which political ideologies are considered as left-wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, if you type "left wing" into the search box and click "Go", you will see the article Left-wing politics. -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Our article Left-wing politics has good information which should answer your question. DuncanHill 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

right-wing

Which political ideologies are considered as right-wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, if you type "right wing" into the search box and click "Go", you will see the article Right-wing politics. -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Some question about ethnic divisions in Europe

Hello,

- I was reading Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938), and I was surprised to read that between the world wars, Slovaks were not the second largest group! This is maybe a dumb question, but wasn't the name Czechoslovakia kinda weird then? (It's more like a Czechogermania....)

- I see that politicians in Sudetenland had ties with the Nazi party in Germany. But didn't these Germans consider themselves "Austrians" instead of "Germans"? (They had been living under Austro-Hungarian rule)

- I read in a Wikipedia article that there are some Macedonian minorities in the western part of Bulgaria. But how? I read that the Macedonian language and the Bulgarian language are very similar, that Macedonians even used to refer to themselves als Bulgarians, and that there were people between the two world wars who wanted to unite Macedonia and Bulgaria. So what makes someone in Bulgaria feel "Macedonian"? Different accent? Different religion?

- The media often talk about the Albanians and Serbians in Kosovo, but there are also Croats, Bosniaks,... in Kosovo. Do they feel connected to one of the two parties? I heard that Albanians (christians, muslims,..) all tend to be united by their common language, my guess is that the Croats would feel tempted to side with the Serbians in that case?

- A comfortable majority of the people in Switzerland speaks German. I know that the Nazi party considered Germanspeakingpeople in Yugoslavia, Austrians, Belgium, Poland, Czechslovakia... "Germans", whose land should be part of the Reich....but I never hear anything about their plans with those Swiss Germanspeaking people?

Thank you,Evilbu 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of stuff, here, Evilbu! I think I can maybe give you some partial answers.

On the German question, there had never been an Austrian state as such, more a collection of nationalities owing loyalty to the Habsburg crown. When the Empire disappeared in 1918-19 there was a significant body of opinion in the newly created Republic of Austria, including the Social Democrats, wanting union with Germany. This was specifically forbidden by the Versailles settlement. The Germans in Czechoslovakia also had an ethnic rather than a state identity, and that was with the larger German commonwealth. Initially the Germans in the new state settled down to rule from Prague, and were to be found supporting a whole variety of political parties. This changed in the late 1930s, when the Sudeten German Party, under the leadership of Konrad Henlein and Karl Hermann Frank, switched its loyalty away from Czechoslovakia.

I cannot comment on the Macedonian language issue, but on the general political question you have raised you might wish to consult Treaty of San Stefano, Greater Bulgaria and the Balkan Wars. On Kosovo I have no sources of information on other minorities besides the Serbs. Are they statistically significant? I suspect not.

On the Swiss issue if you ever read Goebbels' Diaries you will find a reference to Hitler as the 'Butcher of the Swiss', which might give some insight the Nazis had in store for that country. Here Goebbels is alluding to Charlemagne, who, as a consequence of his war of conquest in northern Germany, was known as the 'Butcher of the Saxons.' Clio the Muse 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As regards Hitler's plans for Switzerland, see also Switzerland during the World Wars#World War II and Operation Tannenbaum about the planned invasion of Switzerland, although both articles are pretty poor. My non-expert impression is that Hitler intended to invade Switzerland and annex at least the German-speaking part of it at some point. Luckily for Switzerland, it was never a high-priority issue. Sandstein 07:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the Croats in Kosovo question, I'm going primarily on my experience with friends and relatives of various south-Slavic identities, and based on that, the Croats would never side with the Serbs (while the common belief is that the Serb-Croat split is based on religion, my gut tells me that the Serbs and Croats chose different sides of the Orthodox-Catholic divide because of their mutual antipathy, not the other way around). Donald Hosek 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, you might want to read the article on Pan-Germanism. After World War I, the Sudeten Germans expected to join with the new republic of Austria in a country to be called "German-Austria," made up of the German parts of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. That idea faded away when the victorious Allies awarded all of the Czech lands to Czechoslovakia. A simultaneous current of opinion after WWI called for the merger (or Anschluss) of the new Austrian Republic with Germany. This too was ruled out by the Allies, but Hitler took up the cause 20 years later. So most of the Sudeten Germans turned to Berlin, which annexed Austria shorty after the Munich treaty. It wasn't a matter of the Sudeten Germans favoring Germany over Austria -- it was a matter of them favoring a super-Germany that was gobbling up all the German-speaking lands except Switzerland. -- Mwalcoff 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, I assume by Munich treaty you mean the Munich Agreement, which detached the Sudentenland from Czechoslovakia? If so, you should note that this came in September 1938, whereas the Anschluss took place in March. Clio the Muse 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

July 23

"In God We Trust" on our money

I brought this up in class almost every year since middle school and I've never gotten GOOD answers on why we should keep it. I've even asked about taking the oaths at court.

Having all these god quotes around has to have an effect on people, especially children. It may completely alter someones behavior, so why do we keep it around? Ive already looked at some of the articles pertaining to this, and I'm dissapointed in the government for keeping it around just because "its tradition, and it has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state."

"Mommy, how do you know God is real?" "Well, sweety it says so right there in the Bible, and the Bible is God's word, and everything God says is true, so it must be true! And hey, if it wasnt true, why would the government have it on our money!?"

Just because this nation was founded on Christianity, doesnt mean centuries later we should continue the tradition. Were supposed to improve and not stick to primitive thinking. They need to put all that god stuff in the history books and start maturing.

Everyone holds and needs money, and its upsetting to own something that makes it seem like youre a certain way (believing in a deity). Taking it out will be a simple step to improving this nation, in my opinion anyway. But thats my rant, and I'd really like to hear peoples views on this. PitchBlack 03:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You could use credit cards. Well, but that wouldn't solve that child's problem. Anyway, I guess that in a few years no-one will use paper money anymore, so that problem will stop existing. A.Z. 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that, in Canada, they have been using debit cards more than cash for six years now. A.Z. 04:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia also features a section about the motto controversy. A.Z. 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note to non-Americans: This question is about the money they use in the USA.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Wow, that WAS kind of a rant. I always understand the "God" in question to be Mammon, which seems highly appropriate and self-referential: it's in the money itself that we trust. Thinking about it this way doesn't offend my tender atheist sensibilities, plus I've always felt that the Christian god wouldn't really be a fan of being so referred to on our currency; after all, it could lead to an unhealthy conflation of the ideas of god, money, and worship . My 2 cents. 38.112.225.84 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Theodore Roosevelt had a similar idea. 68.39.174.238 13:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the motto on the money is what causes people to believe or not to believe. I think it is easy for non-believers (myself included) to think of belief as a simple thing, you are told something and thus you believe it. In reality most people's understandings of religion come not from "mommy" saying they believe it and pointing to money or anything so trite; it is a deeper connection with tradition and ritual that reinforces beliefs. I don't think the slogan on the money makes any real difference (and I am an agnostic/atheist). That being said, I don't think there is a good reason it should be "kept" at all — it does nothing positive. I don't think it does a lot of negative, either, except reinforce the entanglement between religion and government in this country, but even with that I think it is a symptom not a cause. --24.147.86.187 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

World War I Newspaper archives?

Good morning. I'm looking for a website (or a handful of websites) which contain archives of newspapers from WW1. Specifically, I'd like "well-known" papers like the Times, etc. I figure they'll be in the public domain, following the 70 years after death rule. Any ideas?

Thanks very much.

203.173.11.176 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)ThePatchedFool

They are public domain, yes, but unfortunately those that have been digitized have mostly been so under restricted pay-for-access systems. It would be possible to extract these materials and host them on a free system, but so far this has not been done. To access this common history, you'll mostly have to go through a university or a library account (on microfilm in libraries too of course), which is a real shame IMO.--Pharos 04:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a shame, but unless you have access to a research library (or a major public library), you're pretty much out of luck with regards to major papers like the Times and so forth. EDIT: This information applies to the USA, but I see that you reside in Australia, so it may not be all that relevant. I don't know what kind of subscriptions Australian libraries carry, or how easy it may be for you to access materials held by a university. Carom 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that might be the case. I probably do have access to microfilms of the Australian papers of the time, through the State Library, but it's sad that they're not digital, and I was hoping for a more international collection of perspectives. Still, I'll investigate that. Thanks for the idea, and for furthering my Googletrust. 203.173.11.176 05:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if by any chance you're a university student, you probably do have access to these collections.--Pharos 06:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Many old microfilm newspaper archives are digitized, but you are charged for the service of using them (not a copyright issue). ProQuest Historical Newspapers does this for US newspapers, I'm not sure who would do it for Australian ones. --24.147.86.187 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out List of online newspaper archives. -- Mwalcoff 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Judges

Are all judges arrogant? - CarbonLifeForm 07:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, at any rate not more so than all other government officials or highly educated professionals are. Sandstein 07:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive generalisation. Judges may have a stereotype of being rather boring, but most of us will barely meet a judge in our lifetime (I would think), at least out of court.martianlostinspace 11:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of us wouldn't know if we had met a judge. They mostly live ordinary lives outside court. One lives a few doors down the street from me, and she is very nice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are all RD questions as useless and unanswerable? 68.39.174.238 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact many of them are interesting and informed. Lanfear's Bane

Some judges are arrogant. Some are not. I've known a few judges (a close family member is a lawyer). They did haven't any single exceptional stereotypical qualities. --24.147.86.187 14:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think CarbonLifeForm==XM and he's annoyed that his crazy gambits to get out of his parking ticket didn't work and it's clearly the judge's arrogance that's to blame? Donald Hosek 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

long books

I was wondering what the longest fictional story ever published was. I think it might be the Wheel of Time, but obviously I haven't seen every book ever written. So I thought, maybe someone here will know. And your list on here isn't much help. So, anyone know of any longer stories? 172.189.174.82 14:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

List of longest novels has some contenders. Sandstein 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a basic problem of definition here. Many "long novels" are actually novel cycles. This would presumably apply to The Wheel of Time which you mention, also to things like A Dance to the Music of Time, The Lord of the Rings and even A La Recherche du Temps Perdu. So, do these count as novels or not? Personally, I would say not. Then there are things like Clarissa, which personally gets my vote as the longest novel in English. Then of course there are many long unpublished novels such as The Story of the Vivian Girls by Henry Darger, plus (I would have thought) countless others yet to be discovered. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

the Lord of the Rings and A La Recherche du Temps Perdu were both originally written as a single book, but were too long to be published in one volume. whilst 'novel cycles' might not count as novels due to their being made up of more than one book, they still have the same plot running all the way through, and are therefore the same story.

Khruschev's denunciation of Stalin

I would like to know something of the background, motivation, impact and consequences of Khruschev's 1956 speech denouncing Stalinism. The page On the Personality Cult and its Consequences is not quite as informative as I would have wished. Thanks. Fred said right 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He was trying to exorcise the incubus of his dead master, whom he had served for so long, yet without calling into question the structure of the whole regime. Donald Treadgold.martianlostinspace 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To begin with it should be noted that the whole speech was built on the oddest of paradoxes: a denunciation of Stalin's personality cult and authoritarian style by a man who had spent the three years since the dictator's death in undermining collective ledership, and establishing his own unparalleled power! By the time of the 20th Congress, in other words, Khruschev's political authority was almost as great as that previously enjoyed by Stalin.

Delegates at the Congress were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which must have left those present highly perplexed. On the 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled secret session had been called for the Soviet delegates.

The speech itself began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the "supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god." Khruschev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. He himself had been guilty of what was, in essence, a distortion of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism. The attention of the audience was then drawn to Lenin's Testament, copies of which had been distributed, criticising Stalin's 'rudeness'. Further accusations, and hints of accusations, followed, including the suggestion that the murder of Sergey Kirov in 1934, the event that sparked of the Great Terror, could be included in the list of Stalin's crimes. While criticising the Man, Khruschev carefully praised the Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. The Party, in other words, had been a victim of Stalin, not an accessory to his crimes. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of the personality and return to "the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society."

So, what were his motives? Was it really a call for a return to Leninist 'collective leadership' destroyed by Stalin? Well, here we have to remember that Lenin himself had only called for collective leadership in his final days, in the belief that no single individual was fit to follow in his singular path. Khruschev himself, moreover, had, as I have said, effectively destroyed the new forms of collectivity that emerged after Stalin's death in 1953. In a sense, the Secret Speech was his own triumphal declaration, and he used it to undermine still further some senior Soviet politicians, including Georgy Malenkov and Kliment Voroshilov. The implication was clear enough: he was innocent and the rest were guilty, though the simple truth was that he was just as bloody as any the others. He was simply shifting the burden of responsibility. Exempting himself and blaming others: the whole speech was not about principles and ideals-it was about politics, and it was about power. Khruschev had to demolish Stalin to establish his own imperium; Augustus had to give way to Tiberius. It may be of passing interest to make note of the fact that Stalin's portrait continued to hang in Khruschev's office long after 1956, as a kind of spiritual avatar. And those who took the speech at face value were soon to face the simple truth that the ideal was not reborn. Clio the Muse 01:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading Khruschev: The Man and His Era by William Taubman. It discusses the "Secret Speech" in detail. -- Mwalcoff 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Walt Streightiff - who is he?

Hi - I have been wanting to use a quote for a website project, but want to know more about the guy who said it before I actually use the quote... All I can find out is that he was a writer and probably American!

Walt Streightiff - “There are no seven wonders of the world in the eyes of a child. There are seven million.”

Can anyone help please?

Voting Rights of US Citizens

Having read the entry for Washington DC, and then read the US Constitution, I remain unclear how over 500,000 people in the US capital area are without the right to vote (other than for municipal elections). I understand that Washington is a 'District', but why can residents not be able to vote in a neighbouring state? I rather liked the comment on a common bumper sticker proclaiming "Taxation without Representation" considering the basic premise of the founding of the US nation. Can anyone explain the constitutional, political or personal benefits of this situation? JonM267 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Residents didn't have the right to vote since its Founding, as DC was the seat of the Federal Government (per the US Constitution Article one, Section 8 which outlines the Powers of Congress). DC was seen be impartial, as the home of the Legislature, it was supposed to have no political leanings to protect its dignity and integrity. However, its populations always hated never being able to vote, and in 1961, the 23rd Amendment was passed that gave DC residents the ability to vote in Presidential elections and have 3 votes in the US Electoral College. They also get Delegates to Congress who represent them in the US House of Representatives (But not the US Senate), but cannot outright vote on any pending laws or in any of the Congressional committees. There has been some discussion of giving DC Voting Rights, but this is usually blocked by the Republican Party/Conservatives as it would give the Democrats/Liberals another vote as DC is primarily Blue due to it's minority, and Left leaning population. As for voting in a neighboring state, that would be Unconstitutional due to State Laws; each state runs itself and itself alone. On top of this, it is all complicated as DC is run both by a city wide government, and Congress on occasion. For more info, see District of Columbia voting rights. BTW, I'm from the DC area, and the license plate reference was a way to raise recognition of the DC voting issue. Most people realize it's unfair, and want them to vote, but DC is a Federal district, and as such cannot as it is not a State per se. Personally, I think it one of the great flub ups of the US Founding Fathers, no matter their logical reasons. Whew! I hope this helps.  Zidel333 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive answer. Along with your references it clears much of my confusion. I suppose there must be many strange and unusual repurcussions from having to follow (without too much question) a set of rules now over 200 years old, drawn up by primarily English landed gentry who were probably both trying to be fair and just to the citizens, and also protect their own social and financial positions at the same time. They did not do too bad a job all things considered.JonM267 21:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I might add, albeit an obvious point, that Congress constitutionally only recognises states: the Senate 2 Senators per state (regardless of size) and the House dependent upon population, though every state must have at least one Congressman. The USA, at the time of the Constitution, did not rule many territories (eg. Alaska, before statehood), and as far as DC was concerned, I think the founders may have intended a seat of government, not a city. Why should the federation reputed to be the world's most democratic country deny voting rights to half a million citizens? This seems like a logical answer.martianlostinspace 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

De Natura Deorum and the Infinite Monkey

Can anyone familiar with Cicero point me to the actual sections in De Natura Deorum that ended up as the precursor (kind of) to the infinite monkey theorem?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Try this from Book II, section XXXVII:

Is it possible for a man to behold these things, and yet imagine that certain solid and individual bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, and that a world so beautifully adorned was made by their fortuitous discourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall in such a fashion as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How, therefore, can these people assert that the world was made by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, which have no colour, no quality-which the Greeks call 'poiotes', no sense? or there are inummerable worlds, some rising and some perishing, in every moment of time? But if the concourse of atoms can make a world, why not a porch, a temple, a house, a city, which are works of less labour and difficulty? Clio the Muse 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're wonderful, Clio, thanks Adambrowne666 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC) - although, on reflection, is he arguing against the infinite monkey thing? - is he saying it's so unlikely that atoms of themselves can create a world that gods must've done it?

Killing slaves

In which, if any, societies with legal slavery would (a) killing one's own slave have been legal and (b) killing someone else's slave have been considered a property crime with the victim being the slave's owner? NeonMerlin 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, slavery law, what fun! Well, in any society based on Roman law, I don't think the penalty for killing someone else's slave is ever capital punishment. In sets of laws I have at hand (the Assizes of Jerusalem, the Lex Burgundionum, the Lex Salica, and the Edictum Rothari - the latter three compiled by Katharine Fischer Drew as The Burgundian Code, the Laws of the Salian Franks, and The Lombard Laws respectively) the punishment is always monetary compensation to the owner of the slave. However, I think killing your own slave was perfectly legal, although you probably wouldn't want to do that, as it would be your own financial loss (I can't find a specific reference to this at the moment, but I think that is true at least for ancient Rome, and probably also for any society, since you tend to be able to do whatever you want to your own property). Adam Bishop 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mad Old Men

I am trying desperately to figure out where I have seen or read this scene before: a man is in the house of an older man or woman who's describing their daughter, and explaining that she's on her way to the house. Then they step into the light and with a gesture of horror the first man realizes that this person is insane, and then they have to escape because his daughter died years ago. It's driving me quite mad, so thanks for anyone who can remember it. 12.196.69.214 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Sounds a little Great Expectationsy? Lanfear's Bane

I cannot tell you precisely what this is, though I can tell you what it is not-and that is Great Expectations! Your outline, Melancholy Danish, does remind me slightly, very slightly, I have to stress, of a story by Saki Clio the Muse 00:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Echoes also of They by Rudyard Kipling (collected in Traffics and Discoveries). DuncanHill 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Global Electricity Statistics

I posted this question here because it involves statistical data collected around the world, which most closely fits cultural and demographic natures.

I have heard from multiple sources that about 75% of the worlds population is without electricity. I believe this statement to be relatively close, but i am uncertain, and there seems to be no mention of this in wiki's "Electricity" article.

Can anyone supply me with statistical data/sources on this issue? Thank you!

172.129.238.63 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards -- 75% of the world's population does have electricity. [27] -- Mwalcoff 01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

philosophy and time

I'm writing a paper on the nature of time in physics (among other things) but I also want to add background stuff about the philosophy of time. I've read our article Philosophy of space and time, but it doesn't cover things according to the individual philosophers (at least not many of them). I'm also reading Time by Philip Turetzky, but it doesn't cover every major philosopher or tradition, perhaps because those who are omitted in fact had nothing to say on the matter. Can anyone tell me did David Hume have anything to say about time, even if just to agree with Locke or Berkeley? Also, are there any major philosophers who definitely did not make any comments regarding time? Thanks, 203.221.126.205 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot recall what Hume says about time; but the one thinker who would seem to fit in with what you are looking for is Henri Bergson. I would refer you in particular to The Creative Mind: an Introduction to Metaphysics and Time and Free Will: an Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness. Also the work of Martin Heidegger may have some passing relevance, particularly Being and Time Be warned, though; that latter has a tendency to blow out all the intellectual fuses of less tenacious souls! Perhaps you wish to remain strictly within the Anglo-Saxon empirical tradition? Clio the Muse 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)