Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

September 16

Name of Canadian river?

What is the name of the river that flows through Sainte-Marie-de-Kent, New Brunswick?--Sonjaaa 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A map here shows that it's on the Bouctouche River. Xn4 01:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow you have sharp eyes to be able to read that! :) --Sonjaaa 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese in Manchuria

Was there resistance to Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931?K Limura 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be Resistance with a capital R: see Invasion_of_Manchuria#Secession_and_Resistance and Anti-Japanese Volunteer Armies. In fact, this invasion was the base for all the tensions between modern Japan and China. The Evil Spartan 05:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How much does a vintage world war 2 plane cost?

How much does a working, vintage, world war 2 plane cost? That people fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plain Buff (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What sort of plane did you have in mind? For a genuine WWII fighter in flying condition you're looking at around a million USD, and there aren't many left so they don't come on the market very often. Post-war P-51Ds come in at around half a million. Most "warbirds" flying today are actually trainers like the T-6 Texan or even the well post-war T-28 Trojan - you can pick up one of those for around 2 to 3 hundred thousand dollars. FiggyBee 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This answers my questions perfectly. Plain Buff 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

Medieval Hunting

What were the traditions of hunting with birds and hounds? Was it a competition or a sport? How did the event take place and what were the rules to participate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.228.21 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For birds, see Falconry. For hounds, see Hunting. Hounds were used for hunting animals such as the stag and the wild boar. In the Middle Ages, these were sports rather than competitions, directly descended from ancient hunter-gatherer ways of getting food. The sports had (as they do now) plenty of traditions, and where there were rules they were chiefly informal ones to do with keeping to the traditions (especially social distinctions) and not endangering others. The relevant laws were mostly to do with poaching - that is, who had the right to pursue game (viz., the birds and animals hunted) and who did not. In most countries, sporting rights (the right to pursue game) generally belonged, as now, to the landowner, but in some areas (such as the royal forests of England) they might also be reserved for the king or some other office-holder. In the modern world, such sports are usually also controlled by laws to do with public safety, animal cruelty, environmental nuisances, the preservation of protected species, etc. Xn4 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a pretty good medieval hunting article, it has a bit about birds and hounds. Adam Bishop06:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

Views of 'Otherness' in Medieval Europe

How did Europeans view other races and other cultures, African or Asian, strangers and enemies? Wild Winnie 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Most Europeans in the Middle Ages would never have come across an African or an Asian, unless perhaps a Jew or a Gipsy. To the south and east of Europe, the Moors, the Turks, the Arabs and others were generally seen as the enemies of Christendom, although not without reason. The treatment of the Jews in medieval Europe was occasionally good, more often not. But then Europeans treated each other pretty badly, too. Xn4 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They didn't really think of them as other races, just other religions. They understood "religion" as Christianity, but only in the form of what we call Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholic and Orthodox did not always get along, and as the middle ages progressed, the worse their differences became. The west often portrayed the Orthodox Greeks as soft and effeminate and somehow not quite truly Christian, and they could appeal to classical Roman texts like the Aeneid where the Greeks were cunning and deceitful. Essentially, a complex political system was "the other" to western Europe! As for other forms of Christianity, it was simply new and heretical and was to be stamped out as quickly as possible (the Cathars particularly). Heretical movements were usually assumed to come from some foreign land in the east (the Cathars from Bulgaria, for example). The east also had a huge number of pagans right up to the 15th century, and pagans were to be killed or Christianized. Judaism were an accepted religion but it took a lot of effort by the church to protect the Jews. Secular rulers kicked them out of their countries every once in awhile. Basically every horrible anti-Semitic legend you can think of was considered true by the average medieval person. They were doomed to wander the earth because they had killed Christ, and as soon as they converted, Christ would come again; so, why don't they just convert to Christianity already? To the west, south, and southeast was another strange religion, Islam, which was originally assumed to be a heretical offshoot of Christianity. To a medieval Christian it couldn't be anything else! Most people would never encounter a Muslim, and would be far more likely to run into a Jew, except in Iberia. During the crusades and afterwards, there was a lot more contact with the Muslim heartland, so they were understood somewhat better, but they were still "other". Whereas Christians descended from Abraham legitimaely through Sarah and Isaac, Muslims descended illegitimately from Ishmael, son of Abraham and the slave-girl Hagar, hence the alternate names for Muslims, "Hagarenes". They were also called "Saracens" and one etymology of that word claims it to be the Latin "Sara sine", "without Sarah", haha. Beyond that, there was very little contact with other races. When the Mongols arrived, Christians assumed the Mongols were Christian too (as they had a common enemy in the various Muslim states), and were confused and disappointed when that wasn't quite true. Hinduism or Buddhism was unknown, although they had vague knowledge of India and China, and they knew that luxury goods like silk and spice came from there. Adam Bishop 06:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

Of course, that depends on who 'they' were. Such (and any) knowledge, if any, was largely kept by the scholars (monks and such at the time). I wonder if ordinary people had any thoughts at all about what lay outside Europe. Or beyond the next village, for that matter. The 'outside world' was largely the nearest town or city, or wherever the yearly market was held; that was a grand outing, which most would never make, I suppose (note that I'm not too knowledgeable about such details). There were depictions of what was out there - monsters and headless people. All very scary and best left alone. Although I also wonder who ever got to see even those pictures, because they were in books and most people would never even have seen a book, let alone looked inside one. Actually, I wonder if commoners even had a concept of Europe. DirkvdM 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the Middle Ages is a rather large time-span, roughly from 500 to 1500 - a millennium. But essential is that its end might be defined as the emerging desire to spread knowledge - actual knowledge, not handed-down stories which were never questioned. Which is pretty much the heart of the subject at hand. DirkvdM 09:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of Europeans in the Middle Ages (something like 80%) were uneducated peasants. It is very unlikely that they had a concept of "Europe" or anything beyond Europe. The word Europe (or Europa) did not enter European languages other than Latin until early modern times. Even the educated minority would have been more likely to think in terms of "Christendom" than of "Europe". As for the uneducated minority, they might have a vague, almost mythical sense of places mentioned in scripture or the distant sea, without knowing much about them. Some spotty knowledge of their own and neighboring countries might have come from villagers who had served as infantry in a feudal lord's army. However, as others have said, the known world of most Europeans did not extend more than about a day's walk (say, 12 miles or 20 km) from their homes. They might have heard about the nearest cities from traveling merchants and the like. Beyond that was the wide world of story and romance. Marco polo 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We should also note that "the other" is a concept in philosophy and literary theory that gets a lot of press these days. "The other" in the Middle Ages should be a popular topic but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for information or publications (which is kind of embarrassing since it's pretty important to everything I do, ha). Adam Bishop 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Coming up 'from below' I can say quite definitely that there was indeed a concept of 'otherness' in the Middle Ages, of the monstrous and the different, not just confined to fictions like the Sciopods. As always when one considers these matters analysis is inevitably confined to what educated people believed, because only they have left traces in time. You will find in Medieval sources black Africans-usually defined as 'Ethiopians'-ranged among the 'Monstrous Races', along with the one-legged Sciopods and the Blemmyai, whose faces were on their chests. You see, in the Christian Middle Ages, blackness, black skin, was considered to be demonic. St Jerome specifically says that the 'Ethiopians' will lose their blackness once admitted into the New Jerusalem. Marco Polo (sorry, Marco!) wrote of the people of Zanzibar that

...they are quite black and go entirely naked except that they cover their private parts. Their hair is so curly that it can scarcely be straightened out with the aid of water. They have big mouths and their noses are so falttened and their lips and eyes so big that they are horrible to look at. Anyone who saw them in another country would say they were devils.

Non-Christians could also be depicted as monstrous, as Jewish people frequently were. The twelfth century Winchester Psalter depicts them as ugly and depraved, standing among Christ's tormentors along with, yes, you guessed it, an 'Ethiopian.' And as for the otherness of the Saracens, Pope Innocent III declared, as I am sure Adam must be aware, that Muhammad was the Anti-Christ in person. In the popular literature of the day, the Chansons de geste, the Saracens are often described as 'black'. But the ultimate in 'otherness' must be that of the Tartars, an even more fearful enemy from the east. On them we have the description given by Matthew Paris in his Chronica Majora of their ugliness, and of their cannibal feasts. For Paris and others the Tartar hordes were Gog and Magog. Clio the Muse 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that Mohammed was indeed the antichrist, because he was the nearest competition. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of pov. Btw, that association between Jews and Ethiopians is almost prophetic considering the existence of Ethiopian Jews. Btw, I wonder why the article is called 'Beta Israel'. The beta sounds rather derogatory and Israel is an odd name for Ethiopians. Of course, the name originally designates Jews in general, not a nation, but few people will know that. DirkvdM 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed Beta Israel came from the Hebrew beit yisrael, the House of Israel, i.e. the Jewish people, and that it was better to call them beta Israel (their name for themselves) as opposed to Falasha, which was an insulting name given to them by the Ethiopians; compare Inuit vs/Eskimo. But this is second-hand knowledge, since I've interacted with Ethiopian Jews only briefly and I've heard about them mainly from my cousin who works with them. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That term would then refer to all Jews, not just the Ethiopian ones. Btw, Eskimos and Inuit are different people. Calling an Eskimo an Inuit could be equally insulting (although I consider insult a rather strong word for this). Or so I heard on QI. The Eskimo article tells yet a different (more complicated) story. DirkvdM 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the Known

Related to the above, what views did people in Medieval Europe have of the edges of the known world? Wild Winnie 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There be dragons. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's hard to know exactly what you're hoping for, or what constitutes "the edges of the known world" and "Medieval" for you. Certainly by the late 1300s, accounts from people such as Marco Polo and John Mandeville would reach many of the educated (and some of the uneducated). It seems to me, though, that it is very hard to determine what average people in Medieval Europe thought about much of anything at the time. If you're hoping for ideas, I'd start by reading the accounts of the men I mention. Hopefully Clio or one of the other regulars will arrive soon to give you a much more comprehensive answer (since I am by no means an expert in the area). User:Jwrosenzweig (editing anonymously) 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.34.128 (talk)

Legal interpretation (Canadian law)

a Laymans interpretation of the following is requested:
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 on the http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ site, defines "King's Highway" as:

“ includes the secondary highways and tertiary roads designated under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act; ("route principale") ”

Does this then mean ALL roads in Ontario? Are there any other interpretations of this term? Is there ever a 's (ie. highway's) appended to the term?

Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think it refers to 500- (secondary) and 800- (tertiary) series highways in Northern Ontario. -- Mwalcoff 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a layman's interpretation. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I am a layman with some experience in reading, interpreting, and occasionally drafting government regulations. The definition you quote does not mean that all roads in Ontario are considered the King's Highway. What it means is that secondary highways and tertiary roads can be designated the King's Highway so that any laws or regulations applying to the King's Highway will apply to them. Looking into the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, it states that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate a highway, secondary highway, or tertiary road as the King's Highway - so the King's Highway is whatever the government says it is. Not all roads are eligible for this, though. Section 41 of the PTHI Act notes that "the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate an existing road that is in whole or in part in territory without municipal organization as a tertiary road." Any road that is entirely within the bounds of a municipality - the street that I live on, for example - cannot be called the King's Highway. I would assume that somewhere in the Ministry of Transportation there is a list of all roads which have been designated the King's Highway. It should be possible to find that list, but I haven't been able to yet. - Eron ^Talk 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Films with plots based around other films.

In Woody Allen's film Play it Again, Sam, footage from Casablanca is shown, characters from Casablanca intrude into the story and various bits of dialogue are repeated verbatim. Are there any other films where existing real-life films play such an important part? Froglars the frog 10:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From our Vertigo (film) article:

Terry Gilliam's film Twelve Monkeys contains a scene in a movie theatre that is showing Vertigo . . . both films deal with memories, identity and the blurring of past and present. Likewise, La Jetée, Chris Marker's famous short which served as the basis for Gilliam's film quotes a couple of scenes from this film as acknowledged by Marker. The plot of the short film has loose thematic similarities with Vertigo and quotes some scenes directly (most notably the one with the Redwood tree rings). In his essays Marker has joked about his film being a remake of "Vertigo" set in Paris.

It's not as intrusive as what you're looking for, but it is a great scene in 12 Monkeys. It gives it a lot of depth. --Sean 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In The Freshman, which stars Marlon Brando and Matthew Broderick, Brando plays a mafia guy who, to Broderick's character, looks just like Marlon Brando from The Godfather.

I don't know if this counts, but in Back to the Future Part II, Michael J. Fox goes back in time into the first movie and has to make sure the plot of the first movie turns out the way it did the first time. -- Mwalcoff 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't count sequels, but then there aren't a lot of sequels involving time-travel! —Tamfang 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but I think the plot of Rumor Has It... is that Jennifer Aniston believes her character's family are the inspiration for Benjamin Braddock and Mrs. Robinson's affair in The Graduate. Hammer Raccoon 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are movies about the making of other movies, although I'm not sure if this fits what you are asking. BAADASSSSS! comes to mind. --Joelmills 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In Last Action Hero, magic brings various characters out of the movies, including Death from The Seventh Seal. —Tamfang 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adaptation and Being John Malkovich (the latter is contained in the former). Vranak 17:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid surely the granddaddy of them all...hotclaws 10:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Language, Accents, and Podcasts

Is there anyone out there who knows of a Spanish equivalent of the BBC? I mean that in both the way they have numerous podcasts and that it is an excellent example of perfectly spoken language? --Grey1618 13:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This question would make more sense on the language ref desk or somewhere at the Spanish Wikipedia. But what about TVE? I'm no native speaker, but it sounds like pretty standard and it's Spain's version of the BBC in that it is the state television, so it's probably also a bit 'educational' in various senses, such as speaking 'proper' Spanish. Of course, on the BBC you can often hear various dialects and TVE is probably not much different in that respect. DirkvdM 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC world service has let down its linguistic hair a lot over the past decade, especially on radio -- I enjoy listening to the way some of the Scottish newsreaders pronounce "Bush" ;-) AnonMoos 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of accents the news of TVE are the best. Perect Castilian. Although some of their reporters speak with accents (Mexican, Argentinian). But this mostly when they cover stories in South America. In the regular program you will run across many different accents catalan pronounced Spanish, Andalusian and so on.--Tresckow 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that Mexican, Argentinian, and all other Latin American accents are equally acceptable and just as good as castillano. :) --El aprendelenguas 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want a talk show, there's six hours every weekend with Pepa Fernandez, "No es un dia cualquiera", which can be quite entertaining. Then there was "Vanguardia de la Ciencia" and "El sueño de Arquímedes", two top quality science podcasts by Ángel Rodríguez Lozano, which regrettably were taken off the air June this year. But there's still a bunch of programs on RTVE's web pages, so hurry and download while they're there. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How can music be scary?

How can music possibly be scary, it's not like you're in danger or something sudden might happen, from hitchcock-like violin music. Why does it inspire fear (unless it is parody, "scary" music over something as innocuous as a baby). Is it a cultural thing, or would someone who had never been exposed to western civilation be scared because of scary music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.158.169 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Music speaks to emotions. Fear is an emotion. 'nuff said. Vranak 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a cultural thing. The SKREE SKREE SKREE of Psycho is not scary (just annoying) unless you know the context, at which point it serves to heighten the tension. Remember of course that there are a lot of audio clichés/conventions at work in making something "scary" — things which we have been programmed to associate with murder and tragedy and the like because we've seen them over and over again in movies. I would assume they are not totally limited to Western culture only because in terms of things like movies they have been exported all over the world for a very long time now. --24.147.86.187 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Films can also be scary, even though people know that the monster or whatever can not jump at them from the screen. On top of that, the scary effect mostly comes from the music or sounds you hear. Sound is more effective than images at scaring people. Why that is, I can't say, really. DirkvdM 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not so much that one is more effective than the other, than the fact that in combination they can be quite effective. That being said, sounds can vary in intensity in a way that visuals generally don't, so that probably has something to do with it. Going from a whisper to a SHOUT can startle just about anyone; having something go from small to BIG is less effective if you are watching it on a small screen. --24.147.86.187 18:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wolf's Glen scene (Act II, scene ii) in Carl Maria von Weber's Der Freischütz was the scariest music anybody had ever heard in 1821. Find a recording and see if "scary music" isn't culturally defined.--Wetman 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here in the USA, we haven't had to worry about an invasion in decades. Some towns still use their Air raid sirens for fire alerts or (in my hometown) to signal the beginning and end of Trick or treat on Halloween. It was a fairly mundane sound for me... until I played Silent Hill. Now, it's one of the creepiest things I've ever heard. -- Kesh 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One might also say that people are afraid of a lack of harmony. Thus, a minor chord or any other strange combination of sounds can be scarier than a melodic, major chord. Wrad 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the creation of goosebumps qualify as scary? As a child, a large pipe organ could scare me. I think this is why so many people shy away from them, especially when they have lots of reeds. Also, the sound of a concert grand in a living room could be scary. I found the modern atmospheric choral work in the soundtrack of "2001, A Space Odyssey" scary because I couldn't understand what was happening. The same thing occurs in children when they don't comprehend what is making adults upset. I was once told by a kid of limited education that classical music made him "nervous" because he couldn't feel the beat.LShecut2nd 23:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon 24, you're right and I partly take back what I said. By coincidence, I watched one of the few scary episodes of Buffy last night, Hush, and I noticed the music was only scary in combination with the images. Another piece of music that scared me was the in the intro of The World at War (an excellent series, btw, if you want to delve into WWII history). I watched that when I was about 10 and 30 years later I could still remember the music and it still sent shivers down my spine. But again, it was the combination with the images (the faces being burnt away) that made it really scary (for a 10 year old). By itself, the music is rather sad than scary. Btw, nails over blackboard is a very annoying sound, but I'm not sure if that can be called scary.

So it's only in combination with each other that sound and vision are scary. How about other senses? Can smells and tastes be scary? Rotten meat should be scary, but instead it's filthy. Or touch? What about slime? That's more eerie than scary. Or are that variation of filthy and eeriness variations on 'scary'? Hmmm. DirkvdM 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen to Revolution 9 by The Beatles in the dark, you'll start freaking out. Although that's not really music. EamonnPKeane 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the all-time biggest MASSACRE, ever, of ALL MASSACRES

of all time massacres, what is the massacre where the most people were massacred in a MASSACRE (note: not a non-massacre, genocide, etc). The wikipedia article for massacre doesn't list the biggest massacre.

Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.158.169 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

List of wars and disasters by death toll. Vranak 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says:

Massacre most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing where the victims have no reasonable means of defense and pose no immediate physical threat to the assailants.

It's still possible to quibble about the meaning of parts of that, like "individual", but if you restrict the killing to a single short military operation, a good candidate might be the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed as many as 100,000 people in one night. There were plenty of horrors in WWII that would be in the same ballpark. --Sean 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

You should have looked a little closer - there's a link to the list of massacres at the bottom of the massacre article. Massacre is a rather difficult term to define, but wars don't count because they're not single events. The biggest massacres listed had around 1 million deaths. One of those listed is the partition of India, but I doubt if that really counts as a massacre - it was too spread out and impromptu to be called a massacre, I'd say. One massacre that really drew my attention is the 1258 Battle of Baghdad (there were several), which had up to one million deaths. Given that that took place in 1258, it might count as the biggest massacre ever in terms of deaths per capita. Note that it probably counts as a massacre because of what happened after the battle, not because of the battle itself. If you count battles (and why not?), then the battle of Stalingrad might be the biggest massacre, with 1.5 million deaths.

If you'll allow a bit of pov and a slight deviation from the subject, I don't get why battles don't count as massacres. People have this strange tendency to think that if mass murders take place by regular armies for war purposes then it is sort of ok. For example, the holocaust is often seen as the greatest horror of WWII, but many more people died in agony because of the war in general. Hitler's decision to start a war, and specifically to attack the USSR and the way people (soldiers and civilians) were treated in Eastern Europe dwarfs the holocaust. I;m not talking just about the deaths on the Allied side (soldiers and civilians alike), but also the German soldiers (who didn't have much of a choice) who were sent to their deaths and the equally severe loot/rape/pillage reaction of the Soviet army. Hitler caused that reaction and was therefore also responsible for that result. Note that I usually blame the Nazis in general in stead of just Hitler, but in the case of the eastern front, he was almost solely responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. DirkvdM 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this question can't really be answered, as massacre is one of those words of uncertain origins which doesn't have a precise enough meaning.

In fact, DirkvdM, battles have sometimes been called massacres, depending on the circumstances and the balance of numbers and weapons on each side. If people "think that if mass murders take place by regular armies for war purposes then it is sort of ok", then clearly it isn't. Murder is unlawful killing, while deaths which result from military action between countries at war are not murder. The deliberate killing of prisoners of war is unlawful and can be punished by a war crimes tribunal. The Holocaust, the murder of civilians (and also some prisoners of war) in captivity, many of them not even enemy aliens, was equally unlawful and could no doubt be called a massacre or series of massacres.

If we look at the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was nothing in international law to prevent the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of enemy civilians as an act of war, but those events could be called massacres, too. It's a flexible word. Xn4 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"There was nothing in international law..." — this isn't exactly true. There is a nice compedium of relevant international law to the mass killing of civilians via indiscriminate aerial warface (atomic or not). I don't think you can avoid the word "massacre" when talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor Dresden, nor Tokyo. Whether or not you agree that any of those hastened the end of the war (Dresden and Tokyo, certainly not; Hiroshima and Nagasaki, potentially, but it is a problematic assertion), that doesn't change the case that they were intentional and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, aka, a massacre. You can have war without massacres, much less massacres of tens of thousands of people over the course of a few hours. --24.147.86.187 00:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, 84.0, of the Wikipedia 'massacre' list. Some of the detail is wildly inaccurate, including the absurd contention that 30,000 people were killed when Berwick-upon-Tweed fell to the English in 1296. There is no mention, moreover, of the fall of Magdeburg in 1631 during the Thirty Years War, when some 20,000 people were killed in the course of a day. But I agree that your question is probably incapable of a direct answer. It may also come down to simple semantics. I for one do not accept that people killed in World War Two bombing raids, or soldiers killed in the course of a military campaign, can be considered to have been 'massacred.' Such a definition would render the word truly meaningless. For me it is action against the defenceless, carried out in a face-to-face manner, usually, but not always, in the heat of circumstances. But you might wish to examine the actions of Timur for some truly hair-rasing, (and skull mouinting) cold-blooded brutality. Clio the Muse 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I distinguish between war and massacre in terms of whether it is a single event or a series of massacres. So I consider a battle to be a massacre, because I don't see an essential difference. Both sides being equally strong can hardly be an excuse for mass murder.

Xn4, why is killing done by an army not murder? I don't see the difference. If you're personally under attack and there is no other way to defend your life than killing the other, then it's excusable and might even not be called murder. But training people to kill and then sending them somewhere to practise what they have learned, that is mass murder. One might even call it that when it is done for defense of the own country, but that's an entirely different and exceedingly difficult discussion. For example, I don't get the Geneva Convention. When you're busy ripping each other's limbs off and such, you have to do it in a 'civilised' way? War is filth of the worst kind, far from heroic. Not fighting when under attack is really heroic. If only we could all be heroes. :) DirkvdM 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is about as far from my definition of heroic as it is possible to get. Some things are worth fighting for. Those who do not resist, moreover, are often those who die the quickest. Clio the Muse 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wherein the heroism lies. In this sense Gandhi was one of the few heroes of humanity. The urge to fight is too strong. Enduring hardship to make a point is heroic. DirkvdM 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Clio touches on one of the weirder aspects of massacre definition: it's worse if you do it face-to-face. There's some confused angle of human psychology that makes it more abhorrent to shoot hundreds of civilians retail than in their tens of thousands wholesale. Cue Stalin quote about tragedy and statistics. --Sean 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that is a valid distinction, Sean. The point about My Lai, or Lidice, or Oradour-sur-Glane, or Babi Yar or Srebrenica or the thousands of other places that witnessed similar outrages is the element of calculation involved; a full awareness that an act is being carried out contrary to law and ethics; an act that embraces the killing of even the most defenceless, precisely because they are defenceless. All of the variables are controlled; the village or the community is cordoned off; people herded together and shot at close range, or burned alive inside their own church. At My Lai William Calley knew exactly what he was doing; he knew just how many people were to be disposed of, including the old and the young; he had them all before him. Now, if you could somehow prove that Curtis LeMay knew exactly just how many people would be killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and further prove that he set out to kill that number of people, then you might, just might, have a case for describing the act as a 'massacre'. But there were other variables involved, not least the complete inadequacy of Japanese air-raid precautions; their failure to evacuate a sufficient number of people timeously; the over-concentration of people in the area of a military target, one that was little better than a tinder box. Horrible as it was, the fire boming of Tokyo, and the later atomic bombing of Hiroshima, was an act of war, not calculated murder; unless you consider all war to be murder. If so, then real problems of meaning and interpretation begin to emerge. But I suppose in the end, Sean, it come down to one thing: a million deaths is not a statistic; a million deaths is a million tragedies. Clio the Muse 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. In a single event? That's tough; the obvious cases of Nazi Germany are pretty bad, but they were more systemmatic and slow. I would say the Rwanda genocide ranks pretty far up there (400,000 in a few days), as well as the killings by Pol Pot, though I don't know how long they lasted in Cambodia. I would say it'd certainly have to be the 19th century or later, given lower population levels beforehand. The Evil Spartan 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DirkvdM asks me "Xn4, why is killing done by an army not murder? I don't see the difference."

Well, "killing done by an army" can be murder, but what I said was "...deaths which result from military action between countries at war are not murder". The point is that murder has an unambiguous meaning, it's unlawful killing. (Most religions also distinguish between murder and the killing which happens in war - see, for instance, Just War.) Murder is a serious criminal offence. Military forces can and do commit murder, whether during wartime or peacetime (for instance, the killing of prisoners is murder), and when that happens those responsible can and should be tried and punished by law. But when they are fighting for their country, the deaths the military cause have a quite different character from murder and are self-evidently not punishable as criminal offences, unless they have some special character which is contrary to international law. That should be no surprise: those who kill the enemy in battle are obeying lawful orders. Indeed, it used to be a common practice for armed forces to execute deserters. Xn4 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I take the points made by 24.147.86.187. I'm not sure that the Hague Convention of 1907 applies ("The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited"), as air defences appear to cancel its effect. It seems the Nuremberg Principles were promulgated on 8 August 1945, two days after Hiroshima and the day before Nagasaki, and the US was one of the four powers which signed them. Article VI (b) includes under war crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity", and Article VI (c) includes under crimes against humanity "inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations". The Nuremberg Principles weren't adopted by the UN's International Law Commission until 1950, but it does seem remarkable that the US was signing up to them the day before Nagasaki. Someone may know more about this? Xn4 06:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Shimoda Court cited the 1907 Hague Convention in its 1963 decision.—eric 07:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds really silly. Now you're saying that when a city is prepared for the eventuality that I will bomb them then that makes it ok for me to bomb them? DirkvdM 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone here says "that makes it ok". This is going off the point, which is whether, in August 1945, it was a war crime. Even if we agree that it should be, and should have been, that doesn't mean ipso facto that as a matter of fact it was. Xn4 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Xn4, now you shift the definition problem from 'murder' to 'legal'. Which doesn't change anything really. In other words, I'm saying it should be equally illegal to kill someone in wartime (unless that person is directly threatening you personally - which is not easy to delineate either, btw). Else, law is immoral. Note that this is not a legal but a moral discussion (or rather has turned into one). An extension of that is that sending someone out to kill others (under serious threat (for desertion)) is also murder. Extended even further, though, someone who voluntarily joins an army knows (or should be expected to know) that that can lead to be sent to war, so when that happens, it still counts as murder on his part. So then there are two guilty parts. "The killing of prisoners is murder" is a bit of a silly argument because the easy way out of that is not to take any prisoners and try to kill all your opponents in battle. Basically, you're saying that would be ok then, but I doubt you would agree to that. DirkvdM 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I referred you back to what I'd said before. You argue that "I'm saying it should be equally illegal to kill someone in wartime (unless that person is directly threatening you personally - which is not easy to delineate either, btw). Else, law is immoral". That's an arguable view, but the law is what it is, and declaring it to be immoral doesn't change it. Xn4 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Clio, if it is less ok to kill someone who is (h)armless then it is more ok to kill someone who is armed. To me that seems to imply that an armed person is doing something wrong, for they apparently deserve punishment - what else would you call killing them? Would you agree to that? If so, then organising huge numbers of people and giving them guns and training them to be as massively lethal as possible amounts to murder if that force is some day put to 'good' use.

I am fully aware that an alternative to an army is far from obvious and I have until a few years ago believed that it was a necessary evil. But I haven't stopped looking for alternatives. And a few years ago I thought of one. This came about when I was thinking about how ad hoc my uncle had to set up the Valkenburg resistance in WWII (btw, I wrote that article and there is a picture of my mother in it :) ). He knew nothing about fighting and more or less stumbled into it. What if one would train the entire population in fighting off an invasion? Only a small amount of arms is needed for training because an invading force would bring in the arms. So people need to be trained in taking those arms and then set up an organisation ad hoc, but based on some system of impromptu cooperation. Ie if someone undertakes some action, bystanders react in some way that turns it into a small uprising, in which not only the enemy are killed, but also more arms are gathered. Basically setting up a guerrilla. Note that I don't consider this murder because there is a sufficiently direct threat. At first, the enemy can overtake the country, but the resistance will gradually grow to make life so hard for them that there will be no gain for them. If this works then no army would want to invade and the country itself cannot invade another country, leading to world peace if everyone starts adopting the system because it saves them huge amounts of money.

Btw, shortly after, I learned that that is done to some extent in Cuba. But that doesn't teach us much until that force is put to the test (or was it in the Bay of Pigs invasion?). It would be a risky experiment, but if successful it would greatly benefit mankind. I should write this out in more detail in English somewhere on the Internet someday (I've got it on paper in Dutch, but it's several pages long). DirkvdM 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, Dirk, but you seem to be demonstrating quite a high degree of confusion here; or at least you give the apperance of tying yourself in all sorts of conceptual knots and simple contradictions: at one point seemingly advancing a position of absolute pacificism, at another justifying the need for self-defence. Anyway, on the basis of your question to me let's assume you are a pacifist. That's fine; I am a pacifist too-or at least I am up to the point where some aggressor comes knocking on my door! I believe in armies; I believe in soldiers, and I think it deeply wrong to define them, without distinction or qualification, as 'murderers.' A national army may not be necessary in a perfect world; but we do not live, nor will we ever live, in a perfect world. Yes, I think the men in grey who crossed the border of the Netherlands on 10 May 1940 were doing 'something wrong', as you so quaintly put it. You may have stood aside and welcomed them in, not a position, I imagine, favoured by most people in your country. I have long admired the Dutch for their simple heroism; for their courage in the long struggle for independence against Spain, and for their determination in maintaining that independence against the aggression of Louis XIV. If people had not taken the decision to kill armed men who were 'doing wrong' the Netherlands would not exist today. Defence is not 'punishment'; it is necessity. History defends those who defend themselves. Clio the Muse 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a pacifist where pacifism is due and aggressive where aggression is needed. In other words, I don't follow any teachings, just what logic and common sense seem to dictate. (This is a rather essential point for me in general - I don't follow any teachings! Many people can't grasp that.)

My principles here are quite simple: killing is murder unless done in self defence. If people come marching down your street carrying guns, then you have a right to kill them, unless they obviously don't mean to threaten you (military parade). Like you say; "I am a pacifist too-or at least I am up to the point where some aggressor comes knocking on my door." That's almost exactly what I say, except that I say there should be more than door-knocking - there should be a threat, but I assume that's what you mean too (English understatement?). Indeed we do not live in a perfect world, but that's precisely the dilemma I'm trying to find a solution for - not kill or prepare for it (army), but not letting yourself get killed too easily either. Once an army exists, it will be put to use, and likely every now and then by some bad leader somewere. In my idea, there is no army that could be used by a bad leader, but people aren't defenseless either - your last point. I wouldn't stand by as they march in - the idea is that everyone immediately starts some unplanned (and therefore unforeseeable by the invaders) uprisings, starting with capturing weapons and then gradually growing so large that the invaders are no longer in control of the country. It is essential that there are no weapons - the invaders have to bring them in.

I don't know how many snags there will be in my idea (there are bound to be some), but an added advantage is that no military coups are possible (there is no army) and if someone would somehow still take unjust control of the country (be it internal or external), people will have the power to overthrow this illegal government. Sounds ideal to me. I was hoping you or others could point out some of the snags.

Btw, no need to apologise for criticising me - I do it all the time (me and others). DirkvdM 07:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just watched a documentary that led to some questions in Dutch parliament about some form of preemptive resistance (to coin a phrase) in the Netherlands, just after WWII, as a reaction to the perceived 'red danger' (the USSR). This was a clandestine organisation of hundreds of civilians (preferably as 'ordinary' and therefore inconspicuous as possible). These were effectively secret agents (and presented in the documentary as such), except that they were sleepers, waiting for one specific thing to happen. The only ministers who ever knew about this organisation were the prime ministers and ministers of defense. People were contacted to join this organisation pretty much at random, based largely on their political views (which of course excluded communists, some of the best resistance fighters in WWII).

It fell under the vaguely named 'Section General Affairs' (Sectie Algemene Zaken), 'I' (for 'inlichtingen' or 'intelligence') and the more military 'O' ('operatieën' or 'operations'), the guerrilla section, so to say, the existence of which had always been denied by the government (food for conspirationists).

The 'sleepers' had some weapons at home, with which they had received just a few shooting lessons (horribly primitive, in other words), but there were also depots of arms dug in in forests and such. Disaster struck when one depot was emptied by top criminals, which had to be kept secret because of the nature of the whole affair. This was the largest arms robbery in Dutch history.

By the late eighties, the combined budget of O & I was 6 million guilders (about 2.5 million euro) per year. In 1992 the organisations were dissolved and many documents were destroyed (which is illegal) and the remaining documents are still state secret. However, in 1998, information leaked out that the organisation still exists and there also appears to exist a secret organisation named 'Quia Opportet' (Latin for 'just in case') that has funds, but is not registered at the chambre of commerce. When the documentary makers inquired about this they were told it's state secret until 2050.

This organisation(O&I) was coordinated by Max van der Stoel, the Dutch branch of Operation Gladio, the Italian branch of which was infiltrated by rightwing froups to discredit the left (how is not made clear). When this became known, the whole international organisation's cover was blown. Dutch prime minister Lubbers declared that such affairs would be unthinkable in the Netherlands.

That last bit is one of the scarier aspects. It's another case of too much power in the hands of too few people, a danger I regularly warn about, an argument I often use against a country having a president, but it also applies here.

The big differences with my idea are that it was secretive (I specifically want this to be out in the open), just a few hundred people (I'm thinking about the entire population) and they had a large arsenal of guns, not for practise, but to fight the invaders (as if they would have stood a chance). I want fewer arms and more training. That these arms were stolen points at a serious disadvantage. In my plan there wouldn't have been that many weapons and it would have been easier to keep them safe because it would all be above ground (literally). DirkvdM 07:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dirk wrote:

"Once an army exists, it will be put to use, and likely every now and then by some bad leader somewere. In my idea, there is no army that could be used by a bad leader, but people aren't defenseless either - your last point. I wouldn't stand by as they march in - the idea is that everyone immediately starts some unplanned (and therefore unforeseebale by the invaders) uprisings, starting with capturing weapons and then gradually growing so large that the invaders are no longer in control of the country. It is essential that there are no weapons - the invaders have to bring them in. I don't know how many snags there will be in my idea (there are bound to be some), but an added advantage is that no military coups are possible (there is no army) and if someone would somehow still take unjust control of the country (be it internal or external), people will have the power to overthrow this illegal government. Sounds ideal to me."

This is all hopelessly muddle-headed. If your plan for dealing with a foreign invasion is to let it happen and then respond by "unplanned (and therefore unforeseeable by the invaders) uprisings", then you are planning to begin by losing all your resources and to start to fight from a position of great weakness: the certain outcome is far more deaths than you can imagine. And to plan to be without military forces does not mean there will be "no military coups". The world is full of weapons, and also of people who know how to use them, and arms dealers can get weapons into almost anywhere, not least when there is no one to stop them. Abolish the police, and you get the reign of organized crime, plus gang warfare. Abolish formal armies under the control of governments, and you get anarchy on a grander scale - informal armies, fighting local undeclared wars, led and paid for by what used to be politely called warlords. Xn4 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked for the pointing out of snags, and you complied, for which I thank you (no irony - I want more input on the idea). But don't forget the reason for all this. Armies cost shitloads of money, that had better be used to increase the wealth of the nation. This gives one a serious advantage over others during peacetime, which I am assuming to be the normal state of affairs (see further down). On top of that, armies tend to lead to war, which hardly any party ever consistently profits from.

Also, note that they don't loose all their resources, because they didn't have any to start with (assuming you mean military resources). They take them from the enemy.

I didn't suggest abolishing the police. Whether they should be allowed to carry guns is an interesting point. Since I've never heard of a coup by the police force, I don't think there's too much of a risk there (I suppose handguns alone aren't enough). And trafficking guns isn't quite as easy as you suggest. At least the amounts needed to start a war. And what sort of war? By whom? Not by the people themselves unless they've got a very evil government, but as I said, that's actually an advantage. So unless that's the case, you'd have to import the fighters as well, in large numbers, and that is bound to get noticed. As for the warlords, who would that be? Organised crime? Well, we've got some of that already and I'm not suggesting a solution to that - it can be dealt with in the same way it is now, by the police. Maybe you're thinking about Iraq, and not having an army there (for internal reasons) seems like a bad idea indeed, because the police wouldn't be able to cope with that situation (also note, though, that that resulted from a situation in which both sides had a serious army). But I was thinking more about a stable western European country. Admittedly, that strongly suggest the idea will not spread that easily over the world, as I suggested. Sorry about that dream. :)

You also suggest there would be more deaths if the country gets invaded. Why would that be? On the invaders side perhaps, because a guerrilla army has a huge advantage - they decide where and when the battles are fought. There is of course the risk of retaliatory mass murders. But if that would amount to more deaths than in the case of all-out in-the-open warfare, I don't know. Wars usually result in extended fighting that kills a few percent, up to 10% even, of the population (retaliatory mass murders aren't usually that serious) or one side being quickly defeated by the other, in which case that other side might as well not have had an army in the first place. It would have made more sense for them to prepare for the guerrilla warfare that will almost inevitably result.

Note that I am thinking specifically about the situation of the Netherlands at the start of WWII (that's what started me thinking about this). We could have mobilised and tried to fight the Germans, but that would have cost more lives and we wouldn't have stood a chance. We hoped that the Germans would leave us alone, as in WWI, because trade is much more beneficial to both sides - typical Dutch thinking. Note that that was a much more risky policy than what I am suggesting. Basically, what I suggest is the way the Netherlands dealt with the two World Wars (neutrality, small army, no mobilisation), but with a better preparation for when that doesn't work. So the idea is firmly rooted in a real-life situation.

I'm not suggesting I've got all the answers and there will be problems, but the idea is that it would be better than what we have, most certainly in peacetime and possibly also in wartime. The alternative is all countries continuously trying to outdo each other in an arms race that can lead to some seriously dangerous situations, of which the Cuban missile crisis is an extreme example. DirkvdM 06:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the worst massacre should depend not on absolute numbers, but ought to be relative to the number of people living at the time. Killing a quarter of the world's population must be a pretty spectacular feat. By that logic, I would say Cain, history's first murderer, would also have to be the worst. 203.221.127.9 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I need DETAILED info on Édouard Lalo

I need in-depth information on the French composer Édouard Lalo. There is a Wikipedia article about him, but it and all other sources I have found on the internet and elsewhere give the same basic facts about him.

A source in French (or Spanish, or whatever) would be welcome as it would be worth the expense to get it translated. Of course English would be bettter. I don't necessarily need the actual information; just pointing me in the right direction would be fine. Extensive searches in university libraries and many hours online have not yielded results.Ormewood 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Huebner, Steven (1999), French Opera at the Fin de Siecle, Oxford:Oxford University Press, OCLC 40043694 has a short chapter on Lalo, and cites:
  • Lalo, Pierre (1947), De Rameau a Ravel, Paris: Albin Michel, OCLC 3160860 contains an essay on the author's father.
  • Lalo, Edouardo; Joël-Marie Fauquet ed. (1989), Correspondance, Paris:Aux amateurs de livres, OCLC 21268611.
• Ewen, David (1937), Composers of Yesterday: A Biographical and Critical Guide to the Most Important Composers of the Past, New York:The H.W. Wilson Co., OCLC 851554 has a short biographical sketch and points to:
  • Seré, Octave (1911), Musiciens français d'aujourd'hui, Paris:Mercure de France, OCLC 69102235.
  • (March 1923), La Revue Musicale, 4:97 was dedicated to Lalo, has a full list of works and bibliography.
• Norman, Gertrude ed.; Miriam Shrifte Lubell (1946), Letters of Composers: An Anthology, 1603-1945, New York:A.A. Knopf, OCLC 911392 contains two translated letters to Pablo de Sarasate October 28, 1878 and November 21, 1878.

Also this worldcat search turns up few others.—eric 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Paupers graves in New York, 1950s

I was watching the film Pickup on South Street (1953) and one scene shows the (anti)hero stopping a boat at sea with several coffins on deck, and he retrieves one of them for a better burial. Did this mean that paupers i.e. the poor were buried at sea in 1950s New York? 80.0.135.165 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Coffins stashed on deck simply for faster narrative pace, right? Not for accurate portrayal of coffin transport. The New York City Cemetery, located on Hart Island, the Bronx, in Long Island Sound, serves for paupers' burials. Paupers have never been buried at sea. --Wetman 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless they died at sea, of course, and I guess that isn't suggested in Pickup on South Street. Xn4 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary Presidential Elections

Are the Party Representatives for the Presidential Elections choosen by the voters or by their specified policital party only?24.216.120.113 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Presidential candidates are selected at the National Conventions of each party before the elections. At the conventions, delegates of each state party vote for a potential candidate. The way the delegates for each state will vote is decided either by the state Caucus or by a primary election. FiggyBee 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Original questioner, are you asking about electors of the Electoral College? If so, then, yes, the party whose candidate won the general presidential election in a particular state chooses the electors. Corvus cornix 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What happens is that each state votes in the primary system to send delegates to the national convention. However, unlike the main presidential campaign, those delegates are not strictly bound to their state's vote; so if one candidate drops out, then some of the delegates could vote for another candidate, which really throws the whole system up in the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil Spartan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Some states do require electors to vote for the candidate who won the state's electoral votes, both most states have no such law. Corvus cornix 18:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the secret behind the success of American agriculture?

What is the secret behind the success of American agriculture? How is 1% of the population able to feed the entire nation and export? What technologies and economic organizations make American farms so efficient? Why is the technology and org so complex that it has been unable to be adapted to conditions in Latin America and East Asia? To what extent to other parts of the 1st world also use these advanced techniques?--Gary123 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Green Revolution; Factory farming. FiggyBee 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry you need to do your own homework. What's the course? --Fredrick day 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My "homework assignment" is to fix my nation's economy. Ive got to industrialize La Republica and El General will have mi cabeza if I dont fix our nation's farming problems by manana.--Gary123 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

American agricultural success started long before the green revolution or factory farming. American farmers got to start from scratch, and therefore had a lot of land an not enough farm hands to work it. They therefore had a very strong incentive to use machinery. This is still true today: even a small American farm has a lot of capital equipment. -Arch dude 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"a lot of land an not enough farm hands to work it" - except for all the millions of slaves... EamonnPKeane 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. labor has been more expensive than labor in most other countries for much of its history. Therefore, capital investment in agriculture to boost productivity brought strong increases in the profit margin. U.S. agriculture is extremely capital-intensive. Because labor is cheaper in Latin America and East Asia, particularly farm labor, expensive capital equipment often cannot pay for itself. (That is, it is cheaper to continue to hire labor than to purchase the capital equipment.) Consequently, productivity is lower in those places.

Countries that have an agricultural capital intensivity similar to that of the United States include Canada and Australia. Although agricultural labor is as expensive, or more so, than in the United States in much of western Europe, agriculture in western Europe is somewhat less capital-intensive and therefore less productive per unit labor because median farm sizes are so much smaller. A piece of capital equipment that is economical on a 500-acre (200 ha) U.S. farm may not be economical on a 50-acre (20 ha) French farm. Marco polo 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the efficiency is due to enormous (and expensive) public infrastructure spending over time (including private infrastructure, like railroads, which have often received massive amounts of public money). The result is a relatively high-density of transportation options including highways, river-barge shipping channels, railroads, and so on. This helps make it possible for what would otherwise be isolated farms to market goods at competitive rates in distant markets. On the other side of the equation, infrastructure that supplies water, for example, makes it possible to intensively farm lands that would otherwise produce lower yields at greater risk. The Central Valley of California, much of Eastern Washington and Southern Idaho come to mind as argiculturally rich areas that depend on huge amounts of water-supply infrastructure built, at great expense, by federal and state governments.

In other words, I think a good part of the "secret" behind the success of American agriculture is "spending massive amounts of money". Pfly 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, money makes money. (Although to Europeans the public investment in infrastructure in the US is rather pathetic. I suppose we spent out money somewhat differently.) And poverty perpetuates itself. If a poor country had the machinery to replace humans (and those humans would find employment elsewhere - a social complication) then productivity would go up, the country would become richer, labour cost would go up and there would finally be the incentive to actually buy the machinery. But the money and high labour cost aren't there, so the process isn't 'jump-started' (if that is the right word). It isn't specifically agriculture. It's about who had the first headstart. Europe started inventing the machinery (I'm talking about several hundred years ago), but, as Arch Dude pointed out, that was the result of being rich and that was caused partly by colonialism. But that in turn was caused by having the ships, which was the first richness generating machinery. And that, I suppose, had to do with Europe having a relatively long shoreline. Great civilisations usually arise where you get that (think of the Mediterranean, although China doesn't seem to fit the bill).

In at least some countries (Peru is often mentioned), part of the problem is that the farmers don't have clear title to their land and so cannot borrow against it to raise capital. —Tamfang 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in short, US agriculture is so efficient thanks to the European background. Note that various European countries and the US moved in rather different economic directions, yet the differences in wealth are negligible compared to poor countries. It's not the method, it's having the money to start with. It takes a very stupid government to not make more and more money out of that. Such as the Tsars in Russia. Only after they had been disposed of and their wealth put to good use could the economy take off. Contrary to what many think, the early USSR was an economic miracle (a tiger, we would say these days). Only after they started somewhat approaching western Europe's wealth did the still not so good government structure (five year plans, rigid structures and such) start to get in the way. But I deviate. DirkvdM 07:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• One last thing -- America is huge and almost entirely in the temperate zone. It is almost impossible to overstate how important both of these things are. We have so much arable land that we need only tend to the very best soils. In America's early years, farmers toiled endlessly trying to turn New England into a breadbasket; when the Midwest opened up for settling in the mid-1800s, the New England farms were abandoned and have largely turned into forest again. Comparative advantage, pure and simple. Unless climate change or new technologies change things (and don't get me wrong, they almost certainly will), places like Siberia or Central Africa simply will never be able to compete with that rich Iowa soil. --M@rēino 20:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hero or villain?

Thomas Becket has figured in polls for the best and the worst Britons. Which is it? Judithspencer 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

These polls are a measure of the opinions of the people who can be bothered to vote. They also depend on enough people having heard of the person and having an opinion. Presumably the people who voted him into the "best" category were not the same ones who voted him into the "worst" category. So, how do we measure whether somebody is "good" or "bad", and then, whether they are "good Briton" or a "bad Briton". If the criterion is that it depends on people's opinions, then clearly he fits in both categories. If you think that there is any possible objective measure, then maybe you could suggest what it may be? SaundersW 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has a paragraph near the end which explains why one historian selected him as a "worst". FiggyBee 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the question Hero or villain? I'll say it's possible to be both. Although Becket was born in England, he probably saw himself as a Norman rather than a Briton. Apart from that, there's clearly an arguable case for Becket's nomination as 'worst Briton of the 12th century', though it seems to me he'd have a strong field to beat. I suppose most nominations in the 'best Briton' category would be based on his development in the public consciousness since his death, especially in the unlikely role of saint. :Xn4 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your point of view. As chancellor, he wasn't terribly good (if I remember correctly), as a Christian, he was good, and as a Briton, I don't know. (Read a biography and decide for yourself). · AndonicO ^Talk 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It really depends where you are coming from, I suppose. As Xn4 suggests, he might very well be both: a hero for the church and a villain for the state. Henry VIII took the latter view, as one might expect, ordering the destruction of Becket's shrine at Canterbury in 1538. But there were also fellow churchmen who were equally critical of Becket's conduct, including his brother arch-bishop of York. Gilbert Foliot, the Bishop of London, another of Becket's enemies, was even to write after his death, when the cult of the martyr was gathering momentum, "It is difficult for things begun with bad beginnings to be carried through to a good conclusion."

Anyway, I know of the two polls you mention, Judith; the first in the Daily Mail, where he was reckoned to be among history's one hundred greatest Britons, and the second in the BBC History Magazine, where he was runner-up to Jack the Ripper among the ten worst! I find it difficult to determie just exactly who responds to this kind of thing, and if the selections made reflect any real knowledge of the subject. Becket is one of those iconic figures that, I suspect, people feel ought to appear on a list of greats, which I imagine was the basis for his inclusion among the Daily Mail worthies.

In fact Becket, his terrible end notwithstanding, was far from the saintly figure that many people may imagine. His dispute with Henry II was not over any great matter of theology or Christian principle, but about law, about politics and, above all about privilege. Henry wanted priests and clerics to be subject to the general law of England; Becket insisted that they should continue to appear only before church courts, in every way far more lenient than their secular equivalent. Even clerics accused of the very worst crimes, including rape and murder, were merely defrocked. It was an anomaly that Henry wanted to end with the Constitutions of Clarendon. Becket agreed to the changes, but then refused to sign, subsquently taking a path beyond compromise; a political path, and a treasonable path, that even frustrated Pope Alexander III. His cause was certainly damaging for the state; but it was also, according to Folet and others, damaging for the church. Arrogant, proud, high-handed, and vindictive, he seems to have none of the qualities of simplicity and benevolence that make for true saintliness, the hair-shirt and the lice notwithstanding. Best or worst? Well, on that particular question you will just have to make up your own mind! Clio the Muse 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New driving laws

I am interested in finding legislature that will enact laws prohibitting any drivers 16 or under from transporting more than one passenger. Any onfo greatly appreciated. --Jjohn10e 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you told us what part of the world you're interested in. FiggyBee 22:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for laws in the U.S.--Jjohn10e 01:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Any particular states? A lot seem to be introducing such limits on drivers under 18. FiggyBee 04:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As the legal driving age in the U.S. is 16, I don't think you'll find many drivers that are under 16 unless they have a hardship license or some such thing. Or they are driving under their learner's permit in which case they are required to have a parent or guardian riding with them at all times. Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said under 18. ;) FiggyBee 05:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The legal driving age in the U.S. is not 16. Rather driver's licences are issued by individual states whose age limits range "from 14 years 3 months to 18 years." (from our article [[1]]). Rmhermen 14:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was adressing the OP. Dismas|^(talk) 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The question makes sense. Even though a driver under 16 would presumably have only a learner's permit, which requires him to have a licensed driver in the vehicle, this in itself says nothing about how many other passengers could be transported. Unfortunately, I don't know if any laws have been passed on this issue. I think my home state had a limit on the number, but it wasn't one. GreatManTheory 11:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many laws & proposals in various countries that are designed to reduce the number of accidents younger drivers are involved in and their severity. Generally they apply to age ranges of drivers or are based on how many years they have been driving. Some of them are off the top of my head (by no means exhaustive):-

• Driving Curfews - Studies have shown that driving later at night is associated with higher accident rates
• Limitations on Passengers - Studies have shown that younger drivers drive more recklessly with passengers (especially from their peer group) than when alone. (This and the previous condition are sometimes combined - no passengers after 9pm for instance)
• Power Limitations - Younger drivers may be limited to a certain size of engine or power output or power to weight ratio for their vehicle.
• Size Limitations - They may not be permitted to drive larger heavier vehicles due to the more serious consequences these can cause to other road users in accidents.
• Visible Warnings - They may be required to have plates warning other road users they are recently qualified.
• More Stringent Legal Consequences - They may have less leeway in terms of the number of violations they may accumulate before license suspension/revocation than older/more experienced drivers.
• Stricter Alchohol Limits - They may have a much lower Blood Alcohol limit to discourage drink-driving, or even have an effective "zero limit".

The exact mechanisms will vary depending on the location, age and experience of the driver in quesiton. Exxolon 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Graduated driver licensing should cover this but is only a stub. Rmhermen 14:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't answer about US. But in New Zealand if you have a restricted license you can't drive between 10pm and 5am; you also can't carry any passengers (except for children or a spouse or similar); and if you qualified with an automatic transmission car, you can't drive a manual. However if you have a supervisor (someone with a full license for 2 years or more) who sits in the front passenger seat of the car then you can do all of these (the same as for a learner). To go from a restricted license to a full license you need to pass a more detailed test. You need to have been driving for 18 months if you're under 25 or 6 months if 25 or older before you can take the test. (You can reduce this to 12 months or 3 months respectively if you pass a defensive driving course). Also if your under 20 regardless of what license you hold you have a very low alcohol limit (said to be effectively zero since even one drink will put you over the limit). In Malaysia, for the first 2 years after qualifying, you get a provisional license. This requires you to drive with P identification plates and has more strigent consequences for infrigiments and possibly different alcohol limits but I don't think there are any other requirements. You can automatically apply for a normal/full license after 2 years with no more testing (so it's quite common for people to get a license regardless of whether they're likely to be doing any driving) Nil Einne 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Floating a note (singing, not monetary)

Most of my experience with the operatic soprano is through recordings. During the 1970's and 80's I was very interested in technique and beauty. I was told that when I heard a disembodied note sung by Caballé, that she was "floating" the note. Of course, we were listening to two-channel (stereo) recordings. The dimensions were limited to a field spread between the channels with some front to back depth. In the right set-up and cartridge, one might get a feel of space above the head. I was fortunate to hear Dame Joan Sutherland sing "Lucia di Lammermoor" during her final MET engagement. I sat in the orchestra, possibly row M center, and heard a most unusual phenomenon of the vocal art in the "mad scene" when a high note seemed to eminate not from the stage but high up and behind me. This must have been the true "floated" note which is not captured on recordings. How is this note produced? In the Sutherland recording of Turandot with Caballé singing Liu, does Caballé float a note or is it just pianissimo? How many discrete channels would be required to capture this phenomenon in a recording?LShecut2nd 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Aren't there any voice coaches or opera singers out there?LShecut2nd 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

September 17

Longest Serving Democratically Elected Leader?

I asked this same question on this page a few years back without success but as everyone here seems to be far more intelligent (and no doubt better looking) than the people who were around then that I thought I would try again...

Sir Thomas Playford GCMG is referred to as having "the longest term of any democratically elected leader in the history of the Commonwealth of Nations" (26 years, 125 days). Can anyone tell me who outside the Commonwealth has served as a democratically elected leader (federal/state/territory etc.) for longer? Roisterer 06:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Byrd is the longest-serving US Senator in history (49 years next January). I doubt that's the longest in history, though. Just by odds, there are so many more elected leaders at the local level, so it's more likely to be someone there. --Sean 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Byrd would qualify as a leader though, since he's not a governor or president. A close contender is Urho Kekkonen, who was president of Finland from March 1st, 1956 to January 27, 1982, or 25 years, 10 months and 26 days. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. I misunderstood the question. --Sean 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To a degree, popes are elected democratically as well. This would make Pope Pius IX, who reigned from 1846 to 1878 (31 years, 7 months and 23 days) a candidate for this title. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

reductio ad absurdum: the answer that makes nonsense of the question. --Wetman 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tage Fritiof Erlander for "longest serving Prime Minister of any western democracy."—eric 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on Alberto João Jardim says he's been president of the Madeira region of Portugal since 1978. -- Mwalcoff 23:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If we count Popes, then Holy Roman Emperors were also elected in a small way, which gives us Frederick Barbarossa (35 years), Frederick II (39 years), Frederick III (41 years), Rudolf II (36 years), and Leopold I (47 years). Xn4 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What does one call a democracy by an unelected electorate? (Or could 'everyone' vote in those elections? I doubt it and the article doesn't say). Does this open the way to counting Fidel Castro as well? DirkvdM 07:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And are there any places where all adults, without exception, are entitled to vote? If this were the definition of "democracry", most places would not qualify, as they deny the vote to some or all prisoners. -- JackofOz 14:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

George Orwell: "It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning." Xn4 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I put 'everyone' between quotes because indeed in no democracy everyone can vote. This starts with the age limit. What should that be? One solution would be to really allow everyone to vote, irrespective of age (hell, they don't even need to be born yet), but make no big deal of it if they don't, as will be the case with toddlers. if they can't operate the voting mechanism (be it pencil or computer) then they can't vote. The beauty of this is that it is simple. And for those few who some might consider unfit to vote, such as prisoners (why on Earth should they not be allowed to vote?) or retarded people, will form such a small minority that it really doesn't matter that much. After all, we let really stupid people vote too, don't we? And I mean stupid in an objective sense, like with an IQ of around 70 or so. If it isn't clear where one should put the limit, then let there be no limit. The great strength of democracy lies not in that the right people will get elected, but in that the wrong people will not get too much power. For which reason a country should not have a president (a single person with too much power), but that's a different issue. DirkvdM 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think we have to discount popes, Holy Roman Emperors, and dictators such as Castro. All have been elected, but none have been democratically elected. For popes and emperors, suffrage is restricted to only a handful, who themselves did not attain their right to vote by democratic means. For dictators, the elections are usually ego-boosters or terror tactics, in which a vote against the leader could well be grounds for arrest. --M@rēino 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Urho Kekkonen served as a MP years 1936-1956 and as a president of Finland years 1956-1982. Impressive 46 years and 26 of those as a president. TuoppiP 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal case results citation

I came across the article for Colleen Shannon which says that she was involved in a legal battle over her high school yearbook photo when it got published in Playboy. I've been able to find a lot of links to articles about the case written before the decision of the court was made but not one link explaining how the case was settled. Does anyone know how I might find such info? Dismas|^(talk) 08:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is she involved? The article says that the yearbook photo company is suing Playboy... AnonMoos 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In one of the articles that I read it was said she was named as one of the defendants since she gave the photo to Playboy. Dismas|^(talk) 10:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the specific article. They credit the Sacremento Bee as their source. Dismas|^(talk) 10:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you try sending an email request directly to Mr. Rhodes? You do have his address. Just ask for any publicly-available non-privileged information relating to the disposition of this case. dr.ef.tymac 06:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Beard-stroking to express disbelief?

This may just be an British/English thing (or even a Northern English thing) - but does anyone know where the gesture of stroking one's beard (or chin, in absence of a beard) from back to front to express disbelief at, and mock another person's tall tale/apparent blatant lie originates? It's often accompanied by saying "beard, beard, beard", "chin, chin, chin" or "goat, goat, goat" in a bleating, sheeplike voice (yes, male goats do have beards - but I don't know how it ties in with this). It can actually be taken as a very serious insult, especially amongst the drunk. Any ideas? --Kurt Shaped Box 14:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly OR, but I thought it dates back to a 70s playground taunt, referring to TV football pundit Jimmy Hill, who has a very peculiar chin (and, from time to time, goatee beard). I think the implication was that Hill talked rubbish. There were many variations, often preceeded by "ooh", such as "ooh Jimmy". I think the specific reference to Hill dropped off way before he disappeared from TV screens, which makes me wonder if the Hill reference was the application of his name to a fad that predates my memory! --Dweller 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I see there's even a reference to this at Jimmy_Hill#Image. --Dweller 22:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Midlands in the 70s and 80s it was the length and itchiness of the beard which denoted the lie. Ranging from 'Itchy beard!' with accompanying gesture of somebody scratching a small goatee for a small fib, to a mime of a beard suddenly growing to floor length and efforts to claw one's lower face off for an outright whopper. It beard growth seemed to echo Pinocchio's nose growth, but I'm baffled as to the rest of it. 194.75.128.200 10:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

religious recognition at the UN

Which religions are recognised in the United Nations & on what parameters are they given this recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.51.226 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any religions are "recognized" as religions (whatever that would mean), but some religious organizations have been given NGO accreditation, and various UN bodies have endorsed documents such as the "Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities" and the resolution on Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance... -- AnonMoos 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that while the Vatican has observer status at the UN, it's not recognition of Catholicism, but rather the fact that Vatican City is a sovereign nation. Donald Hosek 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not being a nitpicker, but that's not quite how it is, I think. It's not the Vatican City state that has UN observer status, but the Holy See. The two are obviously closely connected, but they are still distinct entities. The Holy See is the oldest continuously operating diplomatic service in the world, going at least as far back as AD 325, 16 centuries before there was any such thing as an internationally recognised sovereign nation run by the Roman Catholic Church (1929). But I certainly agree that this still doesn't amount to UN "recognition" of Roman Catholicism, any more than the UN membership of the Islamic Republics of Iran, Mauritania or Pakistan amounts to "recognition" of Islam. -- JackofOz 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

religious organizations

which religious organizations have been given accreditation/status/recognition in the UN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.36.103 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The UN doesn't give "accreditation, status or recognition" to religious organisations, or any other organisations. The Holy See, for various historical reasons, is recognised as a non-member State. A number of other organisations and entities are United Nations General Assembly observers. This is oddly similar to the question #religious recognition at the UN further up the page - are you the same questioner? FiggyBee 16:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, apparently the UN accredits NGOs for participation in particular events, or for "working relations" with particular departments in the UN. I imagine the complete list of every organisation which has ever recieved such accreditation is very long. Needless to say, such accreditation shouldn't be seen as an endorsement by the UN of particular views of any particular organisation, which seems to be what you're driving at. FiggyBee 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Suicide in Sweden

Where can I find the hard data on the suicide count in Sweden 1980-today, all age groups? Somewhere at the Swedish Statistics Bureau, perhaps? Punkmorten 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The English-language version of their website is here [2] DuncanHill 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From memory, the suicide rate gets higher as you get up to the Arctic Circle - the polar night, the flip side of the midnight sun, is a killer. Xn4 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the myth that Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world is just that, a myth. As I recall, the title belongs to Lithuania. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't seem to find my way through their website. Help Punkmorten 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

driver license suspension in Arkansas and Texas

If I get a Texas Driver's Licenses knowing my Arkansas Drivers licnese is going to be suspended (but I get the TX license before the supsension), can/will Arkansas be able to suspend my Texas Driver's license? XM 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer - We do not give legal advice - consult a lawyer! However something called the Driver License Compact would suggest that it wouldn't help - see the article for more details. Exxolon 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You can pretty much assume that your license will get suspended. And when the next time the highway patrol decides to persecute you for speeding while atheist, and you're up against a judge, things will not look good for your driving on a suspended license charge. You broke the law, now it's time to face the penalty for doing so. Donald Hosek 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

?Speeding while atheist? What are you referring to? There's nothing about this in the question. Exxolon 00:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 11#Another goddamn speeding ticket, since which XM has made several requests for advice in beating the ticket. —Tamfang 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Man that's a lot to read through but thanks for the heads up. Right XM read the following :-

The following points are assigned for speeding and speed related offenses (In Arkansas):

• Racing on the highway-8 points;
• reckless driving-8 points;
• careless (or negligent) driving-3 points;
• hazardous driving-3points;
• driving less than the minimum speed limit-3 points;
• impeding traffic-3 points;
• driving too fast for conditions-3 points;
• speeding 0 to 10MPH over the limit-3 points;
• speeding 11 to 14 MPH over the limit-4 points;
• speeding 15 to 20 MPH over the limit-4 points;
• speeding 21 to 30MPH over the limit-5 points;
• speeding ≥30 MPH over the limit-8 points;
• speeding 0 to 14 MPH over the limit in a commercial motor vehicle-3 points;
• speeding ≥15 MPH over the limit in a commercial motor vehicle-6 points;
• unsafe driving-3 points;
• and, other violations-3 points

Source - [3]

And the following thresholds/consequences :-

• Warning Letter―10-13 Points
• Three Month Suspension―14-17 Points
• Six Month Suspension―18-23 Points
• One Year Suspension―24 or More Points

(Source http://www.***.org/ar-arkansas/point-system.php replace *** with dmv - blacklisted link for some reason)

Ergo - either you already had points on your license sufficient that a further speeding violation would result in you exceeding 13 points - in which case you're an idiot for speeding under those circumstances. OR your driving was so atrocious that you managed to commit sufficient offences to gain 14 or more points for a single incident - in which case the roads are safer without you on them. Try taking responsibility for your actions rather than attempting to wriggle out through some legal loophole. Exxolon 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) You are never going to beat ths ticket..hotclaws 13:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think from memory it sounded like XM has received lots of speeding tickets in the past so I would suspect it's probably the former. Edit: Actually after going through the history I remember now. XM's license suspension may have had something to do with the fact he missed his hearing date, supposedly because they sent the notification to the wrong address. He was asking for help on how to deal with this and has previously asked about out of state licenses. I don't quite understand the hearing date bit since XM seemed to know his hearing date previously and on August 14th he said he had 6 hours before his hearing. Nil Einne 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Aug 14th was for a seperate speeding ticket. My driver control hearing was sometime before that. Now, I have an additonal ticket. But am trying to move to another state to avoid suspension. XM 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a wild, unconventional suggestion: Stop speeding and you'll beat them hollow!!203.21.40.253 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Roman Mythology during the Renaissance

I need some help finding information about roman mythology during the renaissance in Italy. I cannot get a straight answer anywhere. I need to find at least two articles. I need to have this information in two days. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.39.182 (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, 71.251, I'm not at all surpised that you cannot get a 'straight answer anywhere' for the simple reason that your question is so imprecise. Are you interested in what Renaissance scholars thought of Roman beliefs, or if texts recounting old Roman tales were in circulation? Or is it the uses of classical themes in Renaissance art that you wish to focus on? If the latter, you might consider the work of Sandro Botticelli as a good example of an artist who made use of classical subjects in paintings like Birth of Venus, Primavera and Venus and Mars. But I really do not intend to proceed any further in case I am wasting my time and yours. Clio the Muse 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So name the tribes that the haitians came from as slaves?

If the countries did not exist, What kind of region from west africa did they come from? show me a map or something? what was the slave coast and the gold coast?--arab 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

see Slave Coast, Gold Coast (region) —Tamfang 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Also, you should be aware that for 99% of Haitians (or anyone who traces his lineage back to slaves) it will be impossible to determine beyond a reasonable doubt what particular tribes that person descends from. The records simply were not kept at the time, and the descendants intermarried almost universally, making most genetic testing fruitless (at least with today's technology). --M@rēino 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

September 18

War of 1904

What did Japanese people think of war with Russia?K Limura 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• See Russo-Japanese_war#Assessment_of_war_results - bottom line is they were unhappy with the treaty terms. Exxolon 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Exxolon. Sorry i put question badly. I meant Japanese ordinary public.K Limura 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• That section does contain some information about the people's responses. There are references to riots for a start - have a good read through! Exxolon 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, K, let's see now. To begin with it might interest you to know that Japanese success in the war against Russia created a set of preconceptions among the western powers, preconceptions that were to last well into the century: that the Japanese were a martial people, the Prussians of the east, fed from birth on the code of Bushido; a nation whose soldiers cared nothing for self-preservation, whose people sacrificed all for the emperor and the greater good. But the Japanese are as varied as people anywhere else, and the stresses and strains of the war produced a whole mixture of reactions. Among other things, there were complaints in the press about the lack of patriotism and the 'degeneracy' of modern youth. Consider this gem from September 1905;

"Recently male students have taken to wearing perfume and cosmetics and acting in a listless manner. Female students, by contrast, swagger about the city in tight-sleeved dresses, radiating energy. In a world where the loser [Russia] defeats the victor [Japan] in peace talks, one almost expects leaves to sink and rocks to float."

During the conflict itself there was a general mood of patriotism, and people did support the troops, though enthusiasm began to wane somewhat as the conflict was dragged out, and demands for contributions of money and goods got ever more irkesome. Organisations like the Patriotic Women's Association, set up to look after the families of those lost in action, were criticised for snobbery and class prejudice, attending to the dependants of officers but not men.

Government policy was also the subject of criticism. At first people were told to cut back on luxuries, like drinking and smoking. But by the close of 1904, as the financial pressures of the war mounted, a tax was placed on sake and tobacco, and a new emphasis placed upon consumption. This met with some ironic comment in the press, "Half a year ago, we were told, 'Think of the national emeergency! Don't drink! Don't smoke!' Now, tobacco is a state monopoly and sake taxes go into the war effort. Now we are told, 'Think of the emergency! Drink and smoke your fill!' It would seem that smokers and drinkers are becoming true patriots!"

As always, and as everywhere, there was a growing gap between the official optimism and practical realism, especially when campaigns dragged on longer than expected. The mounting casualties in the battle for Port Arthur was also a cause of growing cynicism and war-weariness. By the time it was captured, after several hard months of combat, a new phrase had come into popular use, expressing a mood of disbelief, "The cheque is in the post and Port Arthur is about to fall." Even after the most heartening victories, like that of Tsushima in May 1905, other considerations sometimes outweighed feelings of patriotism. In the city of Gifu, for example, an entire ward refused to celebrate because of concerns over the mayor's use of war donations. In the end, despite all of their efforts and sacrifices, many people felt that they had won a war only to lose a peace. Clio the Muse 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Iwakura mission

What did Japanese learn from Iwakura mission of 1872?K Limura 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• See Iwakura_mission and check the references/external links for more detail. Please use the search box to find articles too! Exxolon 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For a moment there I thought you meant the Itokawa mission – shows you where my head is at! —Tamfang 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One very useful lesson in realpolitik was delivered to the Japanese ambassadors by Bismarck, when they dined with him in Berlin in March 1873. He told them that Japan must rely on its own efforts in maintaining its independence against the hungry imperial powers, like England and France, not on international law and diplomacy. The main conclusion they took back to Japan after their prolonged tour was that defence came only through strength; that strength came only through economic power; that economic power only came with modernisation. The path taken, though, was to be uniquely Japanese. Clio the Muse 02:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Justice Today

Is justice today actually just? 76.198.94.201 01:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I shrink from responding to such a vague question. But I will say that one could find many examples of both just and unjust outcomes in today's world, exactly as has always been the case since time immemorial and will always be the case forever. We could give you a better answer if you gave us more information about where you're referring to and what sorts of justice you'd like to know about. -- JackofOz 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That question is so broad it's almost impossible to answer. Which justice system? USA? UK? Sharia? In what context? For the criminal? The victim? Society? It can be argued that the goal of any justice system is to acheive justice as well as how far apart the ideal and the realities are. Exxolon 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A short answer to a short question: "Most justice is imperfect". In someone's wise words (I forget where this is from) "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under railway bridges and beg in the streets." And (wandering off your question) you might like this little verse, attributed to Lord Justice Bowen:

The rain it raineth on the just

And also on the unjust fella;

But chiefly on the just,

Because the unjust steals the just's umbrella.

Xn4 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an excellent article last week's Spectator (London, 13 September) on this very subject, 76.198, though it is addressed specifically to the inadequacies of the British system of justice. Anyway, the author, Leo McKinstry, takes his cue from the old Hollywood clasic, Twelve Angry Men. He sees this as a significant step in the advance of the 'bleeding hearts', a move along a road that would see the state lose confidence in its ability to enforce the law. This is how he concludes;

The Fonda hero is meant to be the champion of individual liberty against the scourge of McCarthyite bullying. But towards the end of film he turns into a bully himself, demanding total adherence to his viewpoint. He refuses to accept that some other jurors can still think the teenager is guilty. His conduct can almost be seen as a metaphor for the modern liberal takeover of our justice system. Common sense about crime, like locking up offenders, has to be denied. The protective institutions, which once saw themselves as the guardians of the public, have to be brainwashed into thinking differently. Anything that smacks of robustness had to be smeared as sadistic or reactionary.

The Fonda position is regarded as the height of compassion, but it is nothing of the sort. By letting the guilty walk free and crimes go unpunished, liberal campaigners have inflicted misery on the genuinely innocent. It is one of the bizarre paradoxes of modern liberalism that those who trumpet their concern for the vulnerable should actually be such noisy supporters of criminals, the nastiest and most aggressive people in our society. The acquittal of O.J. Simpson was the perfect example of the doctrine espoused by Twelve Angry Men, with someone who looked like an obvious killer found not guilty because of whispers about racism and a catalogue of spurious challenges over hard evidence. Barry Shreck and Johnny Cochrane, Simpson’s ruthless and cynical lawyers, were the real-life incarnation of Henry Fonda’s architect. Here in Britain the same process is at work. As violent crime soars, and thugs laugh at the justice system, we are all paying the price for Fonda’s morally inverted liberation. Clio the Muse 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

earley cars engines compared to curent egines

how wher early car engine difrent than car engines from today like did they not use internal com. engines did they not have as meny pistons thanks i am a car fanatic woo hoo =P--Sivad4991 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This question would be better served on the science desk. See Automobile - it has a history section and details on all the fuels and technologies used. Also see Internal combustion engine for an overview of it's history

{comment removed per WP:BITE) byEdison 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)).

Exxolon 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You understood what they were asking though, yes? Maybe English isn't their primary language. Dismas|^(talk) 03:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

i read both automobile and internal comustion pages but i didnt find wat i was looking for i want to know how hey compare andcan any 1 find a picture of a old car engine thanks every 1 --76.235.177.136 21:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

More on female editors

Hi.I asked a question not so long ago about female editors. Thanks to all who responded. But I really just wanted to know how many females there are here on the reference desk. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnie X (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And what are they wearing? —Tamfang 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Try putting that the other way around ("I really just wanted to know how many males there are here on the reference desk"), and the penny might drop, Barnie. Xn4 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnie, one of the great delights of the online world is that one can reveal as much or as little of one's personal life as one wishes. You will have noticed how few people wanted to answer your previous question. That is because they don't want you to know, and it is their absolute right to keep that private. All you need know is what comes through the quality of their replies. Male/female, young/old, rich/poor, we are all equal here until we make ourselves unequal through demonstrating our wisdom or otherwise. SaundersW 08:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way to answer this one is to go to the talk page and take a survey, probably asking people to take part. Also, how do you define who being at the reference desk? For example, haven't seen you, Barnie, here before... maybe if this is only your second posting, do we count you? What about someone who stopped using it last month? Although maybe the other explanation for people not telling us is not just about privacy, they simply thought the given answers were enough.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 11:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do Martians have male and female? Or are you asexual? Or even hermaphrodite? We should know - you'll mess up the statistics. --Dweller 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Corvus cornix 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, kind alien, Dweller. Since first contact, our scientists have been trying to connect the earth concept which you call "gender" to Martian anatomy. So far, we believe that the martian idea of "성ج本ن%олό$일본σμ£日ια", approximately pronounced "phanthree78blojMNVBX", could equate to the human concept, but this is yet to be confirmed. If true, it would mean that we have between five and twelve genders, depending on ethnic group. Normally, 43-68% of these genders must be present to permit procreation, although if one is lacking, it may be replaced by 2 of another gender. I am sure such kind hosts as yourselves would be prepared to accomodate me in your statistics.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If two replace one, wouldn't that give a higher percentage than required? how does that work? :) Wrad 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If we really must discuss the sexuality of my species, can we please not do it here in full view? I understand that even in human culture it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss sexuality in public.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignore lostinspace, he's lying. Martians have 3 sexes. Males, females and asexuals. Asexuals rear the young, females hunt, males look after the females. lostinspace is an asexual. Cheers Nil Einne 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a non-martian (I assume) would know?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought Martians were all men! Speaking as a citizen of Venus, of course. Clio the Muse 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a sweet Venetian. Barnie X 06:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Errr... Barnie, Venetian describes someone from Venice, Italy. As romantic as Clio may be (considering the topic), I think you're looking for Venusian. Slight difference.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 08:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Or venereal, although that word tends to give the wrong impressions these days.... Laïka 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure we all appreciate martian's willingness to enlighten us, his/her/its response does not conform to WP:V and WP:RS. I trust no one will add it to any article without proper citation. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

---

One of our Earth buildings appears to already accomodate Martian genders: See http://www.othermag.org/blog.php?p=209 -- AnonMoos 09:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Beer Flood

Hi,

I read somewhere once that there was once a beer flood in London that caused several people to drown in beer, but I couldn't find this anywhere on Wikipedia. Does anyone know if this story is actually true?

Thanks!

I couldn't find anything here on Wikipedia but a Google search for the term "beer flood" yields several results that look promising. Dismas|^(talk) 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the story is true. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We do have an article on the molasses disaster mentioned in that link. Rmhermen 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Meux's_Brewery#1814_vat_failure. -- !! ?? 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Political rivalry

In the region of South Asia, I know that in Bangladesh, it's political rivals are Awami League(leftist) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party(rightist), so what about its South Asian counterparts? Does India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have their own political rivals among themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.98 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Any democracy has competing political parties, right and left. The existance of the above parties apparently getting 40% of the vote each makes it probably a two party system. You can see the articles on these at "Politics of [country]", eg Politics of India using the search bar on the right.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 11:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Quibble: So far as right and left mean anything coherent, they seem to me to stand for stability and equality respectively, and I wouldn't expect those two to be the poles of every democracy. —Tamfang 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support for Tamfang's quibble: even some Western-style democracies find their two main parties are both, in European terms, of the 'right' or the 'left'. When you get into South Asia, rival political parties may have quite different polarities, such as ethnic or tribal or religious ones. Xn4 05:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fouad Siniora

I read Fouad Siniora's bio article and it didn't say which political party he belongs to, which indicates that party is in country's government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.98 (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Lebanese government of July 2005 article, Fouad Siniora is a member of Future Movement, part of the March 14 Alliance. See also: Politics of Lebanon#Political parties and elections.—eric 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is this economist?

I recently came across the homepage of an academic economist. All I remember from his/her site is that they are writing a forthcoming book, which has the words 'price' and 'theory' in its tentative title. Any idea who this economist may be? 129.78.64.105 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Price Theory or Price Theory and Applications? SGGH ^speak! 11:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

David D. Friedman has also written a textbook titled Price Theory, but can any of these be described as "forthcoming"? —Tamfang 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Lord/Lady of the Manor"

When the lord was out, the lady takes the role of being the leader, but if something happens to the Lord, does the lady lead or does someone else come in because women are used in other ways, not to lead. Please put a list of pages where i can find information on medieval: Leaders Kings and Queens

• Lord/ Lady of the manor

Sport Rankings Lifestyles Clothing

• Knights
• Weaponry

Thankyou for your time and effort!

• =most important

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.153.57 (talk • contribs)

We have articles on all those things, including Lord of the Manor.

Generally speaking, when a powerful man died, his title, lands and other property passed to his eldest son, or to another close male relative. Females wielding significant power in their own right was rare, but not unheard of; there were three female monarchs in a row in 16th century England, for example. FiggyBee 15:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wives were often placed in charge of their husband's affairs temporarily, while they were off fighting somewhere...Adela of Normandy and Sibylla of Anjou held a lot of power while their husbands were off on crusade, for example. For your other questions, check out History of western fashion, knight, medieval football, and medieval weapons. Adam Bishop 15:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A Lady of the Manor was often called a Chatelaine. Corvus cornix 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle Day

What is Bicycle Day? Is it celebrated as a holiday? 207.69.139.140 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One meaning of Bicycle Day is explained here. Gandalf61 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of bicycle days - where people are supposed to ride around on bicycles.. Not sure if there is a fixed day .87.102.116.240 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A soldier's declaration

On Wikisource, the featured text for the month is s:Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration, by Siegfried Sassoon. We havent been able to work out who it was primarily addressed to. i.e. did he write it to be published in the newspaper, or to be read aloud at the House of Commons, or perhaps it was addressed to his army superiors before finding its way into the public.

As a separate question, how does being read aloud at the House of Commons, or printed in a 1917 UK newspaper, affect the copyright of this work in the UK. We are currently using PD-1923 which justifies Wikisource hosting it, but it would be nice to provide a more liberal license for non-US readers. John Vandenberg 15:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Norton Anthology of English Literature says:

“ Siegfried Sassoon's declaration of war against the war appeared in the Bradford Pioneer on July 27, 1917 ...

(This statement was made to his commanding officer by Second-Lieutenant S. L. Sassoon, Military Cross, recommended for D.S.O., Third Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers, as explaining his grounds for refusing to serve further in the army. He enlisted on 3rd August 1914, showed distinguished valour in France, was badly wounded, and would have been kept on home service if he had stayed in the army.)

”

And our article says:

“ At the end of a spell of convalescent leave, Sassoon declined to return to duty, instead, encouraged by pacifist friends such as Bertrand Russell and Lady Ottoline Morrell, he sent a letter to his commanding officer titled A Soldier’s Declaration, which was forwarded to the press and read out in Parliament by a sympathetic MP. ”

Does that help?

On that basis, it is difficult to see why the text would not benefit from the usual (since 1995) copyright term in the UK of life plus 70 years. Which, for Siegfried Sassoon, leaves another 30 years before it is out of copyright. -- !! ?? 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it is Florida law that is relevant: see the text and links on Template:PD-US. Basically, anything published in the US before 1923, as this almost certainly was, is no longer copyright. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What does Florida law have to do with the copyright status of this work in the UK, which is what the questioner asked? -- !! ?? 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, !! ; as a result, the blurb on the Wikisource Featured Text has been expanded, and I wrote an article for Bradford Pioneer. It is a shame that our UK readers are not supposed to read the front page of Wikisource this month; I will take that up with the team over there. John Vandenberg 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloane Rangers

I see the question I placed earlier today has been removed (is that allowed?) so I'll place another and ask my original in a more 'appropriate' place. Here is my new one: what exactly is a Sloane Ranger? Are they all superior young women? Some examples would be nice.Barnie X 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See Sloane Ranger. Some suggested members of the sub-species are listed in the article. Very few are in captivity. Xn4 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

None; they are far, far too wild! Clio the Muse 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A people's contest

This is how Abraham Lincoln described the war between the states. I would be interested to know what motivated men on either side to fight? Have there been any studies of the subject? Tower Raven 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "contest" had a different context 150 years ago. While the inquiry into the people's motivations is interesting, I doubt they were in it for fabulous prizes. Beekone 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of northerners fought because of Nationalism (i.e. the U.S. couldn't fulfill its destiny as a great nation if it had half its territory amputated, including the outlet of the Mississippi river at New Orleans, which was a vital trade link for much of the midwest); because they were heartily sick of southern leaders seeming to dominate the U.S. government and forcing into U.S. federal law measures which were extremely unpopular among a broad section of the northern population (e.g. the 1854 repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the 1857 Dred Scott decision etc.), and southern secession in 1861 seemed to be part of this "rule or ruin" strategy; and because the southerners were the ones who started the shooting war, and were thus considered the agressors by many. Most northerners were against the extension of slavery to new geographical areas (the political issue of the 1848-1860 period), and held little goodwill towards slaveholders (who were viewed as being part of the sinister nefarious "Slave Power" political conspiracy), but relatively few northerners would have given abolition of slavery as the main reason why they were fighting, and during the first 2 years or so of the war, the idea that the war was being fought primarily to free the blacks, rather than to restore the union, was extremely controversial among northern whites. AnonMoos 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget those who fought because they were drafted. —Tamfang 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What you need to look for is two books in particular, both by Bell Irtwin Wiley-The Life of Johnny Reb: the Common Soldier of the Confederacy and The Life of Billy Yank: the Common Soldier of the Union, originally published some sixty years ago and reprinted in the late 1980s. In the latter Wiley says that the Union soldier went to war often for the highest of motives, though in time grand visions scaled to narrow horizons;

The primary interest were physical comfort, food, drink, girls, furloughs, mail and gambling, in about that order, and ultimate objectives sooner or later simmered down to finishing an unpleasant though necessary job as soon as possible and getting home.

The Confederate soldiers, most of whom had no slaves, and little understanding of the grander constitutional questions, were often motivated by one thing, and one thing only: hatred of the Yankee invaders.

The debate has broadened slightly since Wiley published his studies, with some historians placing a far greater emphasis on ideological factors, though this often depends on the perspective one happens to adopt: the experience of battle or those things that brought men to the battle in the first place. Some were drafted, but to the very end most on both sides were volunteers. Battle itself, the experience of battle, became a bonding factor for men who had lived through common dangers. One southern soldier wrote that while the men were all desperate to get away on furlough, they were nearly always just as desperate to get back, "There is a feeling of love-a strong attachment for those with whom one has shared a common danger, that is never felt...under any other circumstances."

Religion was also an important factor, possibly just as important as it once was in the English Civil War of the seventeenth century, something that gave the ugliness a more transcendent quality. While a northern soldier sang that 'as Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free' a southern artillery officer, even after the fall of Atlanta, could not believe "that our father in Heaven intends that we shall be subjugated by such a race of people as the Yankees."

People in both sides, interestingly, also sought justification in the actions of their antecedents during the American Revolution. The Rebels took comfort in another great southern Rebel, while the Northerns argued that the ideals of the Founding Fathers had been undermined by a southerm 'aristocracy.'

Comradeship, necessity, faith and high ideals, however these are interpreted, brought men to, and kept them in, a universe of battle. Clio the Muse 03:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides the Americans who fought, there were plenty of foreigners who travelled to America to fight in the Civil War. A number of Australians (figures vary) sailed to America (usually disembarking in California) and made their way east until they found some soldiers and joined them. Apparently, rarely did these Australians enlist in a particular army for ideological reasons; rather for the excitement that travelling to the other side of the world and shooting strangers brings. In this article [4] there is a reference to the Confederacy warship 'Shenandoah' visiting Melbourne during the war and recruited locals for the war. --Roisterer 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How many of the Founding Fathers 'were' "southern aristocracy:" plantation dwelling slave-owners? Was there a discussion during the writing of the Constitution and the ratification that, like a gang, once you join, attempts to leave will be met with violence? If a European country decided to leave the EU, would the other EU countries have a right to invade it? Edison 13:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a small taste, but George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, all Virginia slave holders were respectively the 1st, 3rd, and 4th presidents. Washington of course was the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and Madison was one of the primary architects of the US constitution. Czmtzc 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In the 1770's almost all the British North American colonies (both north and south) had slavery, but most revolutionary leaders (both north and south) admitted that slavery was a bad thing which eventually should be eliminated. It wasn't until ca. 1818-1819 (when slavery had been abolished in all northern states, while slavery in the south had received a major economic boost from use of the cotton gin) that slavery first became a "sectional" issue in U.S. politics, pitting north against south.

The question of whether states had a right to secede from the U.S. was not touched on in the U.S. constitution, and diverse people had diverse opinions on this as a purely abstract theoretical constitutional question -- but in the context of the politics of 1861, a large number of northeners (including some who had very little regard for the well-being of blacks) were very determined not to allow a bunch of southern political rascals and Slave Power conspirators to destroy the national greatness of the United States of America in pursuit of their "rule or ruin" policies... AnonMoos 15:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember from my past reading of American history that secession first became a serious political issue during the War of 1812, with the threat that some of the northern states might leave the Union, because the conflict with Great Britain threatened their economic well-being. And surely it was not always northerners who were concerned with the integrity of the Union. Was it not Andrew Jackson, despite his general sympathy for the South, who took a strong line with South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis? Anyway, in the end the Civil War did at least address and settle the central political ambiguity in the Constitution; that the United States is a nation, not a loose alliance of sectional interests. And in relation to Edison's point, the EU is not, nor could it ever be, a 'nation'-or at least I hope not. You see, Clio is a firm believer in states' rights! Clio the Muse 00:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nation, my foot. Did the Russian conquest of the Caucasus remove any doubt that Georgia etc are part of the Russian nation? Lincoln's illegal war, like any war of conquest or reconquest, solidified only an empire – which has since arguably become a nation. —Tamfang 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the word illegal was unwise. Sorry. —Tamfang 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The conquest of Georgia and the other nations of the Caucasus-which predates the American Civil War by half a century-made these places part of the Russian Empire, not part of the Russian nation; for they all preserved their unique cultural and political identity. This is just as true of India, which became part of the British Empire after the suppression of the Mutiny in 1857, though clearly not part of the British nation. The United States, by any reasonable definition, was already a nation before the Civil War, though increasingly torn by sectional disputes. I have little doubt the Andrew Jackson would have taken the same action as Linclon in 1861 in the face of secession, just as Andrew Johnson, another southerner, sided with Union. Secession, carried out in the face of the opposition of at least one state governor, was the bring secession within the secession, and civil war within the civil war. In the end, with the exception of South Carolina, every southern state had formations serving in the Union army. I mention this purely by way of fact. You, Tamfang, seemed determined to fight old, unhappy, far off things/and battles long ago; I am not. So please forgive me if I resist the temptation to debate with you....and your foot. Clio the Muse 05:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the United States were a nation before 1861, a position with which I won't argue because I don't find the question interesting, then the war did not make it so. Questions of cultural identity are not resolved on the battlefield. If you say silly things I'll call you on it whether or not you admit to "debating". – Thank you for the historical details in this last paragraph. —Tamfang 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As for legality, since the southerners chose to start the shooting war, many in the north were persuaded that consitutional provisions such as "The Congress shall have power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" and "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War" applied. AnonMoos 06:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When I say "Lincoln's illegal war" (an unwise chose of words, I now recognize) I refer not only to the invasion itself (which he threatened before the shooting started) but to his other violent acts against the democratic process, which I hope I need not enumerate. Since you frame this paragraph with "many in the north were persuaded", it is accurate and on topic (hurrah!). Though I'll note that some in the North, such as the Chief Justice, were not persuaded that authortity to suspend habeas corpus rested with the President (that clause is in article I, not article II). —Tamfang 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the supreme court justice who was responsible for that decision was the infamous Roger B. Taney, who had absolutely zero credibility in the north after his transparently shabby fraudulent manipulations of historical facts (and extreme bigoted racism) revealed in the Dred Scott decision. A lot of Northerners thought that the only reason why "justice" Taney hadn't defected to the more ideologically-congenial climate of Mississippi (or whatever) at the beginning of the war was that he preferred to stay behind and conduct deliberate malicious judicial sabotage and vandalism for the intentional purpose of undermining the Union war effort. If someone was needed to stand up for full democratic rights during wartime during the Lincoln administration, it couldn't be judge Taney, who was incredibly toxic in terms of northern politics after 1857. AnonMoos 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

According to The Professor and the Madman, many Irishmen joined the war for practice, hoping soon to fight the Sassenach. —Tamfang 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, I just finished reading that. 38.112.225.84 22:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

September 19

Marching Band

Can anyone tell me how well this show was done? [5] --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just opinion here: Sounded pretty good for a high school band, especially one that was not extremely large. The marching during the playing of the music looked fine. I thought the entry onto the field was too casual, and the band sort of wandered to the initial formation from the initial block band formation. There was a lot of delay for setting up the tower and for the director getting ready to direct.This is anticlimactic. I would encourage getting the tower set up and the director in position, with the band entering from the sidelines, via a quicker and more dramatic entry to the field, organized marching to the first formation, and then a more organized exit from the field than the casual slow marching off at an angle. Edison 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

egypt battles

Link Title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.230.192 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm sorry, I do not understand what it is that you want. Clio the Muse 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for: Category:Battles involving ancient Egypt, Category:Battles involving Arab Egypt, or Category:Battles involving Egypt? :--hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Or Battle of Actium - Battle of Alexandria - Battle of Kadesh - Battle of Megiddo - Battle of Navarino - Battle of the Nile.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Or is this more metaphorical, about Egypt's struggles to develop and become a modern country, in which case Egypt is quite a good place to start. --Dweller 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Music schools and academics

Could you list a few music conservatories (in other words specifically arts collages) in the US which have agreements with other schools that allow students to take non-arts related subjects please? I know that students at Juilliard may take classes at Columbia University and that student at Eastman regularly study academics at University of Rochester. Are there any others? For instance does Manhattan School of Music, New England Conservatory of Music, or Mannes College of Music have similar arrangements set up with external academic institutions? Thank you. --S.dedalus 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd/amusing articles on Wikipedia

Ages ago while I was poking around on Wikipedia I found a page of weird articles all gathered together (longest place names, a leech-powered weather predictor, exploding whales, that sort of thing). I can't for the life of me find it again. Can anyone help please? I've got a very boring essay to write and I need a distraction. 86.142.111.71 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it Wikipedia:Unusual articles? Adam Bishop 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh ooh ohh that's it. Guess that essay is just going to have to wait ... Thank-you Adam. 86.142.111.71 13:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Prolific birth year

i have always heard that there are more people born in the year 1957 than any other year before or after. is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.224.83 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article states that America hit a post-war birthrate peak in 1957 with 25.3 babies for every 1000 people, but it does not cite any sources for this claim. GreatManTheory 18:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things that would have put a dent in the birth rate around 1960 would have been the combined oral contraceptive pill and China's one-child policy. FiggyBee 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And see Post-World War II baby boom. Xn4 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fencing

Why is fencing called fencing? where does the word come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.49.227 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology the word 'fence', as a sport with any of several types of sword, was first recorded in the 16th century and is a corruption of 'defence'. I assume this is the meaning to which you refer. The dictionary is less forthcoming on fencing, the slang term used to denote the disposal of stolen goods. Richard Avery 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And the fence around a yard is the same word - it's a wall for defence. FiggyBee 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)see" "fence". Online Etymology Dictionary.

Caius. By gar, de herring is no dead so as I
vill kill him. Take your rapier, Jack; I vill tell you how I vill kill him.
Rugby. Alas, sir! I cannot fence.
Caius. Villainy, take your rapier.

The Merry Wives of Windsor II.iii.12-16.

—eric 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have misplaced my rapier, but I do wonder why the Americans have changed their spelling of defence to "defense", but haven't changed their spelling of fence to "fense". -- JackofOz 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "defence" the noun and "defense" the verb? That's what I use, here in the northern colony. Bielle 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC) No more wine for me! Apologies, and thanks to an oh-so-polite Marco polo. Bielle 01:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with "defense" as a verb. (Isn't it "defend"?) I think that the spelling "defence" was not so established in the 18th century when British and American English diverged. "Defense" may have been preferred by Noah Webster for etymological reasons, based on the Latin "defensus" (past participle of "defendere"). On the other hand, the spelling "fence" may have been more established, and the etymological connection to "defens/ce" might not have been recognized. 01:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Language desk.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Westward Ho!

If the book Westward Ho! published in 1855 was the cause of the name for the town Westward Ho!, when did the town get named? Did it exist before/what was there? -- SGBailey 23:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The settlement now called Westward Ho! is near Bideford in Devon, which was Charles Kingsley's home town. After Kingsley's novel was published in 1855, people came to visit the area he described, which gained the convenient name of Westward Ho! It became more developed after the United Services College was established there in 1874 and kept the name of the book. Xn4 23:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My recollection is that a developer named it Westward Ho! in the hope of selling land and houses there. He failed, and some of the houses were sold cheaply to the newly formed USC. Don't have refs to hand, but will try to dig them out. DuncanHill 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an article about the development of Westward Ho! in Devon Life, volume 9 (1972) pp. 34-35. Xn4 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This from Devon Libraries Local Studies page :

"WESTWARD HO [in the parish of Northam] is an entirely modern settlement. Following the publication of Kingsley's book in 1855, a 'company was formed to develop this site as a watering place. The Westward Ho Hotel was built, a church (Holy Trinity) followed in 1870, and by 1872 there were two or three rows of terraces, many scattered villas, and a single line of shops. A golf course was laid out on the Burrows which became known as one of the finest in England. The United Services College for the sons of officers was opened in 1874, and is the mise en scène of Kipling's Stalky& Co. Within the next thirty years much more building took place in a planless way, but worse came in the 20th century. To-day Westward Ho is a sad spectacle of what uncontrolled speculative building can do with a fine site. Many of the buildings are alien to Devon, and most of them could be anywhere else. The golf course remains superb. The Pebble Ridge is a remarkable natural phenomenon nearly 2 m. long, about 50 ft. wide, and 20 ft. high." Carrington's biography of Kipling adds that USC bought a row of twelve lodging houses, and converted them into a school by running a corridor along the length of the terrace.

DuncanHill 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Adrian Room, A Concise Dictionary of Modern Place-Names in Great Britain and Ireland (Oxford 1983), the Northam Burrows (North Devon) Hotel and Villa Building Company was formed in 1863 and the Westward Ho! Hotel opened two years later. "The name had been proposed by a friend of Kingsley, Dr W. H. Acland of Bideford, although it appears that the author had not been consulted and that the friendship between the two men was endangered for a time." —Tamfang 04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair description, but it actually isn't quite so terrible as the above might lead you to believe! I'm thinking of another part of England where since I was a child an equally beautiful coastline has been buried under field after field of permanent caravan and 'mobile-home' parks, a lot of which have to suffer the winter weather without any coats of paint when the spring comes... but there you are, we're warned "Never go back!" Xn4 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"... No-one is waiting and nothing is there." -- !! ?? 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone going to revise the Wikipedia article Westward Ho!?--Wetman 04:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As a very small coda, The book's title comes from an exchange in Twelfth Night between Olivia and Viola, thus:

Olivia: There lies your path, due west.

Viola: Then westward ho!

SaundersW 08:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This Q and A set has left me greatly perplexed, visualizing a British Horace Greeley telling Brits "Go West, young man.". resulting in great wagon trains heading toward Western Britain, where the pioneers encounter British Indians, and a British Gold Rush, as part of British Manifest Destiny. Say it aint so, Clio! Edison 07:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I jump in here not, I have to stress, to tie myself in the glory of Dweller's thread, but in response to Edison's challenge! Let me see; are there any parallels between the English and the American experience? Well, the west could be pretty wild, especially if one had the misfortune to run into the Doones! As SaundersW points out, the term predates Kingsley. It was, in fact, used by Thames boatmen, who called out 'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!', to indicate the direction they were travelling in. Clio the Muse 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's thread of the week. It's an 'out of the box' idea.

Congratulations to all contributing here. This 'chicken-or-egg' debate wins the fifth User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award. Good job. --Dweller 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

September 20

Dutch notary system

Please, help to find out information about Dutch notary system, legislation (e.g. Notary Act 1999 and others, with full text in English) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.132.33 (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a copy of the law itself, but this is a decent summary of it's liberalizing effects. Plasticup ^T/C 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

16th Century Quote

Our article on Thomas Whythorne states that in his autobiography (written c. 1576), Whythorne writes "He that wooeth a widow must not carry quick eels in his codpiece". Can anyone explain what Whythorne might be referring to here? --Roisterer 06:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if one had live eels in one's codpiece, I suppose one would be in a hurry to remove it. So if you're wooing a widow, don't expext action in the codpiece department on the first date. --Rallette 08:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect "eels" was a word for penis and "quick " meant alive rather than swift ...hotclaws 11:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What would be the harm in having a boner if you were going on a date with a widow? Beekone 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably they won't be as quick to acquiesce. Plasticup ^T/C 17:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Two chicks at the same time"

What makes the extraordinarily wealthy people in the world work? I'm talking about those who could retire, spend several million dollars a year and still have money left when they start pushing up daisies. Is it that they don't have anything better to do? Why not just chuck it all and relax the rest of your life? Do they feel that they contribute to society more by working? Dismas|^(talk) 07:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more reasons for working than monetary gain, for example:

Enjoying the actual work that you do

Enjoying the company of co-workers

Belief that your work benefits society

Enjoyment of the status associated with a job title

Wanting to be out of the house for a period each day

and I'll stop there before getting to really cynical ones. SaundersW 08:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly greed?--Tresckow 11:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who works only for money in and of itself is doing the wrong work. Once you've got more than enough $$ to last you the rest of your life, and then some, money ceases to be the driving force - if it ever was. "Greed" is not the answer, because there's an infinite amount of money available. Anyone can have as much as they want, without having the slightest impact on anyone else's capacity to have as much as they want. The catch is knowing how to go about getting it. I'll get back to you when I've worked that out. -- JackofOz 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say people like that still work because they're needed (sometimes) or asked to (sometimes), as experts or something, or have the deciding vote on things (probably). They might still work to keep up with everything in their business. Or, they just don't want to flip. Or aren't imaginative enough to think of something better to do. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to distinguish between those people who got their money via work and those who did not. The former group already shows a dispostion towards earning money and working for it, and the increase of wealth over their life probably would not just erase that disposition. Those who come into money independent of work (lottery, inheritance) often have other motivations for working, if they work at all (or work very much, or very hard). Howard Hughes, for example, really had no need to work since he was 18 years old, but he was enormously productive both because he wanted to prove to the world that he was really quite impressive and important, and because he wanted to bed every woman in Hollywood (which, it turns out, required having quite a lot of money, even more than he started with). --24.147.86.187 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Then there's the simpler one. Some people pretty much define themselves by their work and their accomplishments; for them, to stop working is to lose the sense of themselves that matters. This is true no matter how much wealth is at the person's disposal. Some of us grab the first opportunity to retire; others find the idea of retirement horrifying. For some performers, there's another aspect: there is nothing in the universe that can compare with the thrill of being onstage. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, ditto on that one! :) --Ouro (blah blah) 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

O.k., I'll bite. What's with the title of this thread? dr.ef.tymac 06:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference to the movie Office Space. If I recall correctly, Peter asks his neighbor what he would do if he had a million dollars, and the neighbor replies that he would do "two chicks at the same time." This may not be exact, but I'm pretty sure it's written up at the IMDB entry for the movie. --LarryMac | Talk 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Gammell

Does anyone know if he has a website or a portfolio? I always enjoyed his illustrations for scary stories when I was a child. --72.211.192.84 07:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not [6]martianlostinspace ^{email me} 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an article at Stephen Gammell. I've added some external links to it. Xn4 22:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where to find an accurate! English account on Cossack mass suicide in Drautal, Carinthia, Austria at the end of World War 2?

The Cossacks fighting on the side of Hitlers army during World War 2 had left their homeland with all their belongings and families, as it was impossible for the families to stay there for fear of being apprehended and even be killed. Hitler had promised them a place to settle down after the war just south of the Austrian-Italian border. When the war was over, the British military in charge of the region, decided to move the lot back home, in spite of the fact, that the cossacks and their families would be facing certain death. The cossacks moved north over the Plöckenpass to Köttschach-Mauthen, and when their fate was evident, they decided on suicide, and as the story goes in the region, they stabbed themselves or cut their throats and let themselves fall into the river Drau, in their hundreds, even thousands. Eyewitnesses say the river turned red from the blood.

I am looking for an accurate account of this incident in English, preferably not the official British explanation at the time.

There is an account in: Bethell, Nicholas (1974). The Last Secret: The Delivery to Stalin of over Two Million Russians by Britain and the United States. New York: Basic Books. pp. 140-8. OCLC 1127966. The Betrayal of the Cossacks article has a Further reading section which may be of some help.—eric 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Nikolai Tolstoy's Victims of Yalta (2nd edition, 1979). Xn4 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek mythology.

Request for a guesstimate: How much was written on the gods of ancient greece when compared to what is written about Yahweh? Lots more? Lots less? Similar amounts? What about if you include roman writings about the gods they carried over from greek mythology? Is greek mythology the religion with most literary backing? I'm referring to "holy texts" and whatever that amounted to in Ancient Greece. Am I barking up a poorly defined tree? Capuchin 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The quality of the tree being barked up is definitely questionable—Ancient Greek and Roman society did not have influential classes of priests, prophets, &c., to produce something like the Hebrew Bible (though the extrapolated claim that their priests and religious experiences were mere bureaucracy, easy to find in the scholarship, is false too). It would be very difficult to find convincing examples of "holy texts." People call Homer the Ancient Greeks' "Bible," but despite the epics' great prestige and authority, they are impossible to mistake for "scripture." (Though of course we shouldn't be too narrow in characterizing the vast library of writings in the Hebrew Bible; see Alter's Art of Biblical Narrative for some suggestions of how the kind of literary criticism long applied to Homer can apply to Samuel, etc.) When it comes to the famous gods of Greek mythology, we do have plenty of texts that exemplify, for example, a hymn to a god. But these are generally in literary & not liturgical contexts: tragedies, poems for the symposium, courtly entertainments, etc. Even if there are notable didactic elements, & if the performance context, say the Dionysia, has religious aspects & origins, none of this amounts to scripture. (If you are interested in discovering exceptions, you might look into some of the poetry connected to Orphic cults.) Ultimately, Greek myth is a remarkably free medium for story-telling; yes, you can evoke "sacred narratives" and teach a lesson, but no, it is not an authoritative teaching with some kind of divine truth in itself. Euripides' version of this year can achieve just as exalted a level of "truth" as Sophocles' totally contrary version of last year, in a way fundamentally different from contradictory strands in the Bible. (Of course, it's good to remember that the writers who've given us the Bible were not speaking to people whose appreciation of religious meaning was limited to fundamentalist literalism!) As to quantities, well, it's probably fair to say that we have been sorely impoverished by the loss of great material in both traditions (Greek and Hebrew). Especially, far more of Archaic and Classical Greek literature has been lost than preserved; our article on Sophocles says we have 7 of 123+ plays. Apologies for a bit of a ramble here, written in a literally feverish state. Wareh 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the Greeks (and to a lesser extent the Romans) blurred mythology, history and entertainment. Almost every Greek history or play involves the gods in one form or another. And do histories of Roman emperors who were deified count as holy texts? FiggyBee 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Greeks (and Romans, for that matter), lacked "Holy Texts" as such, at least in the sense we use to refer to the Jewish or Christian scriptures. Greek mythology appeared in a number of different forms throughout their history. Most of it was, presumably, originally passed down as part of an oral tradition. The earliest Greek legends we have in written form are either the poems of Hesiod or the epic poetry of the Iliad and the Odyssey written by "Homer". But these are not religious texts, per se, they are poems with religious context. The poems of Homer become the closest thing to central cultural texts for the Greeks, but they are never central to religious worship or practice the way the Bible is. Later Greek authors and playwrights contributed to Greek mythology by producing plays and poems on mythological themes, but again, these are not relgious texts, per se, they are plays or prose works meant for entertainment. The closest thing to a collection of Greek mythology from the ancient world is the Library of Apollodorus, which was a sort of scholarly handbook to Greek myths written around 120 BC, which is hundreds of years after the Classical Period of Greek civilization. Really, the notion that the Greeks treated their mythology the way we today treat stories from the Bible is a real misnomer, and arose largely out of mythographers like Bullfinch in the 19th century. Berkowow 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Accidents of survival make any assessment vacuous. --Wetman 19:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all, you confirmed what I suspected, that the way they treated religion was very different to the way we do now. Is it even fitting to call it religion? On the one side it seems like many of them knew they were stories made up to explain the unexplainable, but then it also seems from the multitude of temples and statues and the like that they went a long way to satisfy these beings. Any comment? Capuchin 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is really too huge a question to take on. Yes, it is very fitting to call it religion from any comparative point of view. If I were tempted to make deletions from phenomena to be considered religious (I'm not), I'd sooner look around some of "the way we treat religion." Religious emotions & dispositions were strong among ancient people. I'd recommend the standard modern & scholarly Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, or for something perhaps more accessible & certainly perceptive, maybe a book by Martin P. Nilsson (e.g. Greek Popular Religion available online). For a provocative and influential book (while no modern scholar would accept any positive results from it, its author inspired Durkheim to think pretty deeply about religion) arguing e.g. how deeply all of Roman political culture was imbued with religion, there's always Fustel de Coulanges's classic The Ancient City (also available online). This last is perhaps an idiosyncratic recommendation on my part, but in my opinion perhaps a needed counterweight to a fashionable tendency to argue the inverse thesis, which is that ancient sacrifices, temples, etc., were all part of an essentially irreligious political framework for society. (The two are closely intertwined, so interpreters have been tempted to reduce one to the other.) The main Wikipedia articles on Greek/Roman religion don't look so good. If you'd rather read a book directly tackling your questions about difference and what constitutes "truth" in mythology, Paul Veyne published one called Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? (ISBN 0226854345). Wareh 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time :) Capuchin 06:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian tax law.

In Australia, the tax laws state that you pay no tax on any money you earn up to, I think, $5600. After that, you pay about 20c per dollar up to about $20000 per year. But if you are on social security, about $10000 per year for a single person, no kids, you pay no tax. Why not? 203.221.127.9 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You certainly do have to pay income tax on Centrelink benefits; why do you think you don't? Incidentally, the lowest tax bracket is currently 15c for each $1 over $6,000. FiggyBee 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Centrelink benefits are taxable income. I have been on them, and not paid any tax. Many times. I've asked Centrelink why not, but they don't have heaps of time for tricky questions, and they don't exactly know anything either. 203.221.127.9 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, it's because you didn't ask Centrelink to take tax money out on your behalf, and you didn't file a tax return. You should have paid tax; you simply didn't. FiggyBee 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realise that Australian tax law is extremely silly at times - see this and smile. -- JackofOz 01:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Colonial control of Africa and the Middle East

Is it a fair generalisation to say that the territorial control of the Middle East was settled after the First World War, and that of Africa after the Second? 203.221.127.9 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, at least with regard to Africa. After the First World War, the German Colonies in Africa were divided between the British Empire and France, technically under League of Nations mandates. Much less changed in Africa in the ten years after the Second World War, though several countries then began to move towards independence. Xn4 22:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The infamous Berlin conference of 1884, along with its immediate aftermath, divided up almost all of sub-saharan Africa except Ethiopia (a native Christian state) and Liberia (nominally independent, but clearly understood to be under U.S. protection). By the time the end of WW1 rolled around 35 years later, dividing the conquered Ottoman Arab territories into outright European colonies was just a little bit too crude for the times, so that they were declared to be League of Nations "mandates"... AnonMoos 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Israel was only formed after WWII. --Sean 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Writers of English literature

who are the greatests in english literatures and writers of english language?Flakture 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Terence Pratchett Beekone 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your question is very broad. Everyone you ask will give a different answer. Might I suggest some people would say William Shakespeare? Exxolon 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If by greatest you mean "had the most influence on writing later on", some obvious ones are Chaucer and Shakespeare. Wrad 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My list (for literature) includes Shakespeare, John Donne, Jonathan Swift, Henry Fielding, Walter Scott, Jane Austen, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Christina Rossetti, Anthony Trollope, Henry James, Herman Melville, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling, Joseph Conrad, Charlotte Mew, A. E. Housman, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, George Orwell, F. Scott Fitzgerald, E. M. Forster, W. B. Yeats, G. K. Chesterton, Ernest Hemingway, Robert Frost, W. H. Auden, John Steinbeck, Eugene O'Neill, Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, William Golding, Nadine Gordimer, Anthony Powell, Samuel Beckett, Saul Bellow, Harold Pinter and Seamus Heaney. Among those I won't call among the "greatest in English literature", but who for me are still wonderful writers worth re-reading, are J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers, Rebecca West, Rose Macaulay, Mervyn Peake, P. G. Wodehouse, Saki, R. S. Surtees, H. Rider Haggard, T. H. White, Ian Fleming, E. Nesbitt, Piers Paul Read, Tom Stoppard, Antonia Fraser and John Betjeman. Xn4 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Xn4 wrote, but would have to add (to the greatest):

• James Joyce—wrote the greatest English novel of the 20th century
• John Milton—wrote the great English epic poem (unless one considers [Beowulf]], and there are numerous reasons why one shouldn't)
• Henry Adams—You simply have to read The Education of Henry Adams; don't worry about understanding his theory of history–I don't think anyone does.
• James ThurberE.B. White—certainly the greatest American essayist and possibly the greatest in modern English

I'm sure other people will add writers that we have neglected. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I forgot some great writers, and I didn't try to include philosophers, historians, scientists, etc., as the OP was asking about literature. I also left out a few obvious names (such as Charles Dickens, James Joyce, Oscar Wilde and J. M. Coetzee), because they give me a sinking feeling, but no doubt they are still great. Xn4 04:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy Gavriel Kay, for the poetry of his language. Corvus cornix 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A few more, Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson, the two greatest American poets. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

List of amicus curiaes...

I was looking for a list of everyone that filed Amicus curiae briefs for A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.. I figure there has to be some way to find a list in a database somewhere online. I tried googling it and I only found links to the individual briefs themselves, but I want a list of everyone that filed one. Can someone help me out? --Oskar 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You can probably find it on PACER ([7]), the US courts' website. If you are not able to open up a PACER account, you can try calling the court clerk and see if they'll help you. -- Mwalcoff 23:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

<pedantry> A better plural would be amici curiae; though one person who writes such briefs for more than one court would be amicus curiarum. </pedantry> —Tamfang 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The decision is available on FindLaw. It begins by identifying the attorneys who were on the briefs for the parties, followed by a list of the amici. Link: decision as modified on April 3, 2001. The list doesn't indicate what position each amicus took, however. JamesMLane t c 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

September 21

Japanese in Shanghai

Who was Captain Pick and what had he to do with Japanese espionage in Shanghai before and after 1937?K Limura —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Evgenij Pick (Captain Pick) is a character in the last section of Nowhere Man, a novel by Aleksandar Hemon. Pick is a charismatic Russian adventurer, impresario and raconteur who has fled from the Russian revolution and lives at the Cathay Hotel in Shanghai. As background material, Hemon cites Secret War in Shanghai: An Untold Story of Espionage, Intrigue, and Treason in World War II by Bernard Wasserstein. Xn4 18:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting article by Bernard Wasserstein, "Collaborators and renegades in occupied Shanghai" in History Today, 48:9, September 1998, ISSN 0018-2753

"Captain" Eugene Pick alias Hovans alias "Doctor" Clige was born Evgeny Mihailovich Kojevnikoff either 1899 or 1900 in Riga, Latvia. He fought it the First World War and claimed to have been captured by and to have escaped the Germans eleven times. In 1925 he became an assistant to the Russian military mission in China and began working for the Comintern. In 1927 he provide a detailed report to British intelligence on the Comintern, a report which was well received at Whitehall, but according to a later U.S. intelligence account he had

..bled them [the British] for large sums of money for long and devious reports on Communist activities in China. When he had exhausted the British, subject [Pick] went to work for the US Treasury Department and doublecrossed them out of US$600 and sold a tip-off to the group the Department was after on his first assignment for $2,000.

In the following years, using the stage name Eugene Hovans, he became a stage manager, actor, opera singer, ballet dancer and opened his own theater the Far Eastern Grand Opera. In 1929 he was sentenced to nine months in jail for forgery, then a year for fraud and extortion in 1931 when he represented himself as a military adviser to the Chinese government in Canton in order to obtain arms contracts. He was accused of blackmailing an American judge who he found out was homosexual—the judge's body later found floating in the Whangpoo River, of white slavery, and of keeping a "house of assignation".

In 1937 he began working for the Japanese Naval Intelligence Bureau and organized ring of more than forty counter-intelligence agents to spy against British and American targets. In November of 1941 he was sentenced to a long jail term for murder, but released shortly after the Japanese attack on the international settlement and was appointed an advisor to the foreign affairs section of the Japanese Naval Intelligence Bureau. According to our author : "For the next three-and-a-half years he exploited this position to establish a veritable reign of terror over the foreign residents of Shanghai."

Near the wars end Pick fled to Japan, where he would later surrender to occupation authorities. He was returned to Shanghai where he was imprisoned by the Nationalists, but then released at the instigation of the American Counter-Intelligence Corps. In 1949 he escaped to Taiwan ahead of the Communist occupation of Shanghai, tried to sell his services there as an expert on Communism, but was soon jailed and was last heard of in a Taipei prison.

The article lists some further reading:

• Boyle, John Hunter (1972). China and Japan at War 1937-1945. OCLC 370332
• Elphick, Peter (1997). Far Eastern File: the intelligence war in the Far East, 1930-1945. OCLC 37794939
• Wakeman, Frederic Jr (1996). The Shanghai Badlands OCLC 61400598
• Wasserstein, Bernard (1998). Secret War in Shanghai OCLC 41503389
• Yeh, Wen-hsin (1998). Wartime Shanghai OCLC 39181233

—eric 20:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done! You'll be pasting all that into Evgeny Mihailovich Kojevnikoff, right? - Eron ^Talk 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a summary of a single article, so seems a bit plagiaristic to paste it as is?—eric 21:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's your call as to how direct a copy it is. If you are concerned that it is too close to the original I'd be happy to take a crack at summarizing your summary. He looks like an interesting and notable character and I think the encyclopedia would be improved by an article on him. - Eron ^Talk 21:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

myth in eugene o'neill's plays

I am conducting a paper on myth in some plays of Eugene o'Neill's plays. If anyone can help me he is welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.90.118 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, rather than a homework-help service. If you have a specific question, please ask away! --Sean 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

British kings

Who fathered the most kings in the British Isles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.222 (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr and Mrs King, of course. Well, Mrs. King didn't exactly "father" them, but it takes two to tango, nudge nudge, wink wink. -88.111.190.248 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

King Ethelwulf (839-855), and King Edward the Elder (899-924), both of whom had 4 sons who were king at some point. In modern history, however, no one person has fathered more than 2 kings. Neil ム 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

British Isles? Well, that would be Niall of the Nine Hostages, who handily beats Æthelwulf and Edward the Elder in that his eight sons were all kings of something, allegedly.

Less mythically, for Irish kings a quick skim through Frank Byrne's Irish Kings and High Kings doesn't find any more than four, that for Murchad son of Bran Mut (d. 738) and Dúnlaing son of Tuathal (d. 1014), both of the Uí Dúnlainge of Leinster. In Anglo-Saxon kingdsoms, Oswiu may draw with Æthelwulf and Edward. In Scotland Máel Coluim mac Donnchada equals them with with four - Donnchad, Edgar, Alexander and David - and would once have been reckoned the outright winner with five, but Edmund is no longer thought to have been king. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

DLC

I've read the article about Driver's license Compact and I still cannot find an answer to my question. If I currently have an Arkansas license that is going to be suspended upon my conviction for a speeding ticket, can I move to Texas, get a license before the conviction/suspention (NOTE: I have checked and verified that I can get a Texas license), can then Arkasnas supend my Texas lisense even if I pay the fine ? (NOTE: There is no supension for points under the texas law as long as I pay a fee for each violation--I think) XM 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You have asked about this situation so many times, and people have very patiently tried to answer, with the clear caveat that we can't give legal advice. The best advice for you now is to consult a real lawyer, who can give you advice based on local knowledge and all the relevant information. SaundersW 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely someone on Wikipedia should know if the DLC honors suspension attempts by non-resident states made after the license is issued? It's not *that* hard of a question...XM 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, can't you find a suitable lawyer to advise you, XM? If you find the right person, you'll know where you stand in half an hour. Xn4 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're here because you are trying to get free legal advice, you should now that most localities in the United States offer free legal aid to the indigent. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give it up.You fought the law and the law won...hotclaws 07:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparative analysis of prison conditions

Which countries' prisons are thought to have the worst conditions? Which countries' prisons have the best?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the Cebu Detention and Rehabilitation Center in the Philippines is the best. -- kainaw™ 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Billy Jean is not my lover... she's just a girl who thinks that I am the one... but the kid is not my sonǃ--Mostargue 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking about specific or unique prisions. I'm talking about prison systems as a whole within certain countries.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You could try looking at some of the work by Amnesty International. From memory, I know they've published concerns about prisons in Thailand and Iran and have also called Guantanamo Bay detention camp one of the world's worst prisons. It used to be said that the USA's worst prisons were in Alabama, but if that was ever so, it may be out of date? Xn4 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Morris and Orwell

Are there any similarities between William Morris' utopian News From Nowhere and George Orwell's anti-utopian Nineteen Eighty-Four? Martinben 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not read both books and find out for yourself? AnonMoos 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What the two books have in common is that they are both set in the future, as seen from the writer's point of view, and aim to predict a completely new order of society. But Morris, writing in 1889 and 1890, was a socialist trying to set out the utopian possibilities of socialism, whereas Orwell, writing in 1948 and looking forward a generation to 1984, was a self-proclaimed revolutionary patriot of the left who was bitterly disillusioned by the socialism then being practised in the Soviet Union and wished to warn where it might all end. Morris's protagonist falls asleep at a political meeting and wakes up a generation later in a new world which Morris approves of. Orwell's (born during the Second World War and christened 'Winston') is an independent thinker who finds himself barely surviving in a totalitarian state run in the name of Big Brother. Morris holds out hope, whereas Orwell gives us a terrible warning. Xn4 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a very long time since I read them, but as far as I recall NFN was a utopia, NEF was a dystopia. William Morris was in favour of hand-made crafts and nature, so NFN would be set in a nature setting, while NEF was in an industrial setting. I read NFN so long ago I cannot remember anything about the plot or characters, so that may not be reliable. As someone else suggested, try reading them. 62.253.52.156 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The first similarity is that they were both written by professed socialists, though one is optimistic and the other pessimistic. Orwell's pessimism was born of the times he lived through; a time of betrayal, of cynicism, of brutality and of dictatorship. Perhaps if he had been born a generation or two earlier he would have taken the same hopeful view of a potential future than Morris. And who can say that if Morris had witnessed the Moscow Trials and the ideological contortions of the Nazi-Soviet Pact then Nineteen Eighty-Four may have come more easily than News from Nowhere.

But look a little more deeply and it is possible to detect other similarities between Orwell and Morris, similarities beyond that of mere politics. Both have a vision that might almost be said to be 'reactionary' in the literal sense of the term, where looking forward is looking back. Both writers are alert to what is being lost in the modern world, a world where traditional values, rural values, it might even be said, are being destroyed under an urban juggernaut, which pollutes and dehumanises at one and the same time. The only thing that lightens the darkness of Nineteen Eighty-Four is the myth, the dream of the 'Golden Country.' Morris would certainly have been sympathetic to this rural idyll. Among the first things his narrator notices on waking in the future is that the Thames is free of pollution and full of salmon; and is this not the same world that George Bowling saw destroyed in Coming Up For Air, Orwell's pessimistic 'prequel' to Nineteen Eighty-Four? Morris and Orwell have, in other words, the same pastoral dream of perfection. It may be barely discernable in Nineteen Eighty-Four-but it's still there. And is it any surprise that the one toast that Winston Smith chooses to make is to the past, a place as 'idylic', and as elusive, as Morris' future. Clio the Muse 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an awful moment in Coming up for Air when George Bowling arrives at the end of his journey back into his childhood, the lovely hidden lake in the woods with big fish in it he has dreamed all his life of catching, to find the lake has gone, turned into a Pixie Glade for a new housing estate. Xn4 02:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Germany and Vichy France

Was the relationship between Germany and the France of Marshall Petain as close as usually assumed?86.147.191.30 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, yes, although he had less complete authority than his titles and your question may imply. Certainly, after the Second World War the French considered him to be a traitor: he was tried for treason and convicted to be guillotined, although this was commuted to life imprisonment. He lived to be ninety-five and died in prison on the Île d'Yeu. It's arguable that Pétain was treated very harshly, in all the circumstances. There are some articles you will find useful at Philippe Pétain, Battle of France, Vichy France, Révolution nationale, Free French and Charles de Gaulle. Xn4 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if I broadened the focus slightly, thinking more generally of Vichy and Germany, rather than the career of Pétain specifically. The important thing to understand here is that France and Germany only signed an armistice at Compiègne in June 1940, and were thus still technically in a state of war, attempts at collaboration notwithstanding. Even though Germany occupied two-thirds of metropolitan France after the armistice, this was still only 10% of the total French territory, including the overseas empire. The French also retained control of a powerful navy.

So, for this reason, and others, France continued to be viewed as a potential threat, and was monitored as such, not just by the control commission allowed for by the Compiègne agreement, but by agents sent in to the unoccupied zone by both the Sicherheitsdienst and the Abwehr. Ironically, the Germans were aware of the Versailles precedent, and were determined that the French should be given none of the 'loopholes' that they themselves were formerly accorded by the victorious powers. They were also alert to the possibility of clandestine rearmament, for any sign of a French version of the Black Reichswehr. Of particular concern here was arms dumps in North Africa, French troop movements and even the rate of recruitment into the French Foreign Legion.

Senior Vichy politicians, even Pierre Laval himself, generally reckoned to be one of the architects of Franco-German collaboration, were kept under close scrutiny. Much of Laval's correspondence was forwarded to the Abwehr by an agent in his office. German intelligence agents, and locally recruited operatives, were active at all levels of government and adminstration, from Laval downwards. The French were alert to this and set up their own, highly effective, counter-intelligence operation. Indeed, there was something of a proxy war going on between the Germans and the French at the level of espionage. In the two years after the armistice close on 2000 people were arrested in the unoccupied zone, charged with spying for the Germans, some of whom were executed as traitors. This last vestige of political sovereignty only ended with the German occupation of southern France in November 1942. Clio the Muse 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind.

What three things led to the growth of government in ancient Egypt? I read everything in the Ancient Egypt but I couldn't find anything so I would like some help.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A very regular flood of the Nile helped - they could coherently organize agriculture, and when people weren't busy with that, they could be recruited to build monuments. If it happened more randomly the government would not have been able to develop their authority like that. A written language was definitely useful, they could organize an effective bureaucracy with it. And I suppose their relative isolation...it was difficult for their neighbours to cross the deserts or the sea to attack them. Thus the government was (usually) stable and peaceful. At least, this is what I remember from high school Ancient Civilizations class, where we had pretty much the same question on a test, but that was a long time ago. Adam Bishop 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would humbly disagree with the previous answer... A regular flood of the Nile wasn't a requirement: States arose in many different regions of the world, even where there weren't regularly flooding rivers. Also, written language in Egypt was a result, not a prerequisite, of state formation. In some other parts of the world, complex societies managed without written language. I would also not call Egypt isolated: there was plenty of trade and regular conflict with other nearby polities. My answer would be: a (relatively) stable agricultural surplus, internal and external competition, and a very powerful and flexible ideology. Random Nonsense 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The regular flooding of the Nile is what spawned EGYPTIAN culture - it created a fertile place for them to settle and develop agriculture. In other regions of the world, there are other conditions - in desert regions without regular flooding of rivers, you tend to get nomadic civilizations since there's no reason to stay put if you don't have any crops. Non-desert regions, of course, tend to have fertile soil that doesn't need flooding. If it flooded at random, though, their crops would go under. Kuronue | Talk 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

William IV's heir

If Edward, Duke of Kent had not managed to sire a daughter, Victoria, who would have succeeded William IV as the British monarch? Would it have been Ernest Augustus I of Hanover? Corvus cornix 18:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after Victoria, her father the Duke of Kent's younger brother Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale was the next heir to the British throne. He did, in fact, inherit the throne of Hanover, the succession to which was subject to the Salic law - that is, women were excluded. Ernest Augustus was the Heir presumptive to the British throne until the birth of Victoria, Princess Royal, in 1840. Xn4 19:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

a specific inquiry after reading "Cinema of Korea"

"A slow rebirth of the domestic film industry led to South Korea, by 2005, being one of only three nations to watch more domestic than imported films in theatres[1], though this situation has recently changed."

I am curious to know what the other two nations are.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.232.98 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably India and the United States. Corvus cornix 20:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See also: Bollywood and Hollywood. dr.ef.tymac 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

India AFAIK makes about 730 films/year - more than any other country. Note that Bollywood isn't India as a whole, only Bombay.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Child Support in Canada

So this is just a question, I'm not searching for legal advice. In Canada, is there a point where one parent can ask for child support from let's say 5 years ago, 10 years ago, that is...if the child is still a minor at the time child support is being asked for, and get the money? Or is there a point in time where child support has to have been requested for it to be accepted, and after that period, it is no longer valid?

207.161.45.11 22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

September 22

Mussolini an anti-semite?

Was Mussolini anti-semitic? I bet Clio knows the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnie X (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If most jamaicans are mixed of black and chinese and most trinidadians are mixed with african and indian(hindu), What are most haitians mixed of?

Come on now!! i know we are all of african descent, yeah, yeah, i know!!! but what are the haitians mixed of? we have been on the island from 1502- present there has to be some other kind of race they have to be mixed with instead of being just black and nothing else? with all the immigration from the people. but what are they mostly mixed of? carib indian? german? arab? polish? or anything?--arab 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wealth of information. For most nations, you can type "Demographics of (name of nation)" into the search bar and find a pretty good article on the demographics of that nation. In this case, that would be Demographics of Haiti. 152.16.188.107 05:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Rebellions

Thinking of the rebellions against James II why did William of Orange succeed and Monmouth fail? Captain Beaky 06:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sala Nova del Papa

What is the story behind the Sala Nova del Papa in siena's Palazzo Publico?