Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

WP:RD/H C #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #00f #000 #00f humanities Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Humanities WP:RD/H

Welcome to the humanities reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia     How can I get my question answered? Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right). Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question. Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here. Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context. Note: We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point. We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need. Ready? Ask a new question! After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help Manual   skip to bottom

December 6

Gabroo

What does "Gabroo" mean in Punjabi and Persian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.28 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Google implies that it is a song style--88.111.25.42 (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Um...in Punjabi,"Gabroo" means a young man, full of youth and somehow handsome as well.--Mike robert (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A name from Beckett/Berio

At a key point in the "In ruhig fliessender Bewegung” movement of Luciano Berio’s Sinfonia the narrator proclaims “and the name of Miakovsky hangs on the clean air!” (The name maybe spelled differently, I haven’t looked in the score.) According to our article the words are from Samuel Beckett’s, The Unnamable. Does anybody know who “Miakovsky” is or why Berio chose to use this as a climactic exclamation in the movement. (Thanks for your help; I really must read The Unnamable sometime!) --S.dedalus (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mayakovsky, no? Perhaps he liked futurism. On second thoughts, it sounds like a phrase from some piece of Soviet propaganda, extolling the artistic triumphs brought forth by the Proletarian revolution. "Mayakovsky is still the best and the most talented poet of our Soviet epoch. Indifference to his cultural heritage is a crime." So said the Kremlin mountaineer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

According to a couple references i've found, the middle movement is a collage of Unnamable and musical in-jokes—maybe Nikolai Myaskovsky?—eric 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does any work by Marx or Lenin desribe Communist society?

I know both Marx and Lenin were sceptical of any description of communism since they were against utopianism but is there any work by Marx, Engles or Lenin that goes into the "most" detail about their conception of communist society? I have read that Marx's concept of an ideal man was of the DaVinvi type, not concerned with labor but spending nearly all time in public life.

Also have any of the scientific claims of Dialectical Materialism concerning atoms, physics, chemistry, evolution and early man been proven wrong by modern science? --Gosplan (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In relation to your first question, Gosplan, hardly at all, quite frankly. Marx is at his most whimsical, I suppose, in The German Ideology, with some further hints on future society in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Lenin? Well, there is always State and Revolution, with speculations and theories that fell dead from the pen. On your second point I am not competent to talk about Dialectical Materialism, in the form outlined by Engels in Anti-Duhring, in relation to modern scientific techniques. To my untutored eye I will say it all looks so terribly old-fashioned. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any scientific claims that are specific enough to be "proven wrong". It is really more philosophy than science. You could say that space is a counterexample to the law of Dialectical materialism that states that everything in existence is a unity of opposites, inasmuch as there is no such thing as anti-space, but that is not a particularly modern insight. While Lenin found it necessary to disown the tenet of the indestructibility of matter in view of the developments of physics, Engels had referred to this in the Anti-Dühring as one of diese alten, weltbekannten Tatsachen ("these old facts, known the world over") – hardly a specific claim of Dialectical Materialism, but merely reflecting the received wisdom of the science of physics of his days. For the early, pre-historical development of society – not really the province of Dialectical materialism – the problem is that we still don't know (and never may know) enough to prove or disprove Marx' (theoretically falsifiable) theories – but many modern non-Marxist writers appear to consider his speculations to be at least as plausible as any other theories.  --Lambiam 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold Chills / "Heilige Schauer" or "Holy Shiver" in German Romanticism

Hello, I am trying to start work on a page for Cold Chills or "holy shivers" I was informed that Kant did some writing on this topic. Would anyone happen to know what book it was in or where I might find some other info? Thanks--DatDoo (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just bringing this over from the Science Desk, because it helps to clarify what the OP is searching for. I think personally that "Cold Chills" is a bit of a misnomer:

...Not talking about the medical condition but about what the German Romantics (poets, philosophers, biologists etc.) called the "Heilige Schauer" or "Holy Shiver". I wonder if we already have a page on it...Nope - so it is free for you to build/write! Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottfried Herder, Friedrich Schiller, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm von Humboldt, even Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel all wrote things but you will probably need to read some German. Good luck. (By the way, if you Google it, the first hit where the guy is relating it to only courage in battle and sports...he's wrong. It's more subtle that that. It's about the Sublime). Saudade7 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem changing the name of the page to "Holy Shiver". Where I am from cold chills has a similar meaning.--DatDoo (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Kalizi, Assyria

High I am trying to put some info on nl:wiki about the provincial capitals of the Assyrian empire. Kalizi is mentioned a number of times in the eponyms and I found a reference on astrological documents from there, but no clue where this city was. Anybody? nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf 75.178.179.208 (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Other sources (for example here) call this city Kilizi. Apparently it was near Arbil. It is mentioned in the German Wikipedia (de:Asarhaddon) and the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Asurnasirpal II), but does not appear to have an article anywhere.  --Lambiam 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some identify it with Kilis in Turkey. [1] --Cam (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sign languages

The article on sign languages is somehow poor. Can someone out there tell me how many sign languages are. How easy is the communication between the two. The best options would be a map where all sign languages are displayed.217.168.3.246 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool idea. Try List of sign languages. Wrad (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The intelligibility between sign languages isn't as good as one might think. Although many of the signs are guessable to an extent, there's not enough to work a good conversation. Some are more intelligible than others, such as Australian Sign Language (Auslan) and British Sign Language, because Auslan was based off British Sign Language and both use the same two-handed finger-spelling. But American Sign language (ASL) was based off French and Irish sign languages and uses a one-handed finger alphabet. I have heard of a set of conventions for international communication between sign languages, but I don't know any details. Steewi (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. There it is - International Sign, also called Gestuno. Steewi (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that International Sign is not intrinsically understandable to signers; although kept simple, it has to be learned like any other sign language, just like Esperanto has to be learned.  --Lambiam 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Famous last words

At the end Kant seemingly said 'Enough!'. Are there any more famous last lines I could add to my collection? Major Barbara (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The list of last words which previously resided in Wikipedia has been stolen by Wikiquotes: you can see it here. "Famous last words" are notoriously unreliable, of course, but are no less amusing for being fictitious. - Nunh-huh 07:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention there of my favourite, the alleged last words of William Pitt the Younger-"I think I could eat one of Bellamy's veal pies." Sourced or not, it's still good! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Or even sauced or not... :) DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate in product placement! Skittle (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Having worked in Bognor Regis, I can understand George V's decision to die upon being told he would soon be well enough to go there. DuncanHill (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What about John Sedgwick, during the American Civil War? "I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." Right in the middle of the word "distance", he was shot in the head and died. Aecis^Brievenbus 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nero: "What an artist dies in me!"

King Henry VIII: "All is lost. Monks, monks, monks!"

Queen Elizabeth I: "All my possessions for a moment of time!

King Charles II: "Let not poor Nelly starve."

King Louis XVIII of France: "A king should die on his feet."

Dominique Bouhours, a French critic and grammarian: "Je vais ou je vas mourir, l'un et l'autre se dit ou se disent." (I am going to, or else about to, die; the one and the other is or are correct.")

Oscar Wilde, a month before he died in the Hôtel d'Alsace, Paris: "My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or other of us has to go" (from Frank Harris's Oscar Wilde: His Life and Confessions, 1930, p. 572).

Lawrence Oates: "I am just going outside and may be some time."

Saki (November 1916, in the Great War, just before being killed by a sniper in the dark): "Put that bloody cigarette out!"

Anna Pavlova: "Get my swan costume ready!"

Xn4 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Then again, Oscar Wilde was notorious for saying a lot of things... :) bibliomaniac15 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Marie Antoinette: “Pardonnez-moi, monsieur. Je ne l'ai pas fait exprès.” (Pardon me, sir. I did not do it on purpose.) After stepping on the foot of her executioner as she approached the guillotine.
  
• Humphrey Bogart: “I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis.”
  
• Robert Erskine Childers “Take a step forward lads - it'll be easier that way.” (spoken by Childer as he faced the firing squad―a perfect combination of bravado and insolence.)
  
• Christine Chubbuck “In keeping with Channel 40's policy of bringing you the latest in blood and guts and in living color, you are going to see another first -- attempted suicide.” (On live TV―This is just really sad.)
  
• Bing Crosby: “That was a great game of golf, fellers.”
  
• James Dean: “That guy's got to stop… He'll see us.” (seconds before his fatal car accident.)
  
• William Erskine: “Now why did I do that?” (after jumping from a window)
  
• James French. “Hey, fellas! How about this for a headline for tomorrow's paper? 'French Fries'!” (To members of the press before his execution by electric chair.)
  
• Charles Gussman “...and now for a final word from our sponsor...”
  
• Alfred Jarry: “I am dying. Please…bring me a toothpick.”
  
• Terry Kath : “Don't worry…it's not loaded…”
  
• George Bernard Shaw: “Dying is easy, comedy is hard”
  
• Domonic Willard “Why, yes, a bulletproof vest.” (Just before his death by firing squad, Willard was asked if he had any last requests.)
  

--S.dedalus (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And there are a few more here, [2] Richard Avery (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Goethe: "Mehr Licht!" ("More light!") And Augustus (alleged): "Acta est fabula, plaudite!" ("The play is finished; applaud!") Wareh (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I read that some famous religious figure of the past was on his deathbed and heard the people around whispering about his imminent demise. One said "His feet are still warm. No one dies with warm feet" whereupon the churchman said "Jan Hus did" and expired.(Hus was burned at the stake in 1415). Not a clue who the churchman was, but I'm thinking someone of the generation of John Wesley. Edison (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, it was said by John Holmes. When the nurse felt his feet to see if they were still warm, she explained that noone dies with warm feet. Holmes allegedly said "John Rogers did", and died. John Rogers was burned at the stake in 1555. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tudor poor

what were the main causes of poverty and unemployment in Tudor England? An overview and some refernces for further research would be helpful. Sincerely, Craig Clarke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.25 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You could start with the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601) (and original text, although modernized). There were two types of poor people, those who were able to work and those who were not. The reasons for their poverty include age, incapacitating disease or injury, being an orphan with no family support, lack of employment (even then there was no such thing as full employment), or, sometimes, some people just didn't feel like working. It's not all that different from poverty today, really. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tudor attempts to tackle the problem go all the way back to the reign of Henry VII. In 1495 Parliament passed a statute ordering officials to seize "All such vagabonds, idle and suspected persons living suspiciously and then so taken and set in stocks, there to remain by the space of three days and three nights to have none other sustenance but bread and water, and there after the said three days and three nights, to be had out and set at large and then to be commanded to avoid the town." No remedy to the problem of poverty was offered by this; it was merely swept from sight, or moved from town to town. There was no distinction made, moreover, between real vagrants and the jobeless; both were simply catagorised as 'sturdy beggers', to be punished and moved on.

In 1530, during the reign of Henry VIII, a proclamation was issued, describing idleness as the 'mother and root of all vices', ordering that whipping should replace the stocks as the punishment for vagabonds. This change was confirmed in statute the following year, with one important change: a distinction was made between the 'impotent poor' and the sturdy beggar, giving the old, the sick and the disabled licence to beg. Still no provision was made, though, for the healthy man simply unable to find work. All able-bodied unemployed were put into the same category. Those unable to find work had a stark choice: starve or break the law.

There is some evidence of more enlightened attitudes beginning to develop. In 1535 a bill was drawn up calling for the creation of a system of public works to deal with the problem of unemployment, to be funded by a tax on income and capital. Though supported by the king it was savaged in Parliament. An act was passed in 1536, placing responsibility for the elderly and infirm with the parish or municipal authorities, though provision was reliant on voluntary donations.

For the able-bodied poor things became even tougher during the reign of Edward VI, when a bill was passed in 1547 subjecting vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law. Two years servitude and branding with a 'V' was the penalty for a first offence; death for a second. It was simply too severe to serve its purpose, as Justices of the Peace were reluctant to apply the full penalty of the law. There is no evidence at all that the act was ever enforced before it was repealed in 1550.

Although the government of Elizabeth was also inclined to severity, passing an act in 1572 calling for offenders to be bored through the ear for a first offence and hanging for persistent beggers. But this act also made, for the first time, a clear distinction between the 'professional begger' and those unemployed through no fault of their own. For these people some provision was eventually made in the Elizabethan Poor Law.

For references, Craig, you could try one or more of the following;

A.L. Beier, Masterless Men: The Vagrancy Problem in England, 1560-1640 (1985) A.L. Beier,The Problem of the Poor in Tudor and Stuart England (1983) N Fellows, Disorder & Rebellion in Tudor England (2001) Steve Hindle, The State and Social Change in Early Modern England (2000) John F Pound, Poverty and Vagrancy in Tudor England (1971) Paul Slack, From Reformation to Improvement: Public Welfare in Early Modern England (1998) Paul Slack, Poverty and Policy in Tudor England (1988) Penry Williams, The Tudor Regime (1979) Clio the Muse (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated your reply into Origins of the Poor Law system. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Serving military officer should hold a political office. Any supporter?

Untill what extend you agreed that Serving military officer should hold a political office?203.102.255.222 (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, General Musharraf? Sadly, the examples we have, both now and in the recent past, do not inspire much confidence in soldier politicians, at least in a senior role. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Clio. However, there have been quite a few positive examples in the past 100 years of people who have retired from active military service and then later held political office. Saukkomies 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The most prominent counterexample I can think of is de Gaulle, whose exact legal status from 1940 to 1945 was very murky (commander of the Free French forces? Leader of the government in exile) but probably counts. Shimgray | talk | 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

stamps -- north rhodesia, pre-independence

I am trying to identify a stamp that I only have a photo of. The stamp shows an Austen Healey (British)automobile and the script "K500" and "Zambia."

I have searched all through Wikipedia and the internet with no results...any ideas? Many thanks!

Ke498rr (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Zambia is the post-independence name of Northern Rhodesia. The Zambian currency is the Kwacha, abbreviated K.

According to this link [3] it is a 1998 "Exotic Cars of Yesterday" 500 Kwacha issued by Zambia. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, Duncan...I tried the link with no success..any ideas on wher to find the current value of this stamp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke498rr (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found the stamp on ebay for about US$14. Hope this link works! [4]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You can find out more about the car here - Austin-Healey Sprite. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, I followed the ebay link, thanks so much agai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke498rr (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's quite alright - we aim to please! DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

War spy doll maker

I am looking for the name of a woman war spy, i believe from germany during WWII, she was also a doll maker, and her first name starts with a V. I heard the name on antiques roadshow years ago, but now can't find anything, any ideas?149.164.12.86 (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly a spy, and I am unaware if she made dolls, but Violette Szabo begins with a V. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also not from Germany. But she was a woman during WWII, those parts fits. Velvalee Dickinson, an American spy for Japan during WWII, based in New York City, was known as the "Doll Woman". She operated a doll shop, and sent steganographic intelligence information masquerading as doll-related business messages.  --Lambiam 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Generation Y

Is my sister (born in '95) part of the same generation as me (born in '92)? Some sources give the end date of Gen Y as early as 1994 and some as late as 2000. What is the generally agreed on end date for Generation Y and the starting date for the next generation? (Generation Z?) --Candy-Panda (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone really use these terms? 64.236.80.62 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been (jokingly) accused of being in generation Z. I had not thought anyone used such terms seriously, but we do have an article Generation Y. Algebraist 17:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously people really use these terms - the original poster did, after all. However, people seem to mean different things when they use them. I hesitate a bit to link to our article on Generation Y, as the number of tags at the top suggest it is less than authoritative. It proposes 1981 to 1995 as the boundaries, which would make 1996 the start date for the next generation. Generational boundaries are always a little fuzzy though - for example, some definitions call me (1966) a boomer and some Gen X. I think they also tend to shift depending on where people are born, as demographic trends vary globally.

Personally, I think the 1981 to 1995 dates "feel" right, as they basically represent a post-PC / pre-Internet world. But I'm not a professional demographer. List of generations has some other proposed start and end dates. - Eron^Talk 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in the writing that article a little, I'm aware that those dates are disputed. Generations aren't ever clearly defined until they're about to die off, but you can depend on that being roughly correct. Also, Generation Y has been called The Millenials or The Internet Generation (some don't like to be given a name relating them so directly to Generation X). Wrad (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it, then, an American thing? I have never heard anyone using such phrases as Generation Jones or Echo Boomers, for example. Most of the stuff in those articles seems very much on the cusp of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is an "American thing" or not. I know that living in America, and being an American, the terms "Generation X", "Generation Y" etc are pretty commonly accepted and part of the normal parlance of everyday speech. However, I cannot speak for whether these terms are used in other parts of the world or not. As per being on the cusp of Wikipedia's nobability guidelines, I would say that they are quite within the lines - not at all on the cusp. Saukkomies 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammed

I was wondering why, in Islam, you can't name a teddy bear Muhammad, but you can name a person Muhammad? --Ouzo (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ouzo (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To sum it up, it's basically a Sudanese, conservative thing, and not an Islamic thing. Most Muslims could care less what you name your teddy. Wrad (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard a Sudanese diplomat on the radio the other day, who was clearly embarrassed by the affair, but he pointed out that the teddy bear is a western cultural thing that other cultures don't have or necessarily understand. In most cultures a bear is not a sweet, cuddly child's toy, but an aggressive wild animal, and in that context it's not too hard to understand why someone might regard it as disrespectful to call one after his favourite religious figure. Thankfully, we don't have laws that put people in jail for being disrespectful to religious figures, but unfortunately the Sudanese do. It'd be nice if they took cultural misunderstanding into account though. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

rectangle flag of nepal

Does this [5] really exist? is it someone's imagination? was it created in school in a day? Is it a new variant? If you know anything about it please let me know. thanks --Kushal^t 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for formatting the picture. --Kushal^t 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's close to a proposal made here, but that's the closest I can find on Google. Algebraist 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! So, I gather, the removal of this image is on Nepal is justified because there is no (as the blog says) official decision or discussion on it.

If something emerges or if you find something on this, please let me know. either here or on my talk page. thanks--Kushal^t 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fernão Mendes Pinto

Is he still remembered in Portugal, if so by which means. And how is he regarded in Portugal as national writer more important or equal to Camoes and the Lusiads? Finally, is it true to say that his Pilgrimage is Portugal`s, internationaly, most successfull book?--85.180.60.248 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

computer questions

Moved to computing desk

Syphilus in Europe

In my previous question on leprosy in Europe Clio the Muse mentioned that by the sixteenth century it had been surpased in the scale of dread by syphilus. I would be interested to know how the advent of this disease was perceived at the time? Thanks again. Pope Hilarious (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Our syphilis article has a small amount of material in its history section. Rmhermen (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In essence the disease was 'distanced', much like AIDS-the 'Gay Plague-when it first appeared in the 1980s. For a long time it had no generally recognised name at all. The English called it the 'French disease'; the French called it the 'Neapolitan disease'; the Neapolitans called it the 'Spanish disease'; the Portuguese called it the 'Castilian disease'; and the Turks, not surprisingly, called it the 'Christian disease'! Dr Ruy Diaz de Isla, the Spaniard who was among the first to treat it, called it 'the Serpent of Hispaniola', being the first to recognise that it had originated in the New World, brought back to Europe by the crew of the Nina. It first became endemic in 1494, during the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII of France. From there his mercenary army carried it to all parts of Europe. In 1495 the Emperor Maximilian issued a decree against 'the Evil Pox', taken to be God's punishment for blasphemy. Voltaire was later to write of Charles' Italian adventure, "France did not lose all she had won. She kept the pox." It was Girolamo Fracastoro, an Italian poet, who gave the ailment its abiding name, when he composed some verses about a shepherd struck down by the French disease. The shepherd's name was Syphilis. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add, for lovers of trivia, that treatment in the early days called for amputation of the perceived source of the problem. I won't dwell on this for fear of upseting the males among you. Suffice to say it would have been possible to build a mountain with them in the sixteenth century! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another common treatment was sitting in a fog of mercury vapours. Toxic, but apparently with some therapeutic properties, iirc. And more importantly it gave us the wonderful phrase "One night with Venus; a lifetime with mercury." Matt Deres (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Really great replies here :) --Taraborn (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and one rather unfortunate side effect of the treatment was that it had a tendency to turn one's teeth green. At Oscar Wilde's trial, his habit of covering his mouth with his hand when he laughed was used as evidence of his effeminacy, but he was actually doing it to hide the rather unfortunate state of his teeth following mercury treatments. Another interesting bit of trivia is that one of the most effective remedies for syphilis before penicillin arrived on the scene was to infect the poor person with malaria. The malarial fever would kill the syphilis, and then the malaria would be treated with quinine. Julius Wagner-Jauregg won a Nobel Prize for figuring this out. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist objectives

At the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War did the Nationalist have any clear political objectives beyond defeating the republic? 81.152.105.176 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, 81.152, it is important to understand the historic role of the Spanish military, which since the early nineteenth century was to protect Spain from its 'internal' as well as its external enemies. This dual role was incorporated in the constitution of 1812, the very first in Spanish history. It was also incorporated into the army's own constitution in 1878, and remained in place in 1936. In the course of the nineteenth century the military got into the habit of intervening in civilian politics by means of pronunciamientos. These declarations were liberal in nature, intended as a defence of the state and constitution against the Carlists, the chief internal enemy.

By 1936 the army had come to see itself as the guardian of the national tradition, of the integrity of Spain itself. However, by this time, the enemy was no longer on the right, but the left; the forces of socialism and liberal democracy that were threatening, in the army's estimation, to tear Spain apart. After the assasination of Calvo Sotelo, the right-wing political leader, the army issued a new pronunciamento, intending, as they put it, 'to restore the principles of authority' against the defenders of the Republic, who were to be tried by military tribunals for 'the crime of rebellion.' History, and reality, was being made to stand upside down.

It is difficult to determine if the generals had any clear political objectives to begin with, beyond 'restoring order.' Emilio Mola, the chief architect of the rising, seems to have envisaged a temporary military dictatorship, intended to eliminate the Marxist 'danger.' What tends to be overlooked is that the Nationalists, in much the same fashion as the Republicans, were an unstable coalition of forces, who could not agree on common political objectives. Some were monarchists; some were not. Even the monarchists were divided between Carlists and supporters of the exiled Alfonso XIII. In the end, after the death of Mola, Francisco Franco emerged as the military and political head of the rebellion, the one way of unifying disparate forces. What he created in the course of the war was the Estado campamental-the battlefied state. And so it became, and so it remained; after victory, and in to the peace; all the way to the Caudillo's death in 1975. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Relient K and homosexuality

Does anyone know if the Christian rock band Relient K has made any public statements about homosexuality? Thanks 216.159.75.146 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not cross post. If a differnt person there is already a disscusion on the Entertainment section. Esskater11 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They're a Christian rock band?! Oh shit I used to like a couple of their songs... --Candy-Panda (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Executions in the Past

Why were these accompanied by such gross levels of brutality, thinking specifically of hanging, drawing and quartering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qurious Cat (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanging, drawing, and quartering was made specifically made to be painful, as punishment of the criminal and to set an example for the people who would come to watch. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And they were real crowd pleasers. - Nunh-huh 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is considered brutal today was, historically, perhaps not considered so. Remember ethics & morals etc. change with the times - though of course torture and inhumane executions still exist across the world today. ny156uk (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of the Dominicans of Spain thought of severe punishment and torture as a way of cleansing the sin out of the person. They did it for the person's own good, in their view, so that they'd have an easier time in the hereafter. Wrad (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, of course, undeniable that the public tolerance and acceptance of cruelty, obvious and terrible forms of pain, was far higher in the past than it is today. Even so there were certain forms of punishment, including the one you allude to, that were extraordinary and meant to be extraordinary, reserved for high treason, the most heinous crime of all. In this context suffering was meant to have a didactic purpose, directed as much at the audience as the recipient. Where the treason was most aggravated was in the assassination, or the attempted assassination, of the reigning monarch, which gave the crime the equivalency of parricide. Here I am thinking of the execution of Robert Damiens in 1757 for the attempted assassination of Louis XV. For his action he was condemned 'to make honourable amends' with his body, the details of which are explored in all of their horror by Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the common practice (promoted by the Church) of burning heretics, either dead or alive. In an age which believed in the literal truth of the resurrection of the dead, this was really the last word in destroying your enemies. Xn4 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So they really thought that burning prevented a bodily resurrection? Fascinating... Is that why the church exhumed and burned John Wycliff's body? Wrad (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The noted historian Barbara Tuchman discussed this very issue in her very wonderful book A Distant Mirror, which covers the history of England and France during the 14th Century (a very bloody period of time, by the way). She posed the theory that much of the extremely brutal violence of the Middle Ages was perhaps due to the young mean age of the population. She cited some studies about how younger people tend to be more violent from one society to the next, and because in the Middle Ages there were so many more young people as a percentage of the population (due to much shorter life expectancies), that the result was that there was a lot more violence as a matter of publicly accepted behavior than we are accustomed to today. It is a theory, but an intriguing one... Saukkomies 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

December 7

Jesus as a given name

The Gillian Gibbons case has got me wondering why the name Jesus is quite common in Hispanic countries (eg. Jesus Lopez-Cobos), but it's considered quite offensive elsewhere in the Christian world to name a child Jesus, and it virtually never happens (there are probably a few odd exceptions, but they are most definitely exceptions). What makes the Hispanic countries different?

Another issue: In Matthew 1:21-23, the angel appeared to Joseph and said:

• "... fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife ... and she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus ... now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel'".

So, how can a child the angel demanded be named Jesus be a fulfilment of a prophecy that said the child would be called Immanuel? I've checked out various discussions on the web, but nothing I've found so far helps.

I also note that Emmanuel (in various spellings) is relatively common as a given name (relative to Jesus, that is), albeit mainly amongst Jewish families, rather than Christian ones - but Emmanuel Lewis might be an exception. Why is it OK in principle for Christian families to name their kids Emmanuel, but not Jesus, if the two names supposedly mean the same thing? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really offensive, or just unfashionable? I've never heard, for example, of anyone being upset by James Jesus Angleton's name. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

More generally, I think there's ample evidence to show that religion isn't the only consideration people use when choosing religious names for children. Names like Ezekiel and Josiah have fallen out of favour over the years, whereas Noah and Ruth seem to be very popular recently, and surely the change is entirely cultural and not theological. So I'd posit that Anglos don't call their kids Jesus much is culture, habit, and fashion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As to the calling him Jesus in order to fulfill a prophecy that he should be called Immanuel, I think Sportin' Life got it more or less right. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Part one - I don't know why the taboo (really a taboo?) in non-hispanic culture came up, although I suspect it's for similar reasons to the Gibbons affair. I *do* know that many people named Jesús are given a combination name, do distinguish them from other people with a similar name (like Marcelo, Mario, ...). Girls can be called Jesús when combined with María as María Jesús. María Juan is another popular name.

Part two - Immanuel is the Hebrew for 'God-with-us': Ima' - with; -nu - pronominal clitic 'us'; 'el - god (note miniscule g). I understood that interpretation to be that people called him 'god-with-us', but that wasn't his name, as such. A number of the prophetic fulfillments in Matthew are perhaps a bit of a stretch. There isn't really a taboo on it, because it's not his usual name, I suppose. No one prays to Immanuel; it just turns up occasionally in some hymns. -- Steewi (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Jesus is actually an English variant of Yeshua (roughly), which has also carried into English as Joshua, so the name isn't really that uncommon, it has just varied a lot over the years.

The word Immanuel actually means, "God with us", so, the fact that Christ is born will indeed fulfill that prophecy, since in the Christian sense, Christ is God on earth with us in the flesh. Christ has many names, Jesus and Immanuel being only two. Wrad (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, folks. A few thoughts about the offensive thing: that's what I (as a Catholic-raised child) was taught; but it may just have been my parents' particluar spin on it - they were very easily offended. All the same, if I told my family and friends that I was naming my new-born son Egbert Murgatroyd, there'd be more than a few raised eyebrows, and they'd ask me if I was sure that's what I wanted, given the extreme unfashionability of those names - but at the end of the day they'd demur. However, if I announced his first name was to be Jesus, their eyebrows would hit the ceiling and I'm sure they'd disagree violently and insist I choose a more suitable name. Friendships have been destroyed for less. Re James Jesus Angleton, had there been any offence at his being so named (I don't know if history records this or not), the reaction would not have been directed at him as the recipient of the name, but at his parents for giving it to him. Jesus was his middle name, and middle names are not usually used. I suspect that he used both names precisely because the middle one was Jesus (in accordance with the old tradition that if you have such a name you may as well flaunt it). In other words, if his middle name had been Harold, he probably wouldn't have been known as James Harold Angleton but plain old James Angleton. We'll never know, of course. In any case, he's one of those rare exceptions I referred to earlier. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

UK Scale in Maps

Just looking at some maps of europe etc and I just don't know about the Uk...It always seems to look huge next to Europe yet from the list we're 79th in the world, half the size of France and only 2/3s the size of Germany yet on most maps I see it looks bigger than Germany (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Area_by_country.PNG) is it just an illusion in my head? I understand that on some maps things aren't proportional/to scale but just wondered whether there's something more to it than this. It's probably just me mistaking things. ny156uk (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Partly is surely, as you say, the distortion due to the map projection (Mercator projection, for example, is still used; it stretches the UK a fair amount). Secondly your eye might be taking in the whole of the British Isles and chunking them as a one-er, so the psychological size of Britain might be boosted both by Ireland and the Irish Sea. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Many maps make countries larger the closer to the poles they are. Wrad (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

With unfortunate effects for the Poles. DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I think Finlay McWalter said above, part of it may be that the island of Britain has a very complex indented coastline. It is probably easy to mentally "fill-in" the indents, making it seem larger. Another possibility is that cartographers intentionally "fill it in" to some degree. On the map posted above you can see that small islands around the world have been enlarged so as to be more visible. It could be that the mapmaker colored Britain's outline with the same color as the "fill" because otherwise it might look too thin and disjoint (note that the peninsula of Cornwall (whatever it's real name is) is only a pixel or so wide). I'm not sure if that's the case on this map, but it is not uncommon in cartography to intentionally displace and distort features in order to make maps easier to read and understand. Finally, it could also be a case of a tall and narrow object looking larger compared to a wide and short one. To my eye, on this map, Germany is clearly larger than Britain. But then, I failed a 2nd grade test by judging a tall and narrow shape as being bigger than a shorter wide one -- and I never forgot! Pfly (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One Spartan

According to Battle of Thermopylae, 299 Spartans died out of 300. Who was this one Spartan that survived? S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 00:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aristodemus. He was too ill to fight and was sent home by Leonidas. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks.

However, I also notice on Aristodemus that Pantites also survived, but hung himself of shame later. Shouldn't the article be changed to 298 Spartan deaths in battle? S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 01:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of that information you would be justified in making the change if you wish to do so. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Utter frivolity, but whenever "One Spartan" pops up on my watchlist, I keep thinking "One poor Spartan didn't have a fox"... DuncanHill (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always believed this was the origin of the unfortunate Noaks in Zuleika Dobson, the only man in the University who didn't follow the example of the Duke of Dorset and drown himself for the love of Zuleika. Noaks, too, ends up dead, though it's not clear whether he followed the example of Pantites or just tripped. Xn4 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird historical coincidences

A couple of people I went to college with are now somewhat notorious for completely different reasons, and people in the future may find it interesting that they were classmates. That got me thinking: In what other cases have two historically notable people that you wouldn't expect to cross paths wound up doing so? For example, it's said that when Mary Todd Lincoln tried to throw herself off the upper deck of a ship in a suicide attempt, Sarah Bernhardt, who happened to be on the same ship, caught her. Then there's the odd coincidence that baseball star Reggie Jackson and Israeli national hero Yonatan Netanyahu were high-school classmates in Philadelphia.

Any other examples? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Irony: When Napoleon's mother was pregnant with him, the French attacked Corsica, where she lived, and she actually got involved in the fighting. So the first battle that Napoleon was "involved" in was against the French. Wrad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein and Adolf Hitler attended the same school, though not in the same class. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't help asking - who did you go to college with, Mwalcoff? DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there's only so much personal information I'm willing to discuss in a place where it's saved forever until you die! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some bad news.... it's not erased when you die... - Nunh-huh 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Mary Todd Lincoln, her and Abe's son Robert Todd Lincoln was present not only at Abe's assassination, but also at those of the next 2 victims, Garfield and McKinley. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now if I was in the Secret Service, I'd want to ask him a few questions! DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

After Kurt Cobain escaped from his final rehab in LA he took a flight home to Seattle. By coincidence, seated beside him has former Guns'N'Roses member (and fellow on-again-off-again heroinista) Izzy Stradlin; if I remember rightly this was the last substantive conversation Cobain had with anyone. There's no reason to believe Stradlin (who was clean by that time) had any detrimental effect (he says the two chatted amiably), but perhaps if the divine coincidence factory had chosen to put Sister Wendy there instead of Izzy, perhaps things might have worked out differently. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Several signers of the Declaration of Independence, including Jefferson and Adams, died on July 4, the day the document is recognized as being signed. Wrad (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

More than that, Adams and Jefferson died on exactly the same day, 4 July 1826. James Monroe died 5 years later, 4 July 1831, and Calvin Cooldge was born 4 July 1872. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Enoch Powell was taught by A. E. Housman. Xn4 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Violet Jessop survived the sinkings of both the Titanic (as a stewardess for the White Star Line) and its sister ship the Britannic (as a military nurse). She also worked on the third sister ship, the Olympic, and apparently was on board when it suffered a collision; but as a White Star employee that part would not be much of a coincidence. --Anonymous, 02:40 UTC, December 7, 2007.

Here's a couple of college roommates: Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones (Harvard University); and tech billionaire Jim Balsillie and bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell (University of Toronto). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one, perhaps someone can enlighten me. I've heard that during World War I Vladimir Lenin lived in Zurich, "across the street" or very near to Cabaret Voltaire. Somewhere I read that Lenin wrote the Communist Manifesto while the sounds of the Dada Manifesto, as realized at Cabaret Voltaire, wafted through his window. Looking into it quickly right now, I'm not sure what the "Communist Manifesto" would be, perhaps State and Revolution? In any case, this always struck me as one of the weirdest juxtapositions of historical events. Does anyone know if it is true? Pfly (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See Travesties by Tom Stoppard. (The Communist Manifesto is by Marx and Engels.) 64.236.80.62 (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm intrigued that Alan Greenspan and Miles Davis both attended Juilliard School of Music in 1944, though it's doubtful they knew each other. Miles rarely attended classes, and became one of the most influential musicians of the second half of the 20th century, while Greenspan supposedly was more duteous, but abandoned his musical career and became one of the most influential people of the late 20th and early 21st century. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe Satriani taught Kirk Hammett aswell as a few others to play guitar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that a famous guitarist taught another famous guitarist to play the guitar? What a weird historical coincidence that is. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Civil War's first battle was the First Battle of Bull Run, fought on the farm of Wilmer McLean in Manassas, Virginia. The surrender of Robert E. Lee to U.S. Grant took place almost four years later in the home of the same Mr. McLean, but he had moved to Appomattox, Virginia, 200 km away. Edison (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst not exactly as entertaining as the above (some great answers by the way) searching through the 'famous almuni' list of universities will doubtlessly bring up odd-pairings that graduated/attended uni the same year/s. ny156uk (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dutch cyclist Michael Boogerd and Wimbledon champion Richard Krajicek were class mates at an elementary school in The Hague in the 1970s and early 1980s. Ruud van Nistelrooy and Patrick Kluivert were born on the same day. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Evanston Township High School, is located in Evanston, Illinois, the suburb that lies directly north of the city of Chicago, and is home to the prestigious Northwestern University campus. There must be something in the water, because from the years passing from 1968 through 1992 this four-year high school had at least one future famous person in attendance, sometimes more. Here is a list of the school's famous alumni, along with the years they graduated:

• Emery Moorehead (1972),
• Michael Madsen (1976),
• Joan Cusack (1980),
• Jeremy Piven (1983),
• John Cusack (1984),
• Jeffrey Lieber (1987),
• Ajay Naidu (1990),
• Alicia Goranson (1992)

-- Saukkomies 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Marlon Brando's mother was Henry Fonda's drama teacher. Corvus cornix_talk 04:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oliver Stone directed Tommy Lee Jones in JFK. They were born on the same day (15 September 1946).
• Carmen Lawrence and Jeff Kennett were the premiers of Western Australia and Victoria respectively. For a period in 1992-93, their terms overlapped. They were born on the same day, 2 March 1948.
• And this is a doozie, although it probably doesn't qualify as a historical coincidence. Ann Landers and Abigail van Buren, the famous gossip columnists, were identical twins; Eric Bedser and Sir Alec Bedser, the famous cricketers, were also identical twins. All 4 of them were born on 4 July 1918. I'm not aware of any other case of 2 unrelated pairs of identical twins born on the same day who became famous in different fields. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses, but remember, I'm not looking for just any historical coincidence; I'm looking for unrelated historical figures crossing paths. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not unrelated, so they may not qualify, but still worth mentioning, I think. Another user has written in a thread below that Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) taught George Orwell (1984) at Eton College. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Shipping drama set in Bermuda

Could somebody tell me th name of a British television drama that aired in the eghties that was about shipping in Bermuda? thanks --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a series called Triangle, but Bermuda it wasn't. DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean The Onedin Line? Bielle (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Art of Lighting

1.Whats the branches of "Art of Lighting" and whats the main styles and the fundamental differences between them? 2.Is there perfect and good references in this art? Flakture (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be nicer if posters said please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.28.68 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And if volunteers didn't bite.

See Lighting, Lighting designer, Stage lighting, and Three-point lighting. I don't know what book to recommend, but the external links at the bottom of the "Lighting" article might steer you to one. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dutyless Daughters

In the English revolution of 1688 both Mary and Anne sided against their father, King James. Had they no family feeling or loyalty? 81.156.7.147 (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a rhetorical question. Wrad (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to put this into a nutshell, but here goes... James had infuriated almost all of the constituencies he needed to survive, especially after the failure of Monmouth's Rebellion. You refer to the Glorious Revolution as "the English revolution", but that rather conceals the fact that it was more of a Dutch invasion (at the invitation of some key people) than a home-grown rebellion. The invasion was led by Mary's husband William of Orange, and Mary both supported it and accompanied William to England. She had to make a stark choice between her husband and her father, and she naturally chose her husband. Anne, on the other hand, reserved her position until it was clear that almost no one of any significance was willing to rally around James. She wasn't the first to abandon him, and losing her support helped James to understand that the game was up. Xn4 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they were more faithful to their country than to their father. DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have to remember that Mary and her sister Anne were brought up, on the insistence of their uncle, Charles, as Protestants, which put them at variance with their father over the most fundamental issue of the day. Second, the relationship between father and daughters was never particularly close: more one of bare filial duty, than anything more solid. After her marriage Mary's first loyalty was to her husband, William; her second loyalty to her faith, and only her third loyalty to her father. Anne, for all her shallow-mindedness, was committed to the Church of England, which her father gave every apperance of subverting. In 1688 she became one of the firmest believers in the 'warming-pan myth', the contention that her half-brother, James was a changling, intended to secure a permanent Catholic succession. She was later to apologise to her father in writing for the part she had played in the Glorious Revolution, but held to the warming-pan story right to the end, even after it had served its purpose and been abandoned by all others. An act of self-deception and bad-faith perhaps, but one which safeguarded her against any residual feelings of guilt Clio the Muse (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Caligula's horse

Did Caligulaa really make his horse a member of the senate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.227 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly although it is disputed, see Caligula#Scandals and Incitatus (the horse) for more on this. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Suetonius says in The Lives of the Twelve Caesars - "Caligula... used to send his soldiers on the day before the games and order silence in the neighbourhood, to prevent the horse Incitatus from being disturbed. Besides a stall of marble, a manger of ivory, purple blankets and a collar of precious stones, he even gave this horse a house, a troop of slaves and furniture, for the more elegant entertainment of the guests invited in his name; and it is also said that he planned to make him consul." (from the translation by J. C. Rolfe in the Loeb Classical Library bilingual text, 1913, p. 489) Xn4 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Be careful of possible exaggeration! Both Seutonius and Cassius Dio refer to Caligula's fondness for Incitatus, but both are hostile to the memory of the Emperor. The pen, after all, is more cutting than the sword. God give us all the blessing of a sympathetic biographer! Clio the Muse (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Leopold III

How far was Leopold III of Belgium to blame for his own misfortunes? Polly Kettle (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Leopold III of Belgium undoubtedly made many blunders. Some of them could, perhaps, be compared to those of the writer P. G. Wodehouse, who on a smaller scale incited similar fury over his conduct during the Second World War. Leopold's decision to remain in Belgium in 1940 after the German occupation wasn't fatal to him, but it inevitably made his position a very equivocal one. (The British royal family, planning what to do in the event of a successful German invasion of the UK, took the opposite view and intended to withdraw to the safety of Canada). Leopold's rejection of the Belgian government-in-exile (and his later repudiation of decisions it made, including the signing of treaties) created great tensions between him and the politicians. His secret marriage had already undermined his position. The long Regency after the liberation of Belgium (which Leopold foolishly referred to as the country's occupation by Allied forces) gave him a chance to build bridges which he could have done more to seize. In the aftermath of the war, Leopold was accused of treason, and a commission of inquiry was set up which in 1946 reported and found no evidence of treason, but many Belgians were left with the feeling that there was 'no smoke without fire'. Perhaps Leopold's greatest mistake, though, was to believe he could be a credible king of Belgium after securing only a narrow majority in the national referendum of 1950 to decide his future as king. More than forty per cent of the Belgians who voted, but a clear majority of those in Wallonia, one of Belgium's two provinces, had voted against him. His return very nearly prompted a civil war, and when demonstrators began to die in clashes with the police he threw in the towel. Altogether, his career as king shows us the real weakness of the position of a constitutional monarch in the modern world. Xn4 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might consider the example set by Albert in 1914 with that of Leopold in 1940; the determination of the first and the weakness and vacillation of the second. When Leopold was faced with the certainty of a German invasion he simple chose to ignore it. For once a cliché would seem to be justified; he effectively put his head in the sand like an ostrich. Having made no preparations, and refusing to co-operate with the British and French, Leopold virtually ensured that his country would be overrun. In 1914 Belgian resistance contributed greatly to the survival of the Allied cause. In 1940 Leopold, believing in defeat, made sure of defeat. Contrary to the advice of his Prime Minister, he moved his army to a position where it could be dealt with the Germans in detail, isolated from Allied support. Even so, in the face of defeat, he could have gone to England with his government, standing as a symbol of resistance to his people in the same fashion as Wilhelmina of the Netherlands did to the Dutch. He did not. Not a traitor king, as was once argued; but not much on an inspiration either. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for the title and artist of a French painting

Can anyone help me find this painting? Facts: The painting is located in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and was painted by a french artist. Educated guesses: XIX Century Neoclassical (at first I though it was done by Ingres) or maybe Romantic. The painting's theme is the Massacre of the Innocents, almost certainly. There is a weeping mother on the right foreground and the pursuit and killing of children is depicted on the left background. Sorry for being so vague. --78.24.136.36 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not Poussin's Abduction of the Sabine Women [6], I don't suppose? 64.236.80.62 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How about François-Joseph Navez' version of The massacre of the innocents?[7] Lupo 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Lupo, that's the painting I was looking for. I was very impressed by the painting when I first saw it but I couldn't remember the artist's name. Thanks again. --217.125.184.187 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Impact of Terrorism

Is there any comparison to be drawn between the practices of present day terrorism and the campaign of the anarchists and others the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Did the terrorists themselves employ similar techniques and practices? Were state responses similar in the past to those of the presemt day? I hope this is not too ambitious? Thanks for any help you can offer. Brodieset (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say you have the makings of a pretty good thesis there, Brodieset. Compare the assassination of the very important 19th Century leader Czar Alexander II of Russia on March 13th, 1881 with that of modern day bomb-wielding terrorists. His assassination was by no means an isolated rare event, either. I think you could make a very clear connection between those 19th Century bomb throwers and the ones we have today. -- Saukkomies 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If I try to conjure up an archetypal terrorist the figure that immediately comes to mind is that of Souvarine in Emile Zola's Germinal; single-minded, determined, amoral and utterly, utterly ruthless. We sometimes forget that people like this, though a tiny minority, once figured high in the consciousness of the world; from the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 to that of Franz Ferdinand in 1914. Those who fell victim to the anarchists in particular included President Carnot of France in 1894; Empress Elizabeth of Austria in 1898; Umberto I, King of Italy, in 1900; and President McKinley of the United States in 1901. They all fell victim of what was called 'the propaganda of the deed', the belief tht political homicide carried a message to the widest possible audience far beyond its particular significance.

Unlike al-Queda the anarchists tended, in the main, to be selective in their targets, aiming at the leading representatives of the bourgeois state, though not always. In Barcelona, a city notorious for bomb outrages, the victims of the 'propaganda of the deed' were ordinary people. In 1894 Emile Henry threw a bomb into the Terminus Cafe in Paris, killing two people. During his trial he told the court that "there are no innocents", a Souvarine-like sentiment that might serve as the leitmotiv of terror murder, both then and now.

So, yes, a comparison can be drawn between old-fashioned anarchists and modern day Islamists; both share a belief in the efficacy of death in achieving their political ends, unrestrained by any moral considerations of right and wrong. But perhaps the most important comparison lies in the area of perceived impact; of what might be called the amplification of results. Here what matters is not the death of a single individual, no matter how important, or the murder of a large group of people, no matter how outrageous. What matters is how the 'enemy' reacts. The intention in this regard is to produce, if anything, an over-reaction, which feeds back into, and inflames, the original grievance. Otto von Bismarck, to take but one example of this process, introduced oppressive anti-socialist measures in 1878 following the attempted asassination of Kaiser Wilhelm I, in blunt-hammer strategy that made enemies of a whole section of the German community who in no way sympathised with the act. A bomb attack on a Corpus Christi procession in Barcelona in 1896 led the the arrest and torture of hundreds of dissidents, innocent and guilty alike. Over the world, from Chicago to Paris, anarchist attacks were the overture to increasing levels of repression, so much so that some were even convinced that the terrorists were acting as agents of the state.

In the end the 'propaganda of the deed' was defeated not by extraordinary state action but by new forms of awareness within the anarchist movement itself. Influential figures like Peter Kropotkin of Russia argued that it only brought isolation and repression. It is only to be hoped that our present-day equivalent will pass into history, much like the cloaked and hated figure of a bygone age, armed with his hissing bomb. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Wouldn't the lack of "super weapons" capable of killing thousands have forced the Anarchists to be more selective, as you say? In other words, people have to use what they have on hand, like it or not. Wrad (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There were certainly fears, Wrad, that the anarchists would use any means at their disposal, no matter how horrific. I would draw to your attention E. D. Fawcett's novel of 1893, Hartmann, the Anarchist; or the Doom of a Great City, which envisaged the destruction of London from the air. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A good deal of the response to the initial question has been accurate, however, I find five points of contention I must address.

So, yes, a comparison can be drawn between old-fashioned anarchists and modern day Islamists; both share a belief in the efficacy of death in achieving their political ends, unrestrained by any moral considerations of right and wrong.

This is first point is a gross misrepresentation of anarchist thought and practice in regards to Propaganda of the deed. By observing the list of of events associated with the philosophy, it is plane to see that the vast majority were not random or indiscriminate in their targets. Although a few individuals did take part in attacks against "masses," the predominate assumption was that the anarchists performed these acts not on behalf of, but as members of, the civilian population. To that end, the majority of these attacks were pin-point in their precision, utilizing knifes and single shot revolvers, or when explosives were employed, in closed areas where only wealthy politicians/elites would be injured. There was an obvious ethical agenda at work. Perceived innocents were to be spared at all costs, even if the attacking anarchist could be placed at greater risk. Note that a fair many of the anarchists whom used knifes and guns were easily captured. This was an understood risk, but one accepted as the price for avoiding "innocent" bloodshed.

But perhaps the most important comparison lies in the area of perceived impact; of what might be called the amplification of results.... What matters is how the 'enemy' reacts. The intention in this regard is to produce, if anything, an over-reaction, which feeds back into, and inflames, the original grievance.

This largely misses the point of Propagand of the Deed, as outlined within political tracts of the day. Although this is no doubt what modern islamic terrorists hope for in their attacks, anarchists saw this as only a secondary aspect of their actions. The primary goal of these symbolic murders was to display to the masses that the state apparatus was not as invincible as it was believed. The Japanese anarchists who attempted to assassinate the Emperor did not do so because they hoped the government would clamp down on their activities, and that this would display the viciousness of the state.

Rather, they did so because contemporary social, religious, and cultural beliefs held the Emperor to be a literal god, and peasants were unwilling to challenge the power of the state with that superstition ever present. It was hoped that the death of the Emperor would be a single stepping stone towards busting the myth of the divine right of the rulering class. A similar situation existed throughout the world during this period, and the same results were hoped for elsewhere.

Over the world, from Chicago to Paris, anarchist attacks were the overture to increasing levels of repression, so much so that some were even convinced that the terrorists were acting as agents of the state.

This was not entirely an unsubstantiated belief. Governments at the time are now known to have used provacateurs to implicate anarchists in such activities. The actions of Dmitry Bogrov were highly suspect, and it is widely believed that he was never an anarchist at all, and that his act of assassination was a cover on the part of conservative elements. Several examples of government falsified terrorism in the modern era occurred in Europe, during the mid 70s to early 80s, as part of a Strategy of tension.

:Interesting. Wouldn't the lack of "super weapons" capable of killing thousands have forced the Anarchists to be more selective, as you say? In other words, people have to use what they have on hand, like it or not. Wrad (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There were certainly fears, Wrad, that the anarchists would use any means at their disposal, no matter how horrific. I would draw to your attention E. D. Fawcett's novel of 1893, Hartmann, the Anarchist; or the Doom of a Great City, which envisaged the destruction of London from the air. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was no real threat that anarchists would use weapons of mass destruction, even if they had access to them. Dynamite was widely available, but was often ignored in favor of more precise weapons. The point was not to kill at random. The point was to create symbolic deeds which would act as pro-revolutionary propaganda. You don't start a revolution by killing potential recruits. But it is correct to say that there were fears that anarchists would resort to widespread murder, but this was largely a reflection of anti-anarchist propaganda.

The novel you reference, Hartmann, the Anarchist; or the Doom of a Great City, is no different. Many novelists included anti-anarchist caricatures in their stories as propaganda. One good example would be the play Paul Kauvar; or, Anarchy, by Steele MacKaye, who was explicit in his intentions to create the play as propaganda. Another, perhaps even laughable example, was a film entitled The Ariel Anarchists, which depicted a gang of dirty, cowardly, bearded "bomb throwers" constructing an airplane which they then used to drop bombs on churches and government buildings. Filmed when aviation was still in its infancy, it can be compared to a sensationalist sci-fi thriller, playing on the fears masses had of the new technology of flight, as much as on the fears the ruling class had of the anarchists.

And finally, though your post largely paints a picture of the "amoral, ruthless" anarchists as the monstrous caricatures Joseph Conrad was so fond of placing in his stories, it should be noted that the anarchists were not always despised. When Samuel Schwartzbard, known as Shalom, assassinated General Simon Petliura in revenge for the killing of sixty thousand Jews -- most of Shalom's family included -- he was caught and placed on trial. It only lasted eight days, at the end of which he was acquitted.--Cast (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me of Joseph Conrad, though I call to mind not one of his 'monstrous caricatures' but the pathetic and inadequate figure Adolf Verloc in The Secret Agent, arguably far closer to the truth of the mundane anarchist than the tragic and damaged Souvarine. Was there any sympathy for Schwartzbard? Not, I think, out of respect for his politics. I really have no further comment to make on the morality or immorality of anarchist murders, other than to say that I believe the Empress Elizabeth and President McKinley had as much right to life as the nameless individuals who just happened to be in the Terminus Cafe the day Henry lobbed in his bomb. It should make it clear that I believe, yes I believe, that anarchist murders are and were an abomination, no matter how precise or targeted; no matter if one politician; no matter if one innocent by-stander; no matter if the thousands of priests and nuns, killed in the course of the Spanish Civil War for no other reason than they were priests and nuns. For to take one life is to take the world entire. And to advocate murder as a political tool is to stare into the abyss. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether or not Propaganda of the Deed was justified is open for debate. However, the assertion that anarchists were not guided by a sense of ethics is incorrect. The reality is, anarchists who took up the call of political assassination did act by a code of ethics -- even if it is one we cannot understand. As for Joseph Conrad's propaganda, one need look no further than his misrepresentation of anarchists in his short story, An Anarchist. And if we are to be interested in "true" depictions of the "mundane" anarchists, we ought to look at authors who were anti-anarchist, but also those who are sympathetic to anarchists and portrayed them in their own fiction as heroes. Examples would include Ursula K. Le Guin's novel, The Dispossessed, or Alan Moore's graphic novel, V for Vendetta, and Philip K. Dick's short story, The Last of the Masters.

And as regards the victims of anarchists, I can empathize with nameless, faceless victims as well as anyone, which isn't very much except to understand them to have been individuals with desires and fears as real as yours or mine, but I cannot bring myself to care for "victims" who were anything but innocent. Empress Elizabeth, like the rest of the Austrian aristocracy, were provided with wealth and power upon the backs of the poor, and backed by state violence, a form of terrorism all too accepted then and now. William McKinley was a somewhat more proactive figure, being directly responsible for the annexation of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, following war with Spain, and Hawaii. The armies he commanded set about killing thousands to prevent uprisings of "nameless individuals" who did not wish to become colonies for a new American empire. His support for the Cuban government following the war was significant for anarchists, as the suppression of labor movements and US occupation severely damaged the Cuban anarchist movement.

You can feel that they had every right to live. I would say the same of their victims. No one here can claim the higher moral ground, and I certainly won't try.--Cast (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also look at Wall Street bombing, which was an anarchist attack from 1920 that looks a lot like "modern" terrorism (vehicle bomb against a "soft" target of a civilian econoic sector). --76.171.172.201 (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Clio, thank you for such an outstanding response. I'm stunned! Brodieset (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Historians and travellers from antiquity

Could you recommend books by BCE people who wrote about history and people who wrote about their travels? I know there are, for example, a few antic greek historians and travellers (some going to Scotland or Asia) and I even believe we have a list of them on WP (I can't find it), could you recommend some of these old texts (reedited today),? The more the better! Thank you. Keria (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd start with Herodotus. It's much later, but Ibn Battuta's writings might also interest you. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask if there is any particular English translation of Herodotus anyone would recommend? I see there is about half a dozen different versions of his Histories. Keria (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Herodotus is one of those great writers who survives translation very well, so I wouldn't worry about going wrong. If you like tons of ancillary material, with lots of footnotes and maps, and you don't mind a real doorstop of a heavy hardcover book, The Landmark Herodotus (ISBN 0375421092) has just been published.[8] Robin Waterfield's translation (Oxford World's Classics, ISBN 0192824252) is good, and the 150 pp. of notes in the back are good. That said, neither of these is ideal for what I personally imagine as the needs of a first-time reader: a little bit of truly necessary explanation, right there on the page in sparing footnotes. Herodotus is a great storyteller & literary artist and should simply be read cover-to-cover first. The edition I read cover-to-cover that fits the bill is the translation by David Grene (Univ. of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226327728); if you appreciate annotation you might find it too sparing in this edition. A nice compact hardcover edition with a bit more in the way of footnotes is George Rawlinson's classic Victorian translation, nicely presented in the Everyman's Library (ISBN 0375400613, some more discursive footnotes). Avoid the Norton Critical Edition: it's abridged. The Penguin edition (ISBN 0140449086) probably beats Grene for page-turning readability (Grene is concerned to capture the quirkiness of Herodotus' language), but it uses endnotes instead of footnotes. You can sample all of these online to get a sense of a style you'll enjoy; almost all can be browsed with Amazon's Reader. If I haven't helped you narrow the list of a half dozen editions you already knew of, my apologies. To summarize, I think the first-time reader might want to choose from among Grene (sparing footnotes), Rawlinson/Everyman's (all the pros and cons of Victorian English, more extensive footnotes), and Penguin or Oxford (the most readable of all, both with very extensive endnotes). For one more possibility, the Macaulay/Lateiner version published by Barnes & Noble, see here. Wareh (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1st century CE, but Josephus is well worth a gander. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Xenophon's Anabasis, it is really quite fascinating. I would also recommend Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, Polybios, Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico and Tacitus' Germania - all make for wonderful reading. You might have a look at our article on Ancient literature, although it admittedly leaves a bit to be desired (and Roman historiography is even a redlink, I'm afraid). -- Ferkelparade π 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Keria: I read the Penguin edition of Herodotus and can recommend it as readable. SaundersW (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From the above, I obviously second the recommendation of Herodotus. If you go on to Thucydides (less of a traveler, much more sober and dense, but surely the greatest ancient historian) and aren't sure you want to digest the whole thing the first time, I highly recommend Paul Woodruff's abridgment, Thucydides: On Justice, Power, and Human Nature (ISBN 0872201686). Generally I hate the idea of abridgments but in this case I really think devouring this 200-page book in its entirety (including the introduction) is the best introduction to Thucydides the thinker. (I could recommend complete translations of Thucydides, but I'd have to know more about what you really want from a translation: the Landmark tome vs. Hobbes' wonderful and accurate 17th-century English vs. Lattimore's incredibly literal and difficult version vs. Rex Warner's readable but loose Penguin, for example.) Wareh (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Although he is not quite BCE, I just can't help but recommend Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117). He is so READABLE, and his narrative of his travels in Germania are absolutely fantastic! It is so fascinating to compare what he says about the ancient wild Germans with their modern day descendants, with whom they have so much in common. His book, appropriately called Germania, can be read for free online at this site: http://www.northvegr.org/lore/tacitus/ -- Saukkomies 01:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A word of caution... No doubt modern Germans (like the English, another nation largely descended from these 'ancient wild Germans') do indeed have much in common with their remote ancestors. Since the Middle Ages, though, the Germans (like the English) have been one of the most civilized peoples of the world, and in almost all fields (including philosophy, science, music, literature, medicine, religion, and so forth) it's hard to imagine the world we have now coming about without them... Xn4 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Xn4, if anything I would say that if you read Tacitus' Germania, that you'll come away from it with a very different impression than that he is painting the Germans as being "wild" or barbaric. Tacitus seems to genuinely respect the Germans' society, and tried to convince Romans to be more like them, not the other way around! Saukkomies 04:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As so often with Tacitus his writings are really intended as a mirror held up to Rome. I'm sure modern day Germans have many of the qualities of simplicity and bravery admired by Tacitus in the Germania; but, in common with all other advanced nations, it is reasonably sure that they have few of the ancient Roman virtues that the author attempted to idealise. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Tacitus had an axe to grind when he was writing his book Germania. He was a moralist, and was using the Germans' reported high values of morality to try to persuade the Romans to return to the values that their ancestors were supposed to have had back in the glory days of the founding of the Republic. However, given that, this does not necessarily negate what Tacitus is saying about them. From what we can see those societies that have been primarily influenced by the Germanic people living in Magna Germania did have some very markedly strong social norms in regards to monogomous marriage, an emphasis on the worth of the individual, personal loyalty, etc. I know you'll probably want to have this all down in writing, Clio, but please be patient for a day or two, since I'm a bit busy right now. However, there has been some extensive study done on this subject - the social norms that are shared by the Germanic people. Don't get me wrong - I'm no Germanic supremacist, or anything like that - to me one set of social norms is just as valid as any other. However, comparing the ancient German society that Tacitus writes about with the modern German society is quite surprisingly similar in many substantial ways. It is interesting to note, for instance, the similarities between the maps of the ancient Roman Empire and a modern map of Europe that shows where the majority of people are either Catholic or Protestant. There really is a difference between the two societies that come down through the centuries from either Rome or from German influence. Saukkomies 04:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A few names of possible interest. I'm unsure on sources for these, but perhaps the pages will have leads: Harkhuf, an ancient Egyptian traveller of the 23rd century BCE; Story of Wenamun, another ancient Egyptian travelling story, perhaps a bit garbled over time; Pytheas, whose tale is told by Strabo, Pliny, and perhaps in other fragments; Hanno the Navigator and Himilco the Navigator, Carthaginians both; perhaps too obvious, but how about Alexander the Great? From China there is Zhang Qian and Gan Ying, among others. Finally, another Greek, Agatharchides. Sorry I can't say much about these people -- I don't know much about them myself. But maybe those pages will be useful. Pfly (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in a modern take on ancient history, read Anabasis, then pick up a copy of the 1970s movie The Warriors, set in modern (1970s) days but based on Anabasis. A very interesting movie, especially when comparing it to its source. The movie itself is based on the book by Sol Yurick. Corvus cornix_talk 04:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Pudding

Does that odd confection, the British Christmas Pudding, have a history? Friedrich James (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Christmas Pudding Thomprod (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page does not do our wonderful pudding nearly enough justice! Although it took its final form in Victorian times the pudding's origins can be traced all the way back to the 1420s, to two sources. It emerged not as a confection or a dessert at all, but as a way of preserving meat at the end of the season. Because of shortages of fodder all surplus livestock was slaughtered in the Autumn. The meat was then kept in a pastry case along with dried fruits, acting as a preservative. The resultant large 'mince pies' could then be used to feed hosts of people, particularly at the festive season. The chief ancestor of the modern pudding, however, was the pottage, a meat and vegtable concoction originating in Roman times. This was prepared in a large cauldron, the ingredients being slow cooked, with dried fruits, sugar and spices added.

The earliest reference we have to the 'standing pottage' dates to 1420, a dish of preserved veal, mutton or chicken, thickened with bread, reddened with sandlewood and full of currants. By the time of Elizabeth I prunes were added to this basic concoction. This became so popular that the dish was know from this point forward as Plum Pottage.

By the eighteenth century, as techniques for meat preserving improved, the savoury element of both the mince pie and the plum pottage diminished as the sweet content increased. The mince pie kept its name though the pottage was increasingly referred to as plumb pudding. Although the latter was always a celebratory dish it was originally eaten at the Harvest Festival, not Christmas. It is not until the 1830s that the cannon-ball of flour, fruits, , suet, sugar and spices, all topped with holly makes a definite apperance, more and more assocaited with Christmas. As far as I can tell it was Eliza Acton who first referred to it as Christmas Pudding in her cookbook. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section based on the above text to the article. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried it, Sandstein? Please do. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

They improve with age, and I recommend having both custard (proper English custard, none of this foreign muck) AND Cornish clotted cream on it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This year's pudding should have already been made by now, preferably some weeks ago. Clotted cream seems a little 'slick' for the pudding IMHO, but I suppose it depends on what you grew up with :) Skittle (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's intriguing that (apparently) the Christmas pudding is beloved in the UK, while its cousin, the fruitcake, is despised in the U.S. Any opinions why this is so? (I suppose being served with hard sauce might make the fruitcake more beloved, now that I think of it....) - Nunh-huh 04:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

But I love the fruitcake (Christmas cake) too, although not as much as the Christmas pudding. A lovely moist fruity cake, with marzipan and royal icing in peaks and the decorations arranged into whatever scene the children thought was funny... Personally, I blame it on mass-produced cakes and the lack of alcohol in American Christmas cakes. We feed our cake regularly in the month or so before Christmas, and I can't imagine it without that. Skittle (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I brought some puddings from Harrods with me when I was on a visit to London a few years ago. They did taste wonderful, but by now, they've all... mysteriously disappeared, alas. Sandstein (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Economics book

Could you recommend me economics books? Currently I know almost nothing, but I'd like to learn (so introductory books are welcome too). --Taraborn (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Start with The Wealth of Nations, and The Marx-Engels Reader (ed. Tucker, ISBN 039309040X). Twentieth-century classics include The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money and more titles if you happen to be interested in the economic history and ideas of any given time or place. Wareh (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From the above suggested, I second The Wealth of Nations. You may find it quite amusing. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money is a classic, but if you want my opinion, it's terribly obscure for someone untrained in Macroeconomics. Well, my bet is that it's obscure for everyone :D.

Take into account that the previous list doesn't contain handbooks of theory. If you are looking for introductory books on Economic Theory, something like Economics, by Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus is a good start.

After you read something like this, you may want to see (if you are still interested :P) more specific material on Micro or Macroeconomics. Good luck! Pallida  Mors 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A good introductory book is New Ideas from Dead Economists Wrad (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Taraborn (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For something lighter, accessible to someone who knows "almost nothing", I recommend Paul Krugman's The Accidental Theorist. His essay "Four Percent Follies" is the most amusing thing I ever read on monetary policy. 82.169.148.34 (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the "Worldly Philosophers"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

More music like this?

Here is a link to a music clip (it's quiet so you'll need to turn up the volume (sorry) - can someone suggest a genre? It's taken from a movie so there's other stuff going on as well but it's easy enough to filter out in your head. If you were trying to hunt down music with similar slow pacing/melancholic tones, what would you do? --Seans Potato Business 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hum... I guess to label it rock is a good start. Maybe someone else suggests a more specific tag for it. Considering the guitar in the foreground, if you specially like this piece, you may also be interested in some blues.

Somehow, it remained me a bit of "What God wants, part 3", one of my favorite tracks of Amused to Death by Roger Waters. (Did I follow the citing style convention? I never remember how to do it... :(). Anyway, that song has a mind-blowing, melancholic guitar solo from Jeff Beck. I suggest listening to it. Pallida  Mors 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It reminds me of the music in Twin Peaks. David Lynch wrote that with Angelo Badalamenti. I've never heard Badalamenti's work outside of movies, but the descriptions of it in the links on his Wikipedia page sound about right. Some of the soundtrack to The Crow is similar, too. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe ambient music? SaundersW (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say minimal electronic with a bit of post rock there at the end... sounds maybe like Sigur Rós, Brian Eno...could also be Portishead and Massive Attack. Then why not Röyksopp, The Postal Service,...Mogwai (band)?. Anyway, the list is endless. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What movie is this from? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange days, about 13 minutes in. --Seans Potato Business 10:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

See Strange_Days_(film)#Soundtrack. Consult Last.fm for genres. — Adriaan (T★C) 11:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

December 8

Ghost story

Can anyone help me with the name and author of a ghost story? It's set in England in the twentieth century (I think) about a man searching for a buried crown watched over by a ghostly guardian. I saw a version on DVD a year or two ago. It's really good. Zan Zee (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The movie is "A Warning to the Curious" (1972), and it is based on M. R. James story A Warning to the Curious and Other Ghost Stories (1925) -Yamanbaiia (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you enjoyed A Warning to the Curious try Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad or Count Magnus-really scary stuff! James, as far as I am concerned, is the best writer of supernatural fiction in the English language. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church's position on the undead?

I'm somewhat aware that the RCC believes that humans can be and occasionally are possessed by demons and occasionally authorizes its priests to carry out exorcisms (after running rigorous checks to rule out mental illness, physical causes etc.). Just as a matter of interest - where does the Church officially stand on the walking undead, i.e. a human who has (apparently) physically died and his/her corpse has (apparently) risen as a zombie, vampire, revenant or similar?

Apologies if this is a silly question - no offence is intended to anyone. I have recently been watching the (most excellent) Hellsing anime series, which features a Catholic priest who specializes in 'laying the undead to rest' (against their will most of the time, as it goes) by way of solid silver bayonets bathed in holy water. Just wondering as to the reality of the situation. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a silly question at all - in the Roman Catholic Church, exorcism is governed by canon law. See especially Exorcism/Roman Catholicism. Possession by demons has biblical authority, but I'm not aware that any mainstream Church believes in the existence of the undead, in the voodoo sense that you mean. Xn4 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, mainstream Churches (and Roman Catholicism is not hardly the exception) have had a rich and interesting tradition of writings on the undead. Check out the Montague Summers article here for a starting-point. And yes, the entry does call him "eccentric," but a) he was and is pretty widely read, and b) I'm not sure to what extent a 19th century English author and clergyman wouldn't be considered eccentric in this day and age :) If you're really interested in this topic I can give you some more data, but see what you can find by following the links on that page. ◄Zahakiel► 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly think of one case in which Catholics believe in someone physically dying and coming back from the dead. Cyta (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And another. DuncanHill (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

They weren't the brain-hungry, bloodthirsty beings that "undead" in the modern sense connotes, though. bibliomaniac15 04:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the Catholic Church itself (as opposed to particular Catholics) has issued no writings encouraging belief in what modern movie-goers would call "the undead" (i.e., vampires or zombies); in fact, the church had every reason to discourage belief in the latter as a rival religion. - Nunh-huh 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If by "the Catholic Church itself" you mean with the express approval of a sitting pope, you're probably right. There have been, however, ordained members of its clergy that have believed and written of these things. I'm also not sure that the Catholic church would see belief in such things as a rival religion; Catholicism (as many forms of organized religion) has generally been able to coexist with such beliefs without any loss of paritioners. In fact, it's easy enough to envision that at certain times in history these beliefs actually encourated a little bit of attendance at services :) ◄Zahakiel► 13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Romanticism:music

I know it may sound like homework, but it is not. What were the major works of Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Verdi, Liszt, Brahms, Chopin and Wagner? Please, answer with one or more major works of each composer. No argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.245 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously Beethoven's Symphonies would be near the top. Wrad (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this sounds like a snarky response, but it is not. Why not just look at the articles we have for those gentlemen? Each one discusses the artist's music. Surely that would be faster and a more complete answer than asking here? Matt Deres (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but all those letters!--Tresckow (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If just one "major work" is to be mentioned, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony has got to be it. I'm not that familiar with Berlioz, but Symphonie fantastique is the piece that comes to mind first. Verdi wrote a huge number of operas still famous today. So I don't know, how about La traviata? I know less about Liszt and couldn't name much of his music beyond the Transcendental Etudes. Does solo piano music count as a "major work"? I mean, "major" in terms of scale and instrumentation/production, or major in terms of influence and fame? For Brahms, I don't know if there is a definitive major work, but I'm a fan of Ein deutsches Requiem. Chopin? Again with solo piano pieces, but his Études are quite famous at least. Wagner? Come on! How could it not be Der Ring des Nibelungen? Pfly (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The “major works” of a composer would depend on how you define major. Do you mean the largest pieces? The most popular pieces? The most historically influential pieces? I agree with Pfly mostly. The most popular piece by Liszt is probably Totentanz. Although Der Ring des Nibelungen is probably the largest work (okay, cycle) by Richard Wagner Tristan und Isolde is more historically important. For Verdi I would go with Aida or Falstaff, but La traviata is quit important as well. Schubert is almost impossible to pin down to a single piece. I would say it’s probably a tie between his Unfinished symphony and his two great song cycles: Die schöne Müllerin and Winterreise.

It would help if we know why you are asking. Do you want to know where to start listening to these composers for instance? Hope this helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not too sure about Totentanz. Ask 100 people their favourite Liszt piece, and I'd bet most answers would include the Hungarian Rhapsodies (particularly No. 2), Liebestraum No 2, Consolation No 3, La Campanella, Funérailles, the Sonata in B minor, Mephisto Waltz No. 1, and some of the Transcendental Etudes, before Totentanz ever cracked a mention. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. . . yes, you’re probably right. I was thanking of larger pieces since the question was phrased as “major work.” A Google search places them ruffle equal though. Totentanz 67,000 hits barely beats "Hungarian Rhapsodies" with 65,000. I think it depends on what audience you ask. Connoisseur will be more inclined to choose the Rhapsodies, whereas Totentanz appeals to casual listeners more. There’s even a crossover/rock version of the darn piece. :-0 --S.dedalus (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the USA equivalent of the UK Companies House

217.168.3.246 (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Business registration is a function of the individual states, see for example California Secretary of State business search and Florida Department of State Division of Corporations. -- Arwel (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

English Inn Signs

During a recent trip to London I noticed huge range of signs with the names of bars and a picture with it. Does anyone know the origins of this practice and explain the meaning of some? Thank you very much. K Limura (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

See Pub names; the idea dates back to the middle ages, when only a few people could read. As a result, most pubs were named after heraldic symbols or well known objects and people. For example, the pub name "Red Lion" (one of the most common in Britain) is taken from the red lion of the Scottish coat of arms, "The Plough" was often used in rural areas because even the illiterate farmers would be able to recognise a painting of a plough, while "The King's Head" is common because almost everyone could recognise a picture of the king. Some pub names are chosen as a kind of rebus - a riddle where pictures are used instead of words. For example, a pub with the odd-sounding name "Goat and Compasses" was acutally chosen because it sounded like "God encompasseth us", while Elephant and Castle is believed to have come from "la Infanta del Castile" (the child of Castile). Nowadays the idea is kept largely for tradition; there are pubs that are little more than dank concrete boxes, built in the 1970s, but with the signage of an 18th Century rural tavern! Laïka 11:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In context Infanta means "princess"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Red Lion was also, if memory serves, the badge of some Plantagenet prince, as well as the principal charge of many coats of arms other than that of Scotland. —Tamfang (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was by a statute passed in 1393 during the reign of Richard II that it was made compulsory for every inn in England to display a sign. Some of the earliest were associated with pilgrimages, like the Tabard in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and the Tryppe to Jerusalem in Nottingham, which took its name in 1189 and is still in business, though I imagine few among its clientele have higher destinations in mind! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

F. Saunders

Do you know anything about F. Saunders (sorry, dont know her first name) a woman who I think served in the Greek military during the First World War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.54 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Captain Flora Sandes of the 2nd Infantry Regiment, Serbian Army? She was a Red Cross nurse from Thornton Heath in Serbia who began fighting during the retreat to Albania. If this is who you are looking for see her autobiographies: Sandes, F. (1916). An English woman-sergeant in the Serbian army. London: Hodder and Stoughton. OCLC 3779059 and Sandes, F. (1927). The autobiography of a woman soldier; a brief record of adventure with the Serbian army, 1916-1919. New York: F.A. Stokes company. OCLC 5725420 —eric 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You can read An English Woman Sergeant in the Serbian Army on line at internet archive here [9]]. By the way, Thornton Heath isn't in Serbia! DuncanHill (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My grammar is an embarrassment this time and not my geography! But maybe we should all feel a little bit of shame?—eric 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

yes - we should have an article on this woman. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mazarin and Machiavelli

Thinking of the career of Cardinal Mazarin would it be right to view him as a disciple of Machiavelli, a statesman first and a churchman second? Indeed, did he have any obvious spiritual values? H W Waidson (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always found Cardinal Mazarin and intriguing and complex figure in much the same fashion as England's Cardinal Wolsey, servants of the state first and of God second. Was Mazarin a disciple of Machiavelli? He certainly gives all of the outward signs of being so, an exponent of the arts of political realism, not overtroubled, perhaps, by more general ethical considerations. I'm not sure, though, what the alternative would have been to a policy that ensured the integrity of the French state at a point where it was threatened with political fragmentation. He was, moreover, one of the best statesmen and diplomats France ever had, guiding the country through some difficult times. As far as religion is concerned, well, Mazarin was always more secular than spiritual, a Cardinal who never became a priest. He was no purist and no crusader, and was even prepared to do business with such noted anti-Catholics as Oliver Cromwell. It was all part of his pragmatic character, in which doctrine, and the imperatives of orthodoxy, played very little part. Yet on his death he left 600,000 livres to help finance a crusade against the Ottoman Turks. An act of a bad conscience? Perhaps; we will never know for certain. What we do know is that he was revered by Louis XIV and died a well-respected figure, unlike his unfortunate English counterpart. Of Mazarin it was said in 1661 "No one left his presence without being persuaded of his reasoning and struck by his graciousness. His intentions were good; he could never say evil of anyone...and was unable to hate even his own enemies." Not a bad epitaph. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Miss, for such a useful answer. H W Waidson (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Two Tenors

I recently signed up for Sing Live, and one of the questions in the online form was whether I was a first tenor or a second tenor. Our tenor article mentions no such distinction. Googling "first tenor" and "second tenor" led me to this page, but that's not very informative either. How do I tell whether I'm a first or a second?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is possible they are using some special distinction, it seems much more likely they have two tenor parts, one higher than the other, and want you to choose which you'll sing. These decisions are much easier if you've had a look at the parts and know their ranges, but if you generally find you can sing higher than the average tenor, you're a first tenor. If you generally find it hard to sing as high as the average tenor, you're a second tenor. If you're not sure, or think you have a fairly average range, you'll just have to pick. What's your range? Skittle (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, without straining it seems to be A3–F4, which according to the above is second tenor (i.e. between tenor and bass). Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First tenor and second tenor really refer to choral parts rather than individual singers. Yes, generally, the first tenors are singing a note that's a bit higher than the second tenors (and 1sts get the melody more often, while 2nds are doing harmony), but tenors could be assigned to the parts arbitrarily and there'd be no difficulty, as the parts generally don't require an extraordinary range. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, on the whole there probably won't be a large difference in the ranges for first and second tenor, but if there's an unusually high note or passage it will probably be the 1sts singing it. As I said, an easier decision to make if you've seen the music :) Good luck Shantavira! Skittle (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

German invasion of Russia

Would it be true to say that the failure of the Ribbentrop Molotov talks in November 1940 was instrumental in the German decision to go to war with Russia the following summer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.85.250 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is abundent evidence that an offensive against Communist Russia was at the very centre of Hitler's strategic and political thinking, and that outline planning for Operation Barbarossa was underway almost as soon as the campaign in the west concluded in 1940. There were, of course, those in the Nazi hierarchy, and I am thinking specifically of Joseph Goebbels and Joachim von Ribbentrop, who were in favour of the continuation of the honeymoon of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Ribbentrop in particular. It is certain that he took the talks of November 1940 with Vyacheslav Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, seriously, in which it was proposed that Russia join a four power pact with Germany, Italy and Japan. Molotov's hard-nosed intransigence prevented any concrete settlement along these lines. Although the Soviets intended to continue negotiations the whole thing was little more than a diplomatic smokescreen for Hitler, who gave his final orders for Barbarossa in December. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with Clio's assessment. Hitler had discussed the idea of German settlement of Eastern Europe (including Russia) clear back when he wrote Mein Kampf in prison in 1924. Indeed, the concept of Germans settling the East goes back to the days of the Teutonic Knights, whose Eastward expansionist plans came to a close when they were defeated in the overlooked but pivotal Battle of Grunwald that took place in Lithuania in 1410. Eastern Europe had remained a fairly uninhabited land up until the Industrial Revolution, and because of that the Germans - most especially the Prussians who lived furthest to the East - looked to the East as the only area in Europe where they could easily expand their influence. Some of Hitler's mentors included men who had definite and firm beliefs that it was Germany's destiny to invade and settle Eastern Europe (including Russia), and to turn any surviving indigenous people into serfs in order to support the German economy and pay for the costs of the expansion. Alfred Rosenberg, one of these mentors, was highly influential in developing much of the ideology behind the Nazi Party, and fully supported the idea of Lebensraum, which was a word coined by another early mentor of Nazism, Friedrich Ratzel, in 1897. Additionally, the Nazis considered Communism to be a vicious evil that was created by Jews and other unsavory (to them) characters, and it was their stated intention to destroy the Soviet Union and eradicate Communism from the earth. Given all this history, it is quite clear that Hitler had many reasons for pushing forward with Operation Barbarossa. By doing so he was fulfilling one of his primary visions. Saukkomies 02:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Danger! kidney beans!

Does a package of kidney beans have a warning regarding the potential toxicity? --Seans Potato Business 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• While Wikipedia normally frowns on original research, in a case like this I think you'd be within your rights to make an exception, and go look at a packet of beans! AndyJones (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you could feed them to your pet monkey to see if it's true! Better safe than sorry! Wrad (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (Spoiler warning) Raw red kidney beans are quite toxic according to the most recent work of fiction by Dick Francis, confirmed by Googling and the Wikipedia article Poison. Don't know about the package warning if any. Edison (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I once worked in a wholefood shop (in the UK) where we packaged and sold raw red kidney beans, and to cover ourselves we had to put not so much a warning as cooking instructions, like "simmer for at least 40 minutes" (or whatever it was). That was 20 years ago so the regs might have changed by now.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Business research in the US, starting with owner name.

If I want to know what companies a specific person has registered in the US and considering that there is no central registry of companies in the US - like pointed at my previous question, how should I proceed? Should I search every registry of every US state? Is there a chance that someone has registered a company and do not show up in these registries?217.168.1.86 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In relation to your prior question, many corporations choose to incorporate in Delaware. —Nricardo (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And others in Nevada, for similar tax benefit reasons. Corvus cornix_talk 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers so far. I have found that the operators and owners of a Delaware corporation are not required to be identified in the public records of the State. Considering that a significant number of companies in the US are Delaware corporations, I suppose that if I only have the owner's name possibly I will not be able to find what corporations he owns...217.168.3.246 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lifestyle//Literary style of the 1800's...

What was the lifestyle and literary style of the 1800's? I am doing a french project on Alphonse Daudet, a french novelist, and i need to find information about the times he lived in... His family was bourgeoise, but i need to know a bit more than just that! what kind of clothes did they wear? what was the writing style common to authors in the 1800's? ANYTHING you think can help would be really helpful.... PLEASE answer! thank you SO MUCH.

Amandathepanda (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)amanda

Well, for one thing, a lot of European authors were worried that the end of the world was coming. There was also a heavy focus on nature and Gothic literature was on the rise. Most of my knowledge is with English literature, though, for this period. Can you be more specific than 1800s, though? The beginning of the 1800s in France was very different from the end. Wrad (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Our Alphonse Daudet article won't help you much, Amandathepanda. Daudet lived through interesting and turbulent times - his first memories as a child were of the July Monarchy, which ended with the French Revolution of 1848, when he was seven. After that, the rest of his childhood and his youth fell under the Second Republic. This was followed by the Second Empire under Napoleon III, which lasted through Daudet's twenties and thirties, and under the Empire he produced perhaps his best-known book, Lettres de Mon Moulin. Then came the Franco-Prussian War, which led to the Third Republic. Towards the end of Daudet's life came the Belle Époque, together with Impressionism in art. See also 1850s in fashion, 1860s in fashion, 1870s in fashion, etc., Bohemianism and Avant-garde. Some of those articles will lead you on to others, or to some interesting references. I hope some of this will help you. Xn4 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You should read Balzac. --Anne97432 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Study of Lighting

The best general article and reference about "Lighting" mainly tend to the psychological and aesthetics study? Flakture (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear about what you're asking here, Flakture. Please elaborate. Saukkomies 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Government regulation of the economy

Hello everyone. I'm having trouble finding out when governments first started attempting to regulate economies. I'm reading some books about early human history, and they talk about economies, but they don't flesh out government's role (beyond demanding tributes) very well. I don't really know what terms to search for in Google even. The field of study that analyzes the relationship between government and the economy must have a name--but I don't think I know it. Can someone give me some good search terms?--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In the earliest fully literate civilizations of the Sumerians in lower Mespotamia, temple and palace functionaries managed many economic aspects of life -- including the labor that went into digging the irrigation canals, without which no one could raise crops... AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget that governments were, and still are, responsible for minting coins (and lately printing money) which gives a huge control over economies. Cyta (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For "are responsible for" read "monopolize", and note that this wasn't always true. —Tamfang (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the roles of government is to exercise control over society, including the business sector. This usually is to the advantage of business. Take for instance an historic early town developing out of the wilderness. The primary reason that a town would spring up would usually be due to the fact that there was a market there where goods and services could be traded. However, if there was no protection from bandits and armed groups coming in and stealing everything, such a market could not fluorish, and there would be no town. So right from the start there is an inexorable connection between business and government. Government exists partly to provide a safe refuge for the market to fluorish, and business - through taxation - pays for the costs of upkeep for the government and its army.

There is a tradeoff, however. Because the government seeks to insure its own survival, it will try to insure that the business sector within its domain operates at a healthy level - thus insuring a large inflow of tax. The government may also step in to act as a non-interested party to insure that such things as weights and measures are standardized and regulated, to act as arbitrar between irate parties to settle disputes over business dealings, to provide a forum for the business sector to address grievances or to plead for new laws or regulations. In short, the government acts like the referee in a boxing ring in the business sector - insuring that there is a fair fight, and breaking the opponents apart if they get too tangled up. Business simply cannot exist for very long without the intervention of government to some degree.

Finally, I dug through some online journal databases, and came up with the following possible recommendations for search queries regarding your topic: "Corporate governance", "Industrial laws and regulations", "(fill-in-the-blank-industry) laws and regulation", and "Government regulation of industry". Saukkomies 13:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip of England and Ireland, disowned unlike the Orangist William

How come Wikipedia reflects Protestant triumphalism and Whig history? The establishment's hardline propaganda has been endorsed by this website. Philip of Spain was as much a Lancastrian as William of Orange was a Stuart. In fact, England had some rather lengthy dealings with Spain and Portugal, long before cozying up to the Scots or Dutch... Is there any editor here with the info to correct this? For instance, the Marian plantation of Ireland is almost a footnote and similar treatment is given for the ascension as King of Ireland with full recognition to the English monarch by the Pope, for Philip himself. The reign of Mary is seen as a fluke, rather than continuance of English tradition. Who says that cooperation with the Scots is a hallmark of being English? The Scots were the errand boys of the French, with whom the English disputed on the rule of France (as well as disputing over who ruled over the Scots). Calvinism was imported by England's traditional enemies, when England already told Luther to leave well enough alone. There is almost no mention of the Anglo-Breton Habsburg alliance, at least there is no coordinated presentation of it, as the final, failing bulwark against the Franco-Scottish alliance that broke the independence of the Anglo-Breton peoples. Why should the English see the Scots, or the Bretons see the French, as natural allies? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Look on the bright side. At least there's an article on Herbert Butterfield. William Avery (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Philip of Spain was as much a Lancastrian as William of Orange was a Stuart"—How did you come to that conclusion? William was the grandson of Charles I of England; Philip did not, as far as I'm aware, have any ancestry from Britain.--Johnbull (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He has at least a remote connection with both the Lancastrians and the Yorkists - Philip II's great-great-grandfather, Charles the Bold (1433-1477), was the grandson of Philippa of Lancaster (1360–1415). Charles the Bold married as his third wife Margaret of York, but Charles's only child, Mary the Rich, who was Philip II's great-grandmother, was the daughter of Charles's second wife, Isabella of Bourbon. Xn4 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a reasonably detailed knowledge of Tudor history, which I studied extensively as an undergraduate. I would be happy, 24.255, to tackle any specific questions you may have on the subject. I am not interested, though, in engaging with what reads to me as a rather ill-organised and muddle-headed 'manifesto', some of which, like the peace of God, seems to pass all understanding. Forgive me for being so blunt; I mean no personal disrespect. All I would ask you to do is slow down; think about it, then come back with a clearly worded question. On that basis-who knows?-we may be able to progress matters ever so slightly. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that, like so much of the history on Wikipedia, these articles have been copied from old encyclopedias, or were written by hobbyists with no conception of historiography aside from whatever random book they enjoyed at the library. So if they are biased one way or the other, it is not surprising, but not impossible to fix, if you think doing so is more constructive than complaining. Adam Bishop (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any writings of history which depict Philip more as an ex-King of England and Ireland, who lost in the chaos of revolution, similar to James VII/James II? It seems like the Protestantization of England, accompanied by the Scottish and Dutch factions, was too soon to allow a reflection about Philip's own place in the times, as a continuation of Plantagenet matters that the Tudors inherited. England has had anti-Continentalism grafted onto her, by foreign parties like the Stuarts and Orangists, when it is clear that philo-Continentalism had been the prior attitude under the Plantagenets and Tudors. Even Henry VIII's attempt to embrace the Protestants was aborted, when Anne of Cleves was tossed aside as unfit and Cromwell was discarded. Maybe anti-Continentalism was accepted by the Tudors in self-defeat, but it is clear that it was not traditional. Why does the Williamite era seem so vital and important when it was new and rather untested, almost exactly opposite to the Philippine era? Whiggish authors contend that Mary's reign was the fluke. There was no predestination that England was to be annexed into a Scottish version of "Great Britain" and that Brittany was to suffer French annexation, to the ruin of the Habsburg name, whether Spanish Philip or Austrian Maximilian. Still, the same parties that saw this change as good, consider the German way to be a shining light, nonetheless bar the Habsburgs of Swabia from this equation. It is clear that triumphalism dominates this topic. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It gets worse. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

History is not so neat and tidy, especially when trying to examine its dynamic undercurrents. I contend that Calvinistic ideas of Predestination and the Whiggish Progressivism are what undermines a fair assessement of King Philip in comparison to King William. Catholics likewise do not care too much for William, but they are the ones forced to accept the righteousness of the status quo and made to believe the history as written by the victors. That is the heart of the problem, but I guess I'm going to be accused of soapboxing, when all I want is neutrality. When damning Philip for abuses against Protestants, most sources are very willing to " go with the flow" and accept this "Black legend" as a matter of fact. Catholics have no voice in the affair, nor do they in the glorification of William. The Catholic underbelly of England is systemically overlooked and underestimated, even laughed at by some Wikipedians and other sources of information about the religious situation in England. Who says it was meant to be the way it is? Protestants and those secularists who believe that Catholics are worse than Protestants for their piety. So, shut the Catholics up and you'll have a very happy history, one you can fit in a box and no grey areas or dissensions from prejudice. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.11.149 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A genius is not the first to spot his or her own genius... and has no need to call anyone a dunce. Xn4 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that the quote can be found on Clio's page. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the quotation. Xn4 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a quotation from Jonathan Swift, as you doubtless know, Xn4. It appears on my user page, so I am obviously under scrutiny! Here's another one: It is useless to try to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. Reasonably appropriate, I think! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of that about myself. Thanks for reading my mind! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Germans in England

I have been told that there was a large German community settled in England in 1914. How did they fair during the war and after? Alte Fritz (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There was indeed a substantial German community in the UK in 1914, when the Great War broke out, der Alte Fritz. It was largely destroyed by the intolerance which quickly gripped the country, thanks to black propaganda. Many were interned, which at least (in the circumstances) gave them some protection, although also a hard time. However, the Germans in the British Isles in the years before the war had had time to see it coming and many had returned to Germany or else moved on to the US and other destinations. There were even some who had quietly taken on English-sounding names and vanished into the crowd. See The Enemy in Our Midst: Germans in Britain During the First World War by Panikos Panayi (1991), or his much shorter article Germans in Britain During the First World War in Historical Research 64 (153), pp 63–76. Much the same thing happened in 1939, even though in 1939 it was recognized that many of the Germans then in the UK were refugees and opponents of the Nazi state. Xn4 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a rather famous newspaper cartoon of the time which shows a before-and-after scene showing a German-owned shop (I think a butcher); one panel was before the outbreak of war, the second after. The owner's name had been transformed to a soundalike English one, the typically german produce in the window changed to english, and the owner (a stereotypical cartoon-german) transformed overnight into John Bull. It rather reminds me of the Afghan rug store in Palo Alto, California which, by September 13th 2001 was so festooned with American flags of all types that one got a migraine from looking at it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that may have actually been an American cartoon (there was a fair amount of anti-German sentiment in the US too at the time, actually more than during WWII).--Pharos (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the information I have there were well over 50,000 Germans in Britain by 1914, 19,000 of whom were interned on the outbreak of war. In the wave of national anger that followed, amplified by specific events, like the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, few among the minority were exempt, even the very highest. The First Sea Lord. Prince Louis of Battenberg, was forced to resign, even though he was a cousin of George V and had spent some fifty years in service to the Royal Navy. Joseph Jonas, a steel manufacturer and one-time Mayor of Sheffield, was accused of espionage, a malicious charge given sufficient substance to strip him of his knighthood.

Interestingly, a great many of the German community were of Jewish origin, whose reserve towards Russia, Britain's Jew-baiting ally was enough to arouse additional suspicions. Even The Times was prone, on occasions, to use the terms 'Jewish' and 'German' interchangeably. In some sections of the media the sinking of the Lusitania was said to have caused joy in Germany 'among the Jewish financial press.' England, it was alleged, 'was groaning under a German-Jewish yoke'.

In 1939, at the start of the Second World War, the German community was nearly three times as big as it had been in 1914, the majority of whom, refugees of one kind or another, had no sympathy whatsoever for their former homeland. But the British public had still to make the distinction in its mind between potential political allies and enemy aliens. There was no differentiation between Nazis and anti-Nazis, leading to the ridiculous situation in the internment camp on the Isle of Man, where the Hitler sympathisers ran their own 'Brown House' in a state of conflict with the other factions, including Jewish refugees. In the emergency of 1940 most of the Germans still at liberty were rounded up. A number of these people were drowned on their way to internment camps in Canada when the Andorra Star was sunk by a U-boat.

Some people, including H G Wells and Eleanor Rathbone, raised objections to the blanket policy of the government for failing to distinguish between friend and foe. As the invasion crisis abated many of the internees were released. A number of these people went on to try to make a clear distinction in the public mind between an anti-German and an anti-Nazi war, including one Heinrich Frankel, who wrote a book entitled Help us Germans beat the Nazis. Support for the anti-Nazi cause was given by the publisher Victor Gollancz, particularly in the publication of refutations of the racist anti-German ideology embraced most notably by Sir Robert Vansittart, a senior diplomat and government advisor. Despite some residual hostility, and in some cases latent anti-semitism, most of the refugees were naturalised after the war. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As a personal example of Clio's answer - my mother's family were German Jews who moved to Britain in 1914. Their family name 'Rozenburg' made them a little too conspicuous in their local community in the first World War - soon after they changed their name by Deed Poll to the much more English 'Rose'! I think another family did the same around the same time! Lord Foppington (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As did the Mountbattens. For further American idiocy, see Liberty cabbage. Corvus cornix_talk 05:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Freedom fries anyone? Lord Foppington (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And a quick homophome call. It should have been "How did they fare". William Avery (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're nothing but a blatant homophonophobe. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

December 9

What do MBA's do ?

I am not sure whether this is the correct section to put this question into. I have been hearing a lot about good MBA schools all over the world, how they play an important role in strategic decision making for organizations etc etc. But I always wonder as to what does an MBA programme have and what do MBA courses have in their curriculum. Could anyone knowing about this shed some light on the topic. -Thanks,Nikhil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.136.234 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on the subject: Master of Business Administration seems full of information, why not start your research there? The External Links section could also help. Lord Foppington (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My advice: get thee to a library! No, seriously. Almost any public or academic library will have a considerable number of print reference books that are updated yearly that talk all about this kind of thing. These reference tools specialize in various aspects of what you're looking into. Some discuss exactly what an MBA degree consists of and what kinds of jobs or professions it's good for. Others discuss which universities offer the degree. Still others actually evaluate the various programs, providing rankings for the best schools to go to. And while you're at it, you can then look up some of the salaries offered in the want ads to see what MBAs can expect to make, and how many jobs are out there! Since I'm not sure what country you live in, I'll leave off from advising specific reference book titles, but if you just pop into your local library and talk to the Reference Librarian, you'll probably end up with armloads of books to look at with useful information before you can shake a stick. Saukkomies 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Scottish and German colonies compared with the Anglo-Irish and French, in North America

Deleted diatribe. Question follows strikeout.

:This reads much more like a soapbox diatribe than a question for the Ref Desk. Does it belong here? Bielle (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia dispute the significance of the Scottish and German part in colonization, especially for the reason behind the toponymy related to their homelands and rulers? If so, then how does Wikipedia account for the established practice as pertains the Anglo-Irish and French colonizations? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in the book The Cousins' War, by Kevin P. Phillips. It's his contention that the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the American Civil War are one long, extended struggle between the Roundheads and the Puritans, with the Northern United States colonized by Englismen and women from Puritan-dominated regions, and the Southern United States colonized by people from Cavalier-dominated regions. Corvus cornix_talk 05:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When a vandal hates my way of asking questions, the response has little relevance. Thanks a lot. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Doh! It may have been a long and unclear question, but it was on a topic I like! While my Internet link was dead I wrote a reply, only to return and find the question deleted! I guess I'll post it anyway: Here are a few comments, sourced mainly from two books, Names on the Land by George R. Stewart, and The Shaping of America by D.W. Meinig:

• How come Nova Scotia, named for the Scots, is not counted as a Scottish colony like Darien in Panama?

Nova Scotia was the subject of many business and colonization schemes in the 1630s. A Scottish entrepreneur gave the land the name "Nova Scotia". His plan came to nothing and the French successfully colonized the land, which became known as Acadia. The name "Nova Scotia" fell into disuse until the English seized Acadia in 1710 and renamed it Nova Scotia in 1713. But it was not a Scottish colony in any sense. As late as 1780 the French Acadians still made up a major part of the population, despite the Acadian diaspora of the 1750s. Over half the population was Yankees who had been born in New England and migrated to Nova Scotia following the initial deportation of the French around 1758. The first Scottish Highlanders moved to Nova Scotia shortly affter 1758, but they were few in number until at least 1780. I don't know the history of Nova Scotia after that, so I can't say whether it became a Scottish colony in the 1800s. I can say that its origins and first century or so are as a French colony called Acadia, with few or no Scottish settlers. Something similar can be said about Carolina. While it is true that there was a large migration of so-called "Scotch-Irish" to the backcountry of Carolina, this did not really begin until at least 1720 and did not cause a major demographic change until about 1750. There's quite a bit of history before that, going back to the middle 1600s.

• Carolina and Nova Scotia could not be said to have had a distinctly English character. Yet, these two examples are ignored all too often, with most focus on the demonym "English", despite obvious differences (compare "Celtic" Appalachia and Maritimes with the "English" Northeast-Midwest region).

Personally I think very few American colonies had a distinctly English character. You mention Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania as having had an "Anglo-Irish core". But to my mind Virginia and Maryland very quickly became culturally biracial, with very large populations of African slaves. That doesn't sound like England. Pennsylvania was from the very start home to a diversity of settlers such as Germans and Welsh. Plus Pennsylvania was built upon the older colony of New Netherland and New Sweden, with a pre-existing population of Dutch, Swedes, Finns, and others. While these people were soon overwhelmed population-wise, they were pioneering what became Pennsylvania for generations before Philadelphia was laid out, and made numerous important contributions to the culture that emerged not only in Pennsylvania but south down the Appalachian backcountry clear to Georgia. Quite different from England.

Finally, I'm a bit confused by your listing of colonies with English dynasties. As I understand it, the Tudor era was about 1485-1603. Doesn't this predate the founding of any of the colonies we're talking about? The Stuart era I understand to be about 1603-1714 (going back to the 1300s in Scotland, and with a break for the English Commonwealth). This period would include the founding of all the colonies mentioned except Georgia (and maybe New Brunswick, which I don't know much about). So... you lost me in that section. I also have trouble following your point in connecting the names of colonies to the names of kings. Is it that the more northern colonies tend not to be named for kings while the more southern ones are?

The history of placenames can be weird. They mainly have to do with quirks of history and the personalities of explorers and kings. I wrote a bit about how the names of Virginia, Carolina, New England, Pennsylvania, and so on, came to be, but it is probably too much text. In short none of the colony names have much if anything to do with the people who eventually settled them. They were mostly named long before anyone attempted to establish a settlement. Virginia was named Wingina by Sir Walter Raleigh, but Queen Elizabeth changed it to Virginia. Quite a few place names come from the mind of Charles I (including New England (he affirmed John Smith's name), Carolina (for himself), Maryland (for his wife). He also honored his mother and sister with capes in New England (Cape Anne and Cape Elizabeth), and himself again with the Charles River. He also put the name "Plymouth" on the map of New England before any Pilgrim set foot there. The tale of the naming of Pennsylvania is the most fun, but it would take too many words to tell. Suffice it to say that Penn's first suggestio was "New Wales".

Anyway, I think that the names of colonies in America have more to do with quirks of history and the personalities of a couple kings and a few explorers and proprietors, rather than the ethnicities of the people who eventually settled the land. Pfly (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it a little more this morning, I'm not so sure about the early history of Nova Scotia and Scottish connections. The basic idea that it was a French colony first holds, but the details may not be quite as I described above. The Nova Scotia pages says there was a short-lived Scottish colony on Nova Scotia in the 1620s, but that contradicts the books I have. Perhaps if I have time and energy I'll look into it more. Other wikipedia pages on places mentioned above seem to have possible mistakes regarding place name origins. A chance for toponymy research! Just a followup comment.. Pfly (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page, because I don't think most people here really understand the issue. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious felony

What is Rape 3? I know that's the lowest classification, but what sorts of things does it entail? I can't find a listing of this sort of thing anywhere. My assumption has been statutory rape or something similar, but I'd like to have a better idea. Any clues? --Masamage ♫ 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In what jurisdiction is the category used? Bielle (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? The person in question was convicted in the state of Oregon. --Masamage ♫ 06:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what Bielle meant. The Oregon criminal code is online and the part that defines offenses against the person is section 163: see the page at www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html (someone turn that into a link please). Specifically, subsection 163.355(1) specifies that "A person commits the crime of rape in the third degree if the person has sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age." -- as you guessed. That's the basic meaning but if you read nearby subsections you will find other relevant stuff that affects it. For further questions you should consult a lawyer; the reference desk is not permitted to give legal advice. (Also, the online law is unofficial, and could conceivably be out of date or something, not that there's any particular reason to expect this.) --Anonymous, 08:00 UTC, December 9, 2007.

...humm "...sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age." Recalling President Clinton's affair with Jessica Lewinsky, although she was physically older than 16, does this age specification mean physical age or include mental (as tested or certified) and as for "sexual intercourse" does this include orgasm by proxy, such as from oral sex or masturbation by another person or require insertion of the penis into the vagina resulting in orgasm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.214 (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I didn't realize it varied from state to state. Okay, that's exactly what I needed to know. Thanks very much! --Masamage ♫ 10:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Lewinsky? is she Monica's sister? How come we didn't hear about her at the time. Richard Avery (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, its her PS (Protective Services) name wich I used by mistake. Lots of things are still hidden by means of alternate label most people will never know about, including stuff like her girl friend's and her own Mafia clientèle (the blue ties) and how she came to be an intern in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.214 (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, according to the document cited above, sexual intercourse is defined as genital-to-genital contact (orgasm is not a requirement, considering how unreliable it is). Anal or oral sex with a minor (or with someone unconsenting) is s different crime, namely sodomy. At least in Oregon. --Masamage ♫ 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Louis XIV

Would it be true to say that the early experiences of Louis XIV, especially in the Fronde, had an important bearing on his later conduct of French affairs? Stockmann (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There were two things crucial in the formation of Louis as a king: his early experience of the disorders induced by the Fronde, as you have indicated, Stockmann, and the education in statecraft he received form his observations of Cardinal Mazarin, himself a pupil and protégée of Cardinal Richelieu. From the Fronde he took the lesson that it was necessary to limit- and severly limit-the power and independence of the French nobility; following the example set by the Cardinals, he further refined and magnified the agencies of the state. The two things, it might be said, came together in his own person and his own court. At Versailles he created a great political theatre, a universe, with himself, in the role of Apollo, the Sun God, at the very centre. The nobility was tied to, and often ruined by, attendance of the king; the bureaucracy, the standing army and the treasury radiated from his person. L'Etat c'est a moi-I am the state. It really does not matter if he ever used those words; they express an essential-and fatal-truth. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kant, Schopenhauer and the Will

Hi, I was reading somewhere that Schopenhauer's idea of the will was prefigured by Kant in some way. I looked up the term will in the index to Critique of Pure Reason, but the main mention of it seemed to relate to freedom of the will, meaning the belief that our actions are not determined solely by natural forces. The importance of the will in Schopenhauer is as a means of understanding and embracing an external reality, where the will is our life force, and the source of our motivation, which connects us through our ability to sense the same life force in other beings (humans, animals and maybe plants). To what extent did Kant conjecture the same idea? 203.161.95.46 (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And Hi to you, 203.161! You must remember that for Arthur Schopenhauer, as he says himself, the philosophy of Kant is the point of departure, but one of critical departure. That is to say, he accepts as given Kant's critique of the limits of knowlege-of the limits of perception itself-but proceeds to address the fundamental weakness in his system-the exact relationship between the world of perceived phenomena and the supposed existence of the Ding-an-sich, the 'thing-in-itself' or noumena. Schopenhauer's refinement is to bridge the gap between perception-the Idea-and the underlying nature of experience, the process which, if you like, gives unity to perception, the Will. For Schopenhauer our willing is 'the the one opportunity we have of understanding simultaneously from within any event which exibits itself outwardly, consequently the one thing which is known to us immediately, and not, like all the rest, merely given in idea.' In other words, experience is carried beyond mere perception.

So, in short, scour the Critique as hard as you like, you will not find Will used and interpreted in Schopenhauer's sense. You will find, as I have said, the Ding-an-sich, which Schopenhauer reshapes and refines, turning it into Will. Do you have a copy of The World as Will and Representation? I would refer you in particular to the appendix to volume one (page 415 onwards in my 1969 Dover edition), entitled Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy, which covers these points in greater detail. Anyway, I hope this is not too horribly complex. If it is I will try to break it down still further, though some things, quite frankly, are difficult to reduce! At the very least I can suggest some good introductory texts to the thinking of the great Schopenhauer. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglo Catholic?

I see on her user page that Clio the Muse says she is an Anglo Catholic. What is an Anglo Catholic? Kaiser Will (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask Clio the Muse? --71.117.47.87 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Our article Anglo-Catholicism may be of use to the Kaiser. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian Liberation Front

I wonder if anyone has a full list of the organizations that worked together in the Liberation Front of the Slovenian People during WWII? I added the one at the Slovenian Wikipedia, but I am sure it is incomplete if nothing else. --Cptukbo (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Relationships with Jesus

What are the different relationships a Jewish person can have with Jesus Christ? By that I mean some Jews absolutely hate Jesus Christ more than any other Jew or person dead or alive while others Jews relate to and accept the message from God that Jesus brought and as a result have fully converted to Christianity. Basically are there more relationships than these two that a Jewish person can have with Jesus, and if so, what are they named and how are they described? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.214 (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never encountered a Jew who hates Jesus 'more than any person dead or alive'. Who are you thinking of here? Algebraist 12:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotally I too have never encountered a Jewish person that expresses any particular animosity toward 'Jesus' or the concept of 'Jesus'. Jesus does not feature in any Jewish lore, he isn't mentioned by the Rabii - and of course this is all anecdotally. There may be Jewish people out there that know the exact context of Jesus in the religion, but like I say, it seems to be a non-issue. Rfwoolf (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many private examples which I can not of course reveal out of respect for the right of privacy and the anticipated consequences in the real world for the parties of which I speak. Public examples are also rare since by the time such persons go public they no longer claim to be Jews. Here is an explaination from a jewish person who is not filled with hate:

My belief is the Jesus got himself killed by trying too hard to be Jewish. In that era Jews went with the flow, re: didn't rock the boat or draw attention to themselves because they were in the minority and open to persecution and here comes JC on a crusade to get Jews to act like Jews and it did not go over well at all. Those who did see a reason to follow JC did so at the risk of pissing off every Jew who was fearful of the State and in history this is how revolutions get started. Remember the Jews were supposed to be "self correcting" during that era and the Sanhedrin ran their courts in a fashion to suck up to their non Jewish governor. JC was simply rocking the boat for the Sanhedrin and putting them and all Jews at risk of stiffer taxation and or death at the hands of their non Jewish keepers.

See Judaism's view of Jesus. Since Jews do not believe in Jesus as a Messiah or demigod, the only Jesus Jews would think about is the historical Jesus, and as such Jews don't view Jesus any more positively or negatively than they would view any other historical figure, if, as is the predominant opinion among historians today, Jesus actually existed. Asking what Jews think of Jesus is like asking what Christians think of Buddha. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you ask Christians what they think of Buddha you will get different answers, ranging from "interesting guy" style to "Satan inspired nonsense" style. I imagine the same is with Jews and Jesus, although there is a degree of connection due to the Judaic origin of Christianity. The mainstream view appears to be neutral - he was a Jew who ended up starting a new religion (more or less) and we don't think he has a special relationship with G-d. See also Messianic Judaism. Steewi (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, forgive me for this comparison but after reading most of Judaism's view of Jesus I am reminded of persons who still own a Radio Shack TRS-80 Model I (or perhaps the original electronic calculator offered by Spiegel) and say the reason they do not need an upgrade is that whatever got the job done for their mom or dad, still gets the job done for them. Does anyone perhaps at least see Jesus as an representing an upgrade to Judaism, like the Radio Shack TRS-80 Model II? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.214 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a matter of forgiveness here: this "TRS-80" comparison by 71.100.1.214 reveals either a profound ignorance or utter disregard of the development of Judaism in the intervening millenia (= nearly 2,000 years) since Christianity split off and went its own way. It's too specious to deserve consideration, and I would go so far as to call it derogatory. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "upgrade" concept would be likely among any adherents to a "latter revelation" religion, such as either Islam or Mormon, whose prophets arrived after the establishment of Christianity. Please note the enormous population of Muslims in the world today, and perhaps consider a dialogue with them to deepen your understanding on this matter. ~~-- Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "The porheron statement"?

In the film "The big Lebowski" the dude mentions being one of the original authors of "The porheron statement". I was wondering if anyone knows what this book/journal is about and when it was written.

cheers all193.62.251.32 (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He was referring to the Port Huron Statement. Algebraist 12:08, 9 December 007 (UTC)

Basically, saying that he was one of the original authors of the Port Huron Statement, Lebowski was saying that he was at least at one time a bonafide radical. Saukkomies 02:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mary Tudor and Edward the Sixth

Why was Princess Mary so popular during the reign of her brother Edward the sixth? 81.129.85.203 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? Becuse she represented stability and continuity in a period of transition and uncertainty. Protestantism was still a new and untried doctrine for the people of England. Always remember that the English Reformation came from above. It was from beginning to end a state-directed process, which carried most of the community, conservative and wedded to tradition, slowly and uncertainly. With the old rituals threatened there was no sure point of identity. Under Henry VIII, a schismatic rather than a heretic, people could adhere to a large degree to older Catholic practices. Under Edward VI, his son and successor, the whole thrust of Reformation took a far more Protestant direction. In November 1547 Edward's first Parliament attacked many of the remaining traditional rituals. Henry's Act of the Six Articles was revoked, and the first steps taken towards the preparation of a new Book of Common Prayer, to replace the Catholic-inspired King's Book of 1539. As the traditional mass came under attack Mary increased the number of times that it was celebrated in her own household. Already popular as the heir-apparent, she became the focus for traditionalists and conservatives of all sorts. The more she was disapproved of at court, the more her standing increased with the people, who openly applauded her on her rides through London. There is little doubt that, on the death of Edward in 1553, Mary was carried to the throne on a great wave of popular and aristocratic approval, sweeping aside the machinations of Northumberland and the Protestant faction. Ironically, it was Mary's actions as Queen that was to give a new life to an unpopular cause. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Darfur conflict

I've been reading through your pages on the Darfur business, which are very useful, though I'm still not quite sure of all of the causes of the conflict. Can one of you experts please give me some clues into the deep background to the problem? H W Waidson (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There's The Black Book: Imbalance of Power and Wealth in the Sudan... AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Second World War in America

This is a slightly odd question, and I'm not sure quite how it can be answered, but I'm sure people will find a way! Just how big was the Second World War to the average American?

Was it a bigger deal at the time than the Vietnam War was when it was going, or than the Iraq war is now? To ask the question about Britain would clearly be nonsensical, what with the conscription and the rationing and the bombing and the evacuation etc, but America didn't have any of that (as far as I know). So how much of an impact did the war actually have on a typical American? Skittle (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The US had a nontrivial amount of rationing and an aggressive campaign to restrict waste - rationed goods were mainly imports (sugar, coffee) but also materials in short supply or in heavy demand by the war effort (red meat, footwear). Oil was rationed, though this was in some ways a device to save rubber (which was also rationed).

The population was involved to a far greater degree - even though the coasts saw virtually no enemy action, they were prepared for it, with aircraft spotters trained and lurking around in all sorts of places. Blackouts were instituted along the Eastern seaboard, to aid shipping. (And the west coast, of course, had internment) Even without these overt measures, or in places not affected by them, the war was a much bigger presence in people's daily lives - it was the daily news, gardening programs produced a sizable fraction of the nation's vegetables, fundraising drives were a regular feature, and conscription was much more ubiquitous. Psychologically, there very definitely Was A War On.

I guess the simple answer is "WW2 impacted the population compared to Vietnam in the same way that Vietnam impacted the population compare to Iraq" - it was the next leap up. Shimgray | talk | 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Shimgray's said everything I was going to except 'see United States home front during World War II'. Algebraist 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks. It only really occurred to me as I was watching The Talk of the Town (film), a 1942 film that appeared to be set in the time it was made. There didn't seem to be a shortage of healthy men around, nor did anyone seem particularly concerned about shortages in other areas. Skittle (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It was, to be fair, a light comedy, and quite possibly one scripted before Pearl Harbor! If my vague memory serves, wartime films were either explicitly using the existence of the war (usually with that impacting the plot in some way) or implicitly set in a pre-war context, the latter serving very well as escapism. Shimgray | talk | 15:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It was, of course, a comedy, although it felt like it was trying to lecture on 'issues'. I'm fairly sure it referred to events in Europe in a throw-away line, without which I'd have assumed it was set before 1942, so I was just puzzled as to how much it reflected the actual situation. If you don't ask, you don't know! :) Skittle (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, what was the throw-away line? Could the movie have been set in 1939-41 with the line referring to countries that were then at war? --Anonymous, 07:30 UTC, December 10, 2007.

It is indeed possible. I'm afraid I don't remember exactly what the line said, but I think the thought crossed my mind at the time that it could have been referring to the war without America being in it. Did the war impinge much before the US entered? Skittle (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

World War II was America's last "total war," a war that fundamentally altered the daily lives of every American. Just about all of my grandparents' male friends served in the military; by comparison, only a few of my parents' male friends served in Vietnam. To this day, when an American refers to "prewar" or "postwar," it's WWII they're talking about. The U.S. lost 416,800 service members during the war, which is more than in all other international wars the country has fought combined. For an example of just how central the war was to American consciousness at the time, take a look at some of the Academy Award-winning movies of 1943: Casablanca, Watch on the Rhine, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The More the Merrier and The Human Comedy -- three war movies and two movies about life on the home front. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Curious linguistic point: "prewar" may refer to World War II, but if you translate it into Latin and say "antebellum", then suddenly it refers to the Civil War. --Anon, 07:28 UTC, December 10, 2007.

And let's not remember that over 100,000 Japanese Americans were put into camps during the war. I'm assuming you are counting them in your definition of "Americans". --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the films, but I suppose I was trying to work out how much of that was propaganda trying to convince people that they should be doing things for the war and what it was actually like for an average American. After all, Casablanca is not set in America and is quite biting about America's slowness to get involved. And whether it was 'total war' for America was pretty much what I was trying to work out. I don't think anyone would argue that WW2 wasn't a total war for Britain, and for France, and for Germany, but it's hard to judge from here what it was like in America :) I mean, in Britain just about everybody was enlisted in some shape or form. So, WW2 big in America, touched lives of everyone? On people's minds daily? Rationing and blackouts? Excellent. Skittle (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There was rationing of many goods, and the unavailability of many consumer goods and many types of food. Lawns into vegetable gardens, at least for the first couple of years. (In Britain, would they have said "The garden was turned into a garden?") There was full employment which brought the end of the Great Depression: war production factories generally ran 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Women worked like "Rosie the Riveter" making weapons. Girls who had worked only as clerks or cashiers or waitresses were making artillery shells and welding Liberty ships. There was the draft and enlistment, with many young men dieing overseas. There were Bond sale drives and constant war news. Popeye cartoons showed him fighting up nasty exemplars of racially stereotyped Japanese. Disney cartoons ridiculed Hitler with Donald Duck's nightmare of living in the Third Reich [10] (YouTube) Edison (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.daytonhistorybooks.citymax.com/page/page/1652443.htm Dayton During World War II

Lights Out] makes interesting reading. Note that Dayton is not on either coast but well in the interior of the U.S. and still the fears of air raids. Rmhermen (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

United States home front during World War II may be a good start but it doesn't really discuss the extent of the effects. It also is lacking in many particulars: no mention of Victory Gardens till I just added it, no mention of the collection drives, no mention of the merchant marine, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another impact of the war on everyone was daylight saving time. In the peacetime USA the use of DST, and the start and end dates in places that used it, had been a matter for state or local regulation. A summer shift to DST had imposed nationally when the US entered WW1, and repealed afterwards. But during WW2 the US used DST all year, which was commonly called War Time. (After the war the old system of state or local option was resumed, until people got sufficiently tired of it that the Uniform Time Act of 1966 was passed.) --Anonymous, 2:41 am EST and 07:41 UTC, December 10, 2007.

Hmm, still getting a rather mixed image. On the one hand, the US had rationing of some goods, some areas had blackouts, people were being employed for the war effort, lost about 0.3% of the population as military casualties, locked up nearly 0.1% of the population, and it had a large psychological effect. There was a pretty large amount of propaganda, and the American equivalent of Dig for Victory and recycling. On the other hand, reading the article on Dayton suggests that the general population were pretty relaxed about these things. While those in charge were concerned with setting up a decent warning system, the population were obstructing them and disabling the alarms for being too noisy. (Oh, and while the War Time thing is interesting, I'm not sure how much of an actual impact switching timezones has on the general population). Hmm, going to poke around articles a bit more I think... Thanks guys. Skittle (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like there were always War Bond drives, and people going around collecting cooking grease to contribute to the war effort, butter and sugar and eggs were rationed, as were gasoline and rubber. "Lights out" efforts kept street lamps off and window drapes pulled so that the lights didn't show in the street, which must have made the cities pretty dark. Corvus cornix_talk 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Zheng He ( Author's)

Dear wikepidiea my name is moneybank27 and i am doing a project on zheng he. i was looking at his page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He but i couldnt no find the author or author's of the page plz could you tell me the author ASAP! its for a bibiloiography. thanks regards moneybank27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.156.89 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has many authors; see its history tab. See here for info about how to cite the article. Sandstein (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

British state opening of parliament

When her majesty missed two state openings of parliament because of her pregnancies, who replaced her to outline the governments policies --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Our article on State Opening of Parliament says it was the respective Lord Chancellors for 1959 (the Earl of Kilmuir) and 1963 (Viscount Dilhorne). 81.77.184.52 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If the monarch is not personally present, then Parliament is opened by commission. Typically five Lords are deputed by the commission to represent the Monarch; the five sit in a row on the steps of the Throne with the Lord Chancellor in the centre, who actually reads the speech. Elements such as the Monarch's arrival in the Palace and the procession from the Robing Room into the Lords Chamber do not take place. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A strange Irish custom?

I heard that on the night before marriage, either the bride must visit the pub's toilet to look what the other males have in their pants and/or that the husband-to-be must let the females he meets on his pub tour see how he is endowed. Please note: This is a story I heard at a party, so it isn't neccessairly true. Also, yes, I am serious. So if anyone knows if either of the versions is true, any comment would be appreciated :) -- 88.66.124.146 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In the words of the Jedi Master: "Your leg, being pulled, it is." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

American citizens and Puerto Rico

Are mainland US citizens from the 50 states also citizens of Puerto Rico? Do US citizens immigrate to Puerto Rico or are they already legally allowed to reside in PR? --Gosplan (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The first question has it backwards: it's PR residents who are citizens of the US. Someone living in the 50 states can move to PR; it's not illegal or a case of immigration, though you will lose your right to vote in a presidential election, and the legal/tax/etc. system is somewhat different. The necessary arrangements are the same as any state-to-state move (change vehicle titles & registration, get a new driver license, etc.). Any PR resident can likewise move to the 50 states without any special requirements. The following pages offering practical advice about moving to PR may be useful: [11] [12] [13] escape.topuertorico.com/resource/move.shtml (can't be linked: Wikipedia spam filter) [14] Wareh (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If a U.S. citizen can move from a U.S. state to Israel and continue to vote in U.S. elections as an absentee voter from his home state, then why wouldn't he be able to do the same while living for an extended period in Puerto Rico? Edison (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

December 10

Masque of Anarchy

What does the poet Shelly mean by the lines "I met Murder on the way-he had a mask like Castlereagh." Cryinggame (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Masque of Anarchy is a political poem, written in 1819 after the Peterloo Massacre. Shelly was very critical of the reactionary British government of the day, placing particular blame for its oppressive policies on Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, the Foreign Secretary, giving Murder his face. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, man, that was quick!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryinggame (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Muses generally are! Viscount Sidmouth and the Earl of Eldon are also 'named and shamed' Lord Foppington (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Throne speeches

One of the more peculiar aspects of Commonwealth political traditions to me is the throne speech, in which the monarch or governor general reads the government's major policy speech at the opening of Parliament.

The person speaking reads someone else's speech. Queen Elizabeth is speaking, but it's the words of Gordon Brown and his cabinet. In the case of a governor general who might be a retired politician, he may wind up reading a speech he completely disagrees with, although of course as a neutral figure, he can't object to it in public.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the prime minister to read his or her own opening speech rather than have the queen or governor general do it? Why not have the queen open Parliament with a neutral, ribbon-cutting-event type speech, then have the policy speech read by an actual politician? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Government is carried out in the Queen's name, not that of some fly-by-night, here today & gone tomorrow politician. DuncanHill (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd hardly call Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair fly-by-night politicians! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The limited role of the monarch in UK politics is to 'Counsel, warn, advise and assist'. By being advised and included in the framing of the speech (even if the monarch dissagrees with the content), the Queen is able to discuss the content and make such comments as are appropriate. Yes, even Thatcher was a here today, gone tomorrow politician! The Queen has met most of the worlds national leaders and in many cases has a greater understanding of their underlying personality. She provides a degree of continuity and political memory that would not be available between changes of government. History has has shown that in some cases a quiet 'personal' phone call from the monarch can be more valuable than months of political negotiations with foreign nation states. Remember what she actually says when eading the speech is 'my government will introduce a bill to ....' A bit like saying in many cases - "these bufoons are planning to screw things up again, but unfortunately I have to read this rubbish and can only look on in bemusement". 85.187.230.2 (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not limited to the UK and the Commonwealth. The same occurs in the Netherlands (see Prinsjesdag) and Belgium. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not occur in Belgium, to my knowledge. The PM has a kind of 'State of the Union' thing, yes, and the King has his annual speech around Christmas, but those are his own words, not those of the government. Random Nonsense (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It gives the whole event a far greater dignity if the programme is read from the throne, a reminder of the original source of authority in the constitution; and compared with the monarchy all politicians, even politicians as formidable as Margaret Thatcher, are such stuff as dreams are made on. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand how the involvement of the monarch or governor general in the opening of Parliament adds dignity to the proceedings, but I still think it would make more sense for her to read a typical "queen" speech of her own words rather than for her to read the government's program. I can imagine Canada's governor general, for instance, reading Stephen Harper's throne speech and thinking, "Gosh, these are some really stupid ideas." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Alamo

Guys, last night I watched The Alamo (2004 film), which was shown for the first time on British TV. It's not the best movie I've ever seen, though I thought it a lot better, in historical terms, than the old John Wayne movie of 1960. My question is this: why was it so badly received when first released in the States? Was it because it challenged accepted historical myths? Clio the Muse (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced OR: I thought it was an excessively boring movie, except perhaps Billy Bob Thornton, but we've seen him do better too. I lived in the U.S. at the time it came out, and I remember a lot of people and reviews sharing that opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A tangent - what was the American reaction to Julian Rathbone's Birth of a Nation, which deals, amongst other things, with the Alamo affair? What, indeed, was Clio's reaction too? DuncanHill (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on Birth of a Nation, Duncan, because I have not read it; but I hugely admire Birth of a Nation (not very politically correct, I know!) Clio the Muse (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A survey of reviews seems to indicate that most reviewers just thought it was a dull movie. If I were to guess, and reading a little bit more into the reviews, the challenging of myths wasn't so much of the contention as that things which take pains to be historically accurate are often less interesting than the myths they have spawned. Historical accuracy by itself counts for pretty much nothing in the eyes of American moviegoers; it is secondary to good entertainment. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, saying some of the same things as anon.)

I think the lukewarm reaction to the Alamo is a reflection of Hollywood's difficulty in reconciling exciting old tales with modern sensibilities. The traditional Alamo story is that of the heroic last stand, but political correctness (for lack of a better term) has made that version of the story problematic. A modern version of the Alamo could have anti-heroes dying in a pointless bloodbath, Wild Bunch-style, but Sam Peckinpah is dead and Hollywood no longer makes big-budget nihilism. (Lucas and Spielberg killed it, though Kubrick kept it on life support.) Or you screw political correctness and give the audience a band of heroes standing up against a horde of mouth-breathing villains, 300-style. But what you can't do—and what the filmmakers ended up doing—it try to have it both ways. Popular audiences who go to big action movies don't want moral ambiguity—they want the bad guys blowed up real good. Alas, myth works better than history as popular entertainment.

I don't think American audiences were offended because the film challenged historical myths—I don't think the general public even knows those myths that well anymore. (A joke among Daniel Boone biographers is that people think he fought at the Alamo.) Popular moviegoers just want an exciting story with good guys to root for. The Alamo is no longer a story that can deliver that sort of thrill without offending modern sensibilities. Now, if the Texans were fighting an army of orcs....

The one really successful part of the film was Billy Bob's characterization of Davy Crockett, which managed to slyly criticize the traditional stereotype of the American frontiersman while at the same time giving the audience an entertaining screen hero. With Crockett, the filmmakers almost solved the riddle of how to make the Alamo into modern entertainment, but the rest of the film, while more historically accurate than previous tales, falls rather flat for a big action flick. —Kevin Myers 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Texans against orcs? I thought Texans were orcs...sorry, sorry; I'm only kidding; honestly I am! Yes, Kevin, Mr Thornton's depiction of Davy, sorry, I mean David Crockett, was indeed one of the best parts of the movie; a thoughtful interpretation of a vulnerable, somewhat self-effacing but entirely memorable human being.

Thanks for all of your responses. Alas, another illusion gone! I had assumed that the American education system was partly about the creation and the preservation of abiding historical myths; of truths, half-truths and inventions about cherished historical figures. Anyway, I still think the defence of the Alamo is a thrilling story; and I prefer my entertainment minus myth, and my heroes, in the ancient Greek style, to be flawed, rather than perfect! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember a film that came out in the 1960s, I believe, that was a comedy about the Alamo. It takes place in modern (well, 1960s) times, and the hero was a Mexican who was a descendant of Santa Ana (the General of the Mexican Army at the Battle of the Alamo), who got together a handful of his friends to invade Texas and retake the Alamo. I've looked for this movie, but can't seem to find it. Does anyone remember this movie? Saukkomies 14:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I watched it a few weeks ago. It starred Peter Ustinov as the Mexican general. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We have an article - Viva Max!. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DuncanHill! That's it! Heh! What a politically incorrect movie that was! Saukkomies 14:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

George Brown College General Science and Arts Schedule Arts

I don't know if this is the right place to ask but my question is there any place where I can see how a George Brown College timetable sample, for students taking General Science and Arts One-Year Certificate program, look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.215 (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're more likely to get a reply if you write an e-mail to that college's administration and ask them. Sandstein (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And you can start here, the General Science and Arts One-Year Certificate webpage. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction and its results on former slaves

I have been working on these essay questions for my AP Untited States history class. I have one more question left and I need help. Any help that you give me will be greatly appreciated!!

Analyze the extent in which the failure of Reconstruction (1865-1877) affected the economic, social, and political opportunities of former slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.131.187 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You can find some material in our articles Jim Crow laws, Lynching in the United States, and Disfranchisement after the Civil War.  --Lambiam 13:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also examine the reasons behind why Reconstruction failed. Those reasons are key to understanding what happened to Southern African Americans after Reconstruction. It is almost certain that had Lincoln lived Reconstruction would have taken on a much different form than it did under the hands of the Radical Republicans in Congress, who seemed to want to punish the Southerners for the war. Instead of trying to work through existing social structures in the South, Reconstruction sought to completely change Southern society, which resulted in effectively creating an enormous backlash against the African Americans it sought to help in the first place. The result was that it may be argued that due to Reconstruction, that Civil Rights for African Americans took longer to realize than had things gone differently after the war's end with the more organic approach to change that Lincoln was proposing. Saukkomies 14:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Interfaith sex in medieval Europe

I am reading a book on Jewish life in the Middle Ages. Here's a passage that leaves me with questions: "The Siete Partidas reiterates the requirement that Jews wear distinguishing marks as a safeguard against inadvertent sexual mingling."

I assume medieval society was very conservative, so how could these liaisons be so casual that they don't know each others religion? Confined to prostitution?

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a famous requirement, probably stemming from the Fourth Lateran Council, where the last Canon, 68 or whatever number it is, deals with special clothing for Jews (and Muslims), although it appears earlier, at the Council of Nablus for example. Yes, it could be confined to prostitution, or perhaps it could have happened in places where Christian/Jewish/Muslim contact was so frequent that people didn't really stop to think that someone was a different religion if there were no immediate outward signs of it, like in some parts of Spain. But even that Canon from Fourth Lateran remarks that they were all wearing different clothes already, before it was codified in law, and they would speak different languages, and at some point during the day they would have to pray or eat or do something else obviously differently. So the liaisons would not be that casual. I think restrictions like this were more for other people, to make it easier to catch them as they happen. If you notice a Jewish man coming out of a Christian woman's house, because he is wearing distinguishing clothing, then it is easier to report this to the appropriate authorities than if you are observing two random people who may or may not both be Christians at first glance. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely accidental "mingling" is more likely in places where Christian/Jewish/Muslim contact was infrequent? You're more likely to make assumptions if you live in a more homogenous society. FiggyBee (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if you assume they had prohibitions against each individual group. In that case it is possible to introduce a new group where people will "inadvertently mingle" with them before the society takes an explicit stance on their presence. Whereas if the group had a prohibition against "inadvertent mingling" of any outsiders, then new groups would still be covered.--droptone (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I should stop answering questions at 3:30 am! I'll see if I can find a better answer unless Clio or someone beats me to it. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "medieval society was very conservative" is indeed a questionable oversimplification. Despite the fact that the reading and writing classes were filled with clerics, Medieval literature gives us plenty of evidence for loose and liberal conduct between the sexes. Even allowing for the likelihood that literature is more chock full of interesting and titillating transgressions than boring ordinary life, it would be wrong to assume—and we have plenty of positive historical evidence against—the idea that all people in the Middle Ages stuck to Church-prescribed mores. Your assumption, that Medieval people were dutiful theocratic subjects, is very widespread, but, frankly, it baffles me. The literature of the Middle Ages, from Chaucer to Abelard to the Carmina Burana, gives a much fuller picture of life with all its messy & forbidden liaisons, than the literature of some subsequent periods. Wareh (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this, Lots of issues. Does the author of your text mention a specific passage in the Partidas to support his contention, or is this merely conjecture? The demarcations introduced by the Fourth Lateran Council were really intended as a way of distinguishing and shaming those who belonged to separate communities of faith, not to prevent sexual intermingling. How could they, when outer garments could always be discarded? There would always be ways around restrictions of this kind, especially in the larger urban communities; for, as Wareh says, Medieval society was not nearly as conservative in these matters as you may suppose, as a reading of the jucier parts of The Canterbury Tales and the Decameron will show.

What is the book you are reading, if I may ask, and who is the author? Do you think her or his interpretation of Spanish history trustworthy? I confess I am not fully conversant with the Partidas. What I do know, though, is that restrictions on the Jewish community are not nearly as plain as your author seems to suggest. Even after Pope Innocent III made wearing of the Jewish hat and the Jewish badge compulsory the measure was not universally applied. Spain was still in the middle of the Reconquista, and Jewish bankers were providing much needed financial support for the Christian kingdoms. Rather than be forced to wear the shaming badge the Jewish community threatened to migrate to the Muslim lands in the south. Because of this the Spanish kingdoms dispensed with the papal provision ( Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews, Philidelphia, 1968, pp.312-3). Now, I have no idea if the strategic and political situation had changed in the fifty years between the Lateran Council and the adoption of the Partidas to allow this dispensation to be abandoned, though I somehow doubt it; for it would still be open for dissatisfied Jews to migrate to Granada. The real deterioration in the position of the Spanish Jews does not begin until the fourteenth century, the year 1391 and after, to be precise. So, without further information, I would suggest that you treat your author's statement with considerable scepticism. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Laws 8, 9 and 11 translated here [15] could have that interpretation placed upon them. Law 11 refers to the difficulty of distinguishing between Jew and Christian, and law 9 to sexual relations between the two. SaundersW (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Then we have two possibilities: first, the position of the Spanish Jews had deteriorated since the Christian victory at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa and the subsequent contraction of Muslim power in the south; or second, in the Partidas Castile simply incorporated, for the sake of form, the anti-Jewish legislation prevalent elsewhere in the the Christian world since the Fourth Lateran Council, though without enforcement. The information I have on thirteenth century Spain does not enable me to say which it is with any authority. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy quiz show

Must contestants wait until the host reads the entire question to ring in? Are rings during the reading of the question accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.27.213 (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The buzzers are locked out until Alex has finished reading the question. The contestants can see a light that lights up when they are allowed to buzz - so, Jeopardy is not so much about knowing stuff, as it is about having fast reflexes. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the original version of Jeopardy that ran in the '60s or '70s you could ring in whenever you wanted, though. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Jeopardy#Ringing_in, the "be patient or you're penalized" feature was introduced in the 1985–1986 season. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The old rule benefited players who could read and evaluate the question fast, and I always thought it was bad that they threw that away. However, it's also true that before the rule change very often players would be ringing in as soon as the question was exposed, without taking the time to read any of it: they just assumed that if it was a $30 question on Potent Potables then there was a good enough chance that they'd know the answer to make the preemptive ring-in a good bet. Players ringing in and then drawing a blank doesn't make for great TV, and I've also always thought that that was probably the reason for the change.

I tried out for the show myself not long after the rule change, and when we were given the opportunity to ask questions, I asked if there was a light that came on when it was okay to buzz; Alex Trebek said "Yes, but if you wait for it, you'll be too late", and I believe this is still the standard advice.

The rule that players can't ring in until the question has been read means that there must be a staffer whose job is to press a button when Alex finishes reading the question. In his book Brainiac, Ken Jennings says that at the end of the 2003-04 season the person who had had this job during the first part of his championship streak was replaced, and he thought the new person's timing was more irregular... as if it had been done on purpose to make it harder for him to keep winning. (Jennings doesn't say it was done for that reason and neither do I; only "as if".)

Who is --Anonymous, 22:46 UTC, December 10, 2007?

Russia at the end of WWI

I've been doing some background research on political conditions in Europe at the end of the First World War. What is not completely clear to me is how the German collapse in November 1918 affected the situation in the east, in the areas of Russia that had been placed under control of the Central Powers by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Can anyone help fill in the blanks? Phil S Stein (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoiled for choice: Category:Aftermath of World War I, Aftermath of World War I, Polish-Ukrainian War, West Ukrainian National Republic, Ukrainian People's Republic, Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, Józef Piłsudski, Międzymorze, Polish-Ukrainian War, Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts, Romanian occupation of Pokuttya, Silesian Uprisings, Greater Poland Uprising (1918–1919), Rüdiger von der Goltz, Baltische Landeswehr, United Baltic Duchy, Latvian War of Independence, Estonian Liberation War... Rather a lot really. The short version is: the Germans surrendered on 11 November 1918 and all hell broke loose east of the nebulous German border. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ewan Mawdsley's The Russian Civil War is worthwhile here. I would also recommend John Wheeler-Bennett's The Kings Depart. It's a little dated now but it has some useful information on the Freikorps in the Baltic. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Identifying a piece of music

Does anyone happen to know the name of the first piece of music that plays over the opening credits of Monty Python and the Holy Grail? I recently heard it somewhere else, I think on a documentary, and I haven't been able to find its composer or title. Lantzy ^talk 14:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Liberty Bell March" by John Philip Sousa. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The questioner asked about a movie, not the TV show.... Amazon sells the movie soundtrack, but it seems to be more comedic bits than music. --LarryMac | Talk 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The credits say that Neil Innes wrote the songs and the additional music was from DeWolfe. We'll probably never know whether it was one particular composer in the DeWolfe stable, or bits and pieces by various people, living and dead. It is very vaguely reminiscent of the opening bar of Brahms' Piano Concerto No 1, and even more vaguely reminiscent of the opening of Richard Strauss's Thus Spake Zarathustra, but is certainly not either of those. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the DeWolfe site, but wasn't able to find any information there. I'm surprised some Python fan hasn't identified the various pieces of "stock" music that appear throughout the film. Lantzy ^talk 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Art

How can the growth of peace be expressed in the form of a poster or painting?202.125.143.65 (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lots and lots of doves. Recury (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Other icons of peace include the olive branch and the concept of swords to plowshares. See generally Peace symbol. Sandstein (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Swords to ploughshares ? Pfly (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Googling peace images [16] might give you some inspiration. SaundersW (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No need for that: even the OED gives plowshares as an alternative spelling. Algebraist 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sunrises? Wrad (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I once read an interesting sermon about peace. Peace is often defined negatively as an absence of violent conflict, but how to define it positively? The writer of the sermon suggested some antitheses to violent conflict, such as play, cooperation, building, and nurturing. Certainly, you can use symbolic icons such as doves and olive branches, but it might be more interesting to show images such as children happily at play or people smiling, holding hands, or talking. Finally, if what you want to show is "the growth of peace", what better context than something like a vegetable or flower garden with growing plants? Above this scene, you could still show a dove with an olive branch for an added symbolic note. Marco polo (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You could show people voting. You could draw the world as flat. Or, draw a bunch of nukes, representing the hope that nuclear proliferation will lead to all nations one day having nukes, and that the spectre of Mutually Assured Destruction will force everyone to live happily ever after. It should ideally be what you feel best expresses the concept (artistic limitations may apply). Azi Like a Fox (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The anti-Pershing poster in my collection has a red and white striped lion-like creature perched atop a broken Pershing missile in a meadow. He is flashing the peace sign, has a big grin and a dandelion in his mouth. There is a rainbow in the background, what appears to be a decommissioned nuclear plant and and a hedgehog poking his head out of the missile engine. It also has a sticker on the bottom that says "Freedom for Rudolph Hess" in German. It is topped with "Grün ist Leben." --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw a painting once, but don't recall the artist or title of the painting, that portrayed such a concept. It showed a girl of about 8 or 10 years old walking in the middle of a wheat field which was being blown by the wind from threatening stormy clouds overhead. She had outstretched arms and was making the wheat stalks calm down from being buffeted about by the wind. Behind her the wheat was still, and the sky had cleared up. I really liked this because it incorporated some very archetypal images - including the strength of a virgin girl over violent forces of nature, a common theme in a lot of art. Saukkomies 14:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saukkomies (talk • contribs)

Leagal or not leagal? That is the question

Where would I start to find answers on the process of an undercover Schedual 1 and 2 drug sting? How it is set up, entraptment, leagalites in court, ask for one thing get another and a higher charge? you get the picture, not looking for any leagal advice just want to know where to even start the serch to do my own reserch and defend myself on (and i use the most famous words of all) something i didnt do. --Teotwawki02 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)teotwawki02

You need to tell us what country you are in. In any case, if you are accused of having committed a drug-related offense, I strongly recommend you get a competent lawyer, or request the authorities to appoint you a lawyer if you cannot afford one. Most people who defend themselves against such serious charges are at a very severe disadvantage, no matter what jurisdiction they are in. Sandstein (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If they are talking about Schedule I and Schedule II drugs they're almost certainly in the USA. See Controlled Substances Act. But even then it depends whether the charges are local vs. federal, and if local, which state. Different states have very different drug laws and very different options for someone accused of violating them. Only an experienced lawyer would be very good at navigating them, though. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no joke. If you can't spell "legal" or "schedule" or "entrapment" or "search" correctly then then you're not going to last five minutes in court against a real prosecutor. Recognize your limitations in this realm of things and just get a lawyer, even a public defender is better than trying to do it yourself (in fact, in many drug-related cases having a public defender is better than a private attorney, because the "file paperwork to stall everything until they offer you a deal" tactic costs a ton if you are billing by the hour). The topics you are asking about have books and books of case-law behind them that you'd have to know to have a snowball's chance in hell to get anywhere. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• You need to contact your local legal aid society or public defender. If you're currently in prison, the prison is required to give you their contact information. The rules vary from state to state, but if you don't have money and you haven't done anything to screw up your rights (like confessing without being pressured to do so), they will find you a lawyer. I know a lot of people don't like lawyers, but remember, the government isn't afraid to use their lawyers, and you can't win a game you don't know how to play. --M@rēino 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kierkegaard and third-best

I read in a book that I own called "Kierkegaard for Beginners" that Kierkegaard's father told him to get the third-best grade in school. Does anyone know of any sources that might confirm that? Caseyloeks (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Was it this book?--droptone (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the one. Sorry, I would have linked it, but I am still figuring out how to do all the code stuff. I'm not looking for link to the book. I was just hoping someone else might know of any reputable websites that would confirm that this anecdote from Kierkegaard's childhood actually took place. Caseyloeks (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterloo and after

To what did Wellington attribute his victory over Napoleon? How did he treat the French in the follow up leading to the occupation of Paris? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.239 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You might fight an answer to your first question in a letter Wellington wrote to his brother, Richard, shortly after the battle;

It was the most desperate business I was ever in. I never took so much trouble about any battle, and was never so near being beat. Our loss was immense, particularly in the best of all Instruments, British infantry. I never saw the infantry behave so well.

As for the second, he took great care on his advance towards Paris to make it widely known that the war was against Napoleon, not against the French. There was no parade on entry into the French capital, which might have caused resentment. When General Blücher, the Prussian commander, declared his intention to blow up the Pont de Jena, named after Napoleon's victory of 1806, Wellington had it placed under guard. Amongst the Allies he urged a policy of moderation, saying that if Napoleon was to be executed then the sovereigns "should appoint an executioner which should not be me." Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mass Suicide

Hello, I'm interested in learning about Mass Suicide. I visited the mass suicide page on here but it didn't have a key fact to what I'm looking for. I would like to know where did the first mass suicide take place? Thanks! - James A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.223.176 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Any answer given will only be able to say the "first recorded mass suicide" - anything could've happened in prehistory. Exxolon (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So what was the first recorded mass suicide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.223.176 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Masada? Somehow that seems too recent though. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is 73AD recent? Over the long drifts of time I suppose it must be! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the minimum number people required before you consider it a "Mass suicide"? Here is a report of a dozen men taking their own lives. Didn't Herodotus write of a mass suicide even earlier than the Cleomenes event? Some vague thought in the back of my mind is telling me it was somewhere in the first three "books" of The Histories. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't forget Asian culture either. Wrad (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Masada better described as a mass killing followed by one suicide? Is it suicide if your head of family or group leader kills you? Edison (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe 152.16.59.190 is referring to the action of the Lycians of Xanthos ca. 540 BC. Read Herodotus' account (1.176) here. Wareh (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

December 11

Emancipation laws in Texas

How old do you have to be to move out in Texas?

63.149.173.1 (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, as Age of emancipation states, you need to be of legal age for the jurisdiction. According to this external site, [17], you are emancipated at the age of 18 in Texas and can live apart from your parents then. The site also states that you can petition the courts for emancipation as young as 16, but only in specific circumstances. I cannot vouch for this information and it is not legal advice. Bielle (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

International Literary 1992-2007 Prize winner or nominees

Hi there, I like to know which fiction books, that were published in 1992-2007, internationally, were the winner or nominees for Giller, Pulitzer, Nobel, Man Booker, National Book Award, PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction and International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award? and which book is 250 pages long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.34 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotiabank Giller Prize, Pulitzer Prize for fiction, Nobel Prize in Literature, Man Booker Prize, National Book Award PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction, International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award all have lists of winners from the beginnings of each award. As far as I can see, no page numbers are given in these lists, but you may be able to find information about specific editions at each book's article. I ran out of steam after finding the exact names for each award. Bielle (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You may have no interest in other literary prizes based outside the US (such as the James Tait Black Memorial Prize and the Hawthornden Prize), but if you're interested, a more complete list is at List of literary awards. Xn4 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

3 types of Hajj

I heard there are three types of Hajj. What are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.34 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is not in our article hajj but is easily found via Google. Wareh (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A Doll's House questions

I know it may sound like homework, and I have read the book, but it is not and my questions are:

a) What draws Christina Linde and Nils Krogstad back to each other?

b) Why does Christina tell Nils not to pull his letter back?

c) Why does Nora tell Torvald to go away and leave her alone after the party?

d) When she said "Yes, I beginning to actually understand everything now." What is it that she is actually beginning to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.34 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The plot synopsis in our article on A Doll's House will give you some pointers. It would be a good idea to confirm your answers by reading the relevant parts of the play, and you may also be expected to provide quotes to support your answers. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 74.14, A Doll's House is a wonderful play, cutting, with great economy of words, through the lies and hypocrisy of a Victorian marriage. Unfortunately the Wikipedia synopsis is a little disappointing, missing some of the crucial dramatic transitions. The answers to your questions are all in Ibsen's drama, though in some cases they must be deduced from the context and, of course, one's understanding of human relationships. I urge you to read it again; for I am sure that it will all become that much clearer. Anyway, here are the answers to the specific questions you have raised.

a) Christina and Nils were forced apart by circumstances, chiefly economic circumstances, although the never ceased to be attracted one to the other. In order to support her mother and brothers, Christina entered into a loveless marriage. Now her husband is dead she has come to town, not just to look for employment, but to make contact with the lover of her youth. Here you should pay particular attention to their conversation in Act Three, where she tells Nils that they are both castaways clinging to the wreck of their lives, and they should join forces because they need each other. For Nils this turns into a moment of recognition and reformation. His former absence of morals, his opportunism and his cynicism, were all born out of disappointment and anger at having lost Christina in the first place.

b) Christina has come to understand that that the Helmers' marriage cannot continue on the basis of lies and deception, and that Nils' letter will provide the necessary catharsis. Remember what she says to Nils: "...it's quite incredible the things I've witnessed in this house in the last twenty-four hours. Helmer must know everything. This unhappy secret must come out. Those two must have the whole thing out between them. All this secrecy and deception, it just can't go on."

c) That's easy. He has just seen her dance the tarantella and wants to make love to her. Christina, in view of what is on her mind, is simply not in the mood!

d) Christina's epiphany, her moment of revelation, is the key dramatic moment in the whole play. She has been considering killing herself to avoid bringing disgrace on her husband, though all of her sacrifices and her deceptions, the way in which she obtained the loan in the first place, were solely for his benefit. She is convinced that Torvald loves her enough to be prepared to make his own sacrifice; to reject Nils attempts at blackmail; to make things public and take the whole blame on himself. After all, did he not just say before reading the letter "...I wish you were threatened by some terrible danger so I could risk everything, body and soul, for your sake." But he does not; he proposes to give in, while continuing to blame Nora, even saying that she will not be allowed to bring up her own children. Now she knows the truth. At that point she begins to stop loving Torvald. Any residual feeling is killed by his feelings of relief when Nils returns the IOU; his assumption that things can now return as they were; that Nora will once again become his 'little song bird.' She tells him that is impossible, that she has been treated for too long as a plaything, living in a Doll's House. In those crucial moments she growns up and beyond Nils and their sham marriage, breaking the confines and restrictions of her Doll's House forever. She is free. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Buchner and atheism

In Act Three Scene One of Danton's Death Thomas Payne says "Mark this, Anaxagoros:why do I suffer? That is the rock of atheism. The tiniest spasm of pain, be it in a single atom, and divine cretion is utterly torn asunder." Does this passage provide a clue to Buchner's own thinking on the subject, and is there some deeper underpinnings involved here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter T Green (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The theoretical argument he is referencing is the problem of pain. Problem of evil is a good place to start.--droptone (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a step or two back, Peter, and you will find a clue. Payne's reference to Spinoza calls to mind Büchner's own commentary on the work of the philosopher, particularly his proposition that God exists necessarily; for if we think God, then God must exist. To this contention, taken from Spinoza's belief in the primacy of mind, Büchner says 'But what compels us to think an entity that can only be thought of as a being?', which he follows shortly after with this thought;

If one accepts the definition of God, then one must admit the existence of God. But what justifies us in making this definition?

Reason?

It knows imperfections.

Feeling?

It knows pain.

Pain, the phenomena of pain and suffering, is central to Büchner. It is through pain that Lenz achieves his most mystical experience; through pain that Lena recognises the route to redemption. It is, for Büchner, through pain that one enters into God. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

european explorers

my 3rd grader is doing a project on Francisco Gordillo. We have searched everywhere and can find virtually nothing on him. We need to know the year born, year died and some facts about him. All that i can find is that he was sent from Spain in 1521. We are supposed to also find a picture of him. Please refer me to somewhere in which I can find some info on him. Thank you!

katie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.102.101 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a really obscure explorer for a third-grade project. Ah well...if you can find some histories of the Carolinas, there might be some info there. He was sent by Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, so look for info about him as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Adam said, Francisco Gordillo was a lieutenant of Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón, and his 1921 1521 exploration of the Carolina coast originated not in Spain, but in Santo Domingo. The Spanish weren't really big on keeping records at the time, so since he was a mere sea captain and slaver - not someone of any power or money - it's unlikely that much more information exists. Certainly not a contemporary picture. FiggyBee (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the Carolina coast pretty well explored before 1921? Edison (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not by the Santo Domingans -SandyJax (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What's 400 years between friends? FiggyBee (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Following the expeditions of Hernan Cortez and Alonso Álvarez de Pineda, Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón an oidor (superior judge) at Santo Domingo decided to try his own luck at grabbing some wealth from the New World, and dispatched one Francisco Gordillo in a single small caravel to explore the east coast of Florida. Enroute, and in the Bahamas, Gordillo ran across another caravel, captained by Pedro de Queros and outfitted by Juan Ortiz de Matienzo, another Santo Domingo judge, for the purpose of capturing Indians for slaves. The two decided to join forces and sailed for the mainland.

The expedition landed at the mouth of a large river in June of 1521 somewhere on the coast of the Carolinas which they named after St. John the Baptist—either the Cape Fear, the Santee, or the Winyah. They took formal possession of the region, then came upon a village the natives, called Chicora. They coaxed one hundred and fifty of the Indians on board ship and returned with them. When they reached Santo Domingo Ayllón was furious at what they had done, and Governor Diego Columbus ordered the natives returned to their homes, but it is doubtful that any ever made it back to Chicora. (By another account it was Ayllón who, interested in obtaining cheap labour for his sugar plantation at Puerto Plata, sent Gordillo on a slaving expedition from the outset).

Ayllón did keep one of the captives as a servant, who was baptised Francisco Chicorana and taken to Spain where he regaled the historian Peter Martyr d'Anghiera with tales of his native land. The Chicorans were white, with brown hair to their heels and governed by a giant king called Datha. The kept domesticated deer in their houses which furnished them with milk and cheese and the country abounded in pearls, gold, and silver. The Chicorans were often visited by a race of men with large inflexible tails like those of a crocodile, who needed either a chair with a hole in the seat, or to dig a hole in the ground in order to sit down and rest. Peter Martyr's account in De Orbe Novo (1525), in which he included this passage for those who would doubt Francisco Chicorana's account:

Each may accept or reject my account as he chooses. Envy is a plague natural to the human race, always seeking to depreciate and to search for weeds in another's garden. . . . This pest afflicts the foolish, or persons devoid of literary culture, who live useless lives like cumberers of the earth.

This tale, told by Francisco Chicorana most likely because he wanted to pique the interest of the Spaniards and be taken home, would lure further Spanish (including Queros again 1525 and Ayllón himself in 1526) and French expeditions to the area in search of this non-existent wealth of Chicora.

References:

• Bolton, H. E. (1921). The Spanish borderlands: a chronicle of old Florida and the Southwest. The Chronicles of America series, v. 23. New Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press. OCLC 3616207
• Milanich, J. T., & Hudson, C. M. (1993). Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida. The Ripley P. Bullen series. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. OCLC 26158852
• Allen, J. L. (1997) North American Exploration: A New World Disclosed. Vol. 1. pp. 252-3.
• Bourne, E. G. (1904). Spain in America 1450-1580. New York: Barnes & Noble. pp. 138-9. OCLC 41501681

Future imperfect

Do we know George Orwell's opinion on the novels We and Brave New World, possible sources of inspiration for Nineteen Eighty Four? Jersey Lil (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, but from the article on Nineteen Eighty-Four, it looks like you could find the answer by reading: Shelden, Michael (1991). Orwell—The Authorized Biography. New York: HarperCollins. 0060167093. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). --M@rēino 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Curiously enough, Aldous Huxley taught George Orwell at Eton. Undoubtedly, Brave New World was among the sparks which ignited Nineteen Eighty-Four, though the latter perhaps gives us a more biting dystopia. From memory, I believe Orwell admired Brave New World but didn't publish any thoughts on it. I may be wrong. We know that Orwell began to write Nineteen Eighty-Four at about the end of 1945, which was also when he first read Yevgeny Zamyatin's We (in the French translation, Nous autres, I believe). He wrote an article on We for Tribune which was published in its issue dated 4 January 1946 and is online here. (Also, don't miss the fact that We is recognized as one of the inspirations of Brave New World.) Xn4 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Brave New World is quite different than Nineteen Eighty Four. The former is about biology and state control; the latter is more about information and state control. Quite different focuses. The combination of the two is quite a wonderful dystopic idea of two things at the core of the 21st century techno-social world. Actually, I think Francis Fukuyama argues that in Our Posthuman Future, now that I think about it. Now I feel like a hack.--24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Art and urban regeneration...

Just wondering how effective people think community projects organised by art galleries are at inciting social change and/or urban regeneration? whether making people more 'cultured' will actually help to reduce crime, unemployment etc rates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.226.42 (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Making people cultured is certainly a worthy goal, but discussion of the economic impact of the arts usually uses other methods than looking into people's souls. See Google: arts economic impact. A lot of this has been inspired by the work of Richard Florida. Wareh (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm of the opinion that people should be enabled and educated to be successful wage earners before being "cultured" by some sort of bourgeois Western standard is going to make a real difference in their lives. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Florida's work suggests that a thriving arts sector attracts creative professionals and corporations whose better paid staff want the amenities of the arts. This probably generates a certain number of low-paid jobs for janitors and mail-room staff from depressed urban neighborhoods but does not fundamentally improve prospects for residents of those neighborhoods. On the contrary, a growth in creative and high-paid corporate employment leads to strong forces of gentrification that tend to drive rents up beyond what lower-skilled workers can afford and to displace those workers to more marginal locations, where their employment prospects are even fewer. (In the United States, low-paid jobs formerly held by displaced native-born workers may be taken in these cities by immigrant workers who are willing to accept more overcrowded housing, in which several families and wage earners share a single housing unit.) Creating an "artsy" atmosphere in a low-income urban neighborhood may be directly contrary to the interests of the neighborhood's existing residents, who are likely to be displaced by young designers, architects, web designers, and their partners, drawn by the neighborhood's new reputation for hipness and being on the vanguard. Marco polo (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the ways of helping people to have satisfying, full lives is to ensure they are both introduced to and provided with as many keys to as many possibilities for earning, learning and playing as possible. Someone who discovers art might also be discovering a new way to earn, a new way to spend leisure time and/or a new way to play. While I would generally agree that Maslow's heirarchy pertains, art (music, literature) may be as tied into the basic levels as it, and they, are into the topmost. I wouldn't think so much of community project in an art gallery inciting change in any immediate or dramatic way, but it might well inspire change in some one or ones. Whether it is then worth the cost is a different question. Bielle (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that arts education is generally a good thing and should be available to all. Also, there are some urban areas where gentrification is not a threat (e.g. Gary, Indiana or East Saint Louis, Illinois). The danger is that opening branch galleries in a depressed neighborhood of an urban area with some economic vitality (e.g. parts of Chicago's South Side, or almost any urban neighborhood in the Northeast Corridor or London) could set in motion a chain of events that might not work to the advantage of most neighborhood residents. Marco polo (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian partisans

How important was the partisan movement in the liberation of Italy in 1944 and 1945? 81.129.84.43 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See Italian resistance movement, which will give you a start. It has some external links, including one to War in Italy 1943-1945: A Brutal Story by Richard Lamb (which is well reviewed in The Journal of Military History, vol. 59, No. 4 (Oct. 1995), pp. 739-740). See also Liberal and Fascist Italy: 1900-1945 (Short Oxford History of Italy) (ed. Adrian Lyttelton). Xn4 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lamb's book is very much worth reading. Eye-opening and hair-raising stuff. I don't have any strong recollection of Wilhelm's The Other Italy: Italian Resistance in World War II, so it can't have been that bad. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is yet another of the enduring myths of the Second World War, much cherished by the left, that the partisans played a major part in the liberation of Italy from the Germans. They did not. The whole movement, consisting of no more than 50,000 men and women in the autumn of 1944, was badly armed, badly organised, badly trained, badly led and politically divided. In truth-an uncomfortable truth for many-more Italians fought for Mussolini and the Salo Republic than served with the partisans. In the end, in the words of one observer, "The general insurrection flared up, in practice, when there was no longer anything to rise up against." Italy, like France, was freed from without, not within. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What are Christmas in Sweden?

I need to know the Christmas traditions of Sweden for a class project, but I need to know what they are. I cannot locate it on your website. Can you just give me some quick information on the kinds of food they eat on Christmas, what kind of clothing they wear on Christmas, how they celebrate Christmas, how their Santa Claus looks like, does their Santa Claus look like ours, what kinds of toys do they get, or do they just get the same types of toys we do, do their toys look like ours, or do they look totaly different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.250.221 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas_worldwide#Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.22.184 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

also [18]. -Nunh-huh 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Lucia! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You can find some pictures about the elements of Swedish Christmas traditions [here]. Their christmas present tips (julklappstips) include the usual consumerist stuff: magazine subscriptions, christmas decorations, books, electronics, jewelry, clothes, toys and games, perfumes and gift vouchers. But certainly Lucia is the most notable Swedish Christmas specialty. 84.239.133.38 (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Victorian occupations

I'm doing some research into my family history, and I've found an ancestor listed in the Belfast Street Directory for 1880. He's described as a "dealer" - but there's no indication of what he might have dealt. Anyone who is familiar with Victorian social history have any suggestions? --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other clues provided? Is he a family man? Young or old? Is he literate or does it look like a scribe wrote his name in? Apparently he lives in Belfast, Ireland, or was that just a central place where information was collected? Wrad (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your best line is probably to check uses of the word 'dealer' in the Oxford English Dictionary for the late nineteenth century and also to look elsewhere in the 1880 Directory for Belfast. Off the top of my head, though, a 'dealer' is clearly a business man trading in something, and presumably in something not easy to specify: not a grocer or a bookseller, for instance. He may have been a merchant who bought and sold all kinds of things and who described himself as a 'dealer'. I imagine you would get a better idea by finding out more about the particular street your ancestor is listed in. If I were you, I should also look for him in the UK census for 1881. He may have lived at the same address, and if he's there, the census may give a more helpful description. Xn4 23:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the OED and it offers nothing particularly revealing. Best thing to do would probably be to see what you can gather from the rest of his life to provide context. Wrad (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The street is general working-class housing, and I don't think his home is his business address. My thoughts are that either he's a general buyer and seller of whatever will make him money, or that he's a member of a specialist trade that has the conceptual monopoly on the word "dealer" - any other kind of dealer would have to state what he deals in, but anyone who's described simply as a "dealer" is assumed to be in this particular trade. No idea what that trade might be though. My subconscious keeps suggesting horses, but I can't think why I might be thinking that. Unfortunately the 1881 census for Ireland was destroyed in the 1920s during the war of independence, so I'm out of luck on that one. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and 1880 he's a grandfather, and his daughter, her husband and their two children are living with him (I know this from my great grandfather's birth cirtificate). The Street Directory is the equivalent of the phone book before phones, compiled and published annually by a local newspaper. It's online here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting directory, Nicknack009. Great pity about the loss of the 1881 census for Ireland. Certainly, the word 'dealer' was used for horse dealers (of which Ireland had a lot) but an establishment for selling horses in a working class street in Belfast sounds unlikely to me. The people who bought horses in the 1880s were gentlemen and small business men... farmers, cab-drivers, carriers, bargees, and so on. Horses were generally sold either at markets or specialist horse-fairs, by dealers based in rural areas or even by travelling gypsies. Xn4 00:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Story of Civilization by Will Durant

I'm considering purchasing the Story Of Civization set by Will Durant, but I wanted to find out some of the pros and cons about it before. I read the wikipedia article and tried to find some reviews from Google, but i guess such an investment leads me to check here as well. Basically, I'm curious how you would rate the set in terms of accuracy, readability, value? Would you recommend it or is there some other book/set you would recommend instead? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC) It is my favorite book yes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.239.144 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy? Fair. Readability? Good. Value? Reasonable. To be perfectly frank I think this style of grand synthesis just a little old fashioned. The style, moreover, is a touch too 'folksy' for my taste. However, I have to confess that I am a professional historian, and probably not to be trusted! I would say, in all honesty, that it depends what you are looking for. If it's a Cook's Tour through the ages then you could probably not do better. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold Chill or Holy Shiver

Hello, I have been working on a page for Cold chill but haven't been able to find a lot of info. I was informed Kant my have written some about this topic. Would anyone know what book this was from or have any other info such as why we get Cold chills? Thanks--DatDoo (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This has come up many times in the science desk. It is a timing issue with the nervous system. Your mind simply translates the mistiming as a sweeping feeling of cold across the skin - often triggering an involuntary shiver. -- kainaw™ 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

December 12

Has George Bush ever met Osama Bin Ladin

Has George W Bush ever met Osama Bin Ladin in person? 202.168.50.40 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely. But we know he would like to find him. Xn4 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume the OP means before the whole 9/11 thing. But even then, the answer is pretty much guaranteed to be no. If that had been the case, you can bet that people would have made a big point of it by now, like they do with the photos of Saddam and Rumsfeld. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

However, there is only one degree of separation between them Bush and Osama bin Laden, since they both know a common person of bin Laden's family.217.168.0.203 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The locations of bin Laden's family are well known, why arn't they arrested and have their finger nails pulled out until they reveal his location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.30.101 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because even George Bush wouldn't resort to that kind of terrorist method? DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, possibly, because he has been disowned by his family, had his inheritance revoked, been permanently banned from his home country, and has had no contact with his family. What would be the benefit or torturing people who do not have the information we want? Of course, there are many people who assume that everyone in Saudi Arabia is related to Osama and chats with him on the phone every day - so this argument will get a knee-jerk "oh they know where he is" reaction from them. -- kainaw™ 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Smallish Countries

How many (and which) countries have a population of 500,000 or fewer persons? DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See List of countries by population, from Solomon Islands (165) on down. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by country. I find that list not very well-named... for instance, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Saint Barthélemy aren't in any sense countries, as they are collectivités d'outre-mer (that is, parts of France), and St Helena and the Pitcairn Islands are small British colonies, so not countries, either. Xn4 01:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My primary meaning in my question was for sovereign entities, but I do find it useful to have non-sovereign entities with a degree of self-government included for comparison. DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking that list against a list of independent countries, I find that 32 of the places on it are independent and smaller than the cutoff population. This comparison was done partly by hand because of country names having different forms, and I may have gotten one or two wrong. (Also, of course, the warning at the top of the list should be noted.) From largest (almost 500,000) to smallest:

1. Solomon Islands
2. Luxembourg
3. Suriname
4. Malta
5. Brunei
6. Bahamas
7. Iceland
8. Maldives
9. Barbados
10. Belize
11. Vanuatu
12. Samoa
13. St. Lucia
14. São Tomé & Príncipe
15. St. Vincent & the Grenadines
16. Micronesia
17. Grenada
18. Tonga
19. Kiribati
20. Seychelles
21. Antigua & Barbuda
22. Andorra
23. Dominica
24. Marshall Islands
25. St. Kitts & Nevis
26. Liechtenstein
27. Monaco
28. San Marino
29. Palau
30. Tuvalu
31. Nauru
32. Vatican City

--Anonymous, 2007-12-12, 05:05 UTC.

Mechanism design theory and environmental regulation

I understand that mechanism design theory, for which 3 economists were awarded the Nobel Prize for economics for 2007, can be used for formulating environmental regulation. I would like some non-mathematical and easily accessible material on how mechanism design is useful in designing policies for pollution control N. Ramagopal (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)N.Ramagopal

Napoleon and the Marseillaise

Why did Napoleon ban the Marseillaise in 1799? 75.162.133.252 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is to do with the coup of 18 Brumaire 1799, by which Bonaparte overthrew the government of the Directory. Those who planned the coup, and especially the Abbé Sieyès, were anxious to put an end to Jacobinism, and Bonaparte's popularity after his Egyptian adventures of 1798-1799 gave them the opportunity. There's an interesting comparison with Stalin's rejection of The Internationale, which was replaced by the National Anthem of the Soviet Union during the Second World War. The Internationale, like the Marseillaise, had glorified revolution. After Bonaparte banned the Marseillaise, the song Partant pour la Syrie (written by his step-daughter Hortense de Beauharnais) was widely used instead. Although that song isn't about Bonaparte himself, it was inspired by his expedition to Egypt and has remained closely identified with the Bonapartists ever since. In the same way, the first version of the new Anthem of the Soviet Union (1944) glorified Stalin, though more explicitly. Xn4 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question appearing on my final

On my final exam review lies the question "According to Aristotle, what reveals character in a drama?" Try as I might I connot find the answer in my notes or reading, so I was wondering if maybe someone here could enlighten me on this point. 129.108.227.171 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly all that was wanted as an answer was "plot" or "action". The Poetics outlines six elements of drama: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle and melody, and of these plot comes first: "In a play, they do not act in order to portray the characters; they include the characters for the sake of the action" (Poetics 1450a.20). Probably the question was posed to elicit this. For an essay, this could be added to considerably :) - Nunh-huh 10:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response. I think that is probably what my proffessor be lookin' for; it sounds like something he would place in a test. Thanx. 129.108.227.171 (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jean Pierre Pellissier

Would like to write an article on Jean Pierre Pellissier - a French missionary to South Africa in 1830, prior the dicovery of diamonds etc and the the historical Great Trek. He was the the first permanent european missionary in South Africa, above the borders of the Cape Colony, and started the town Bethulie.

We are the sixth generation still living in SA, and have lots of historical information on this topic. Sam PellissierPellissier (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OffTopic, I've wikilinked your town Bethulie in case you didn't know we have an article on that. Rfwoolf (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sam. You'll find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Article development and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The first of those says "Please don't create pages about yourself or your friends, pages that advertise, or personal essays" and also "Wikipedia surveys existing human knowledge; it is not a place to publish new work". Your ancestor's life seems to meet the tests of Wikipedia:Notability, but you might feel it would be better to get someone outside the family to work on the article. It will need to rely on sources which anyone can access, such as Jean Pierre Pellissier van Bethulie: 'n Volledige Lewensbeskrywing van een van de eerste Franse Protestantse sendelinge in suid-Afrika (Pretoria, 1956). I hope this is helpful. Xn4 12:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The health of FDR

Is it true that Franklin Roosevelt's political enemies spread the rumour that he was suffering from syphilis in the run up to the presidential election of 1932 Major Barbara (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to this source, "it was whispered that Roosevelt had syphilis, which he contracted from his wife, who got it from a black man." There are three implications of this insinuation:

1. It implied that he was very ill, too ill to run the country

2. It implied that he couldn't even be in charge of his own household, that he couldn't even "control" his wife, so why would he be able to run the country?

3. It implied that he was carrying a black man's disease, a very serious allegation in those days.

Aecis^Brievenbus 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Montaigne on memory

What does Michel Montaigne have to say about memory? Could you please direct me to a specific passage in his Essays? Yours sincerely, Christine Spencer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.98 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)