Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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!

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 6

Latin Americans forms of government

Which Latin American nations have presidential system and unitary state at the same time? Are all Latin American nations have presidential system?, yes or no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Cuba, for obvious reasons, the vast majority of independent Latin American countries exhibit democracies in the form of presidential republics, in which the president acts as head of state and head of government.

In spite of some experiments, such as the Peruvian prime minister or the Argentine chief of cabinet, Latin American republics are rather strong presidential systems.

Most of the small countries in the region could be described as unitarian. The wikiarticle on unitary states define Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Perú, Uruguay, and Venezuela as unitary, though I have my doubts about the cases of Venezuela and especially Bolivia. The quoted article also considers Cuba a unitary country. Pallida  Mors 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reinforcing my doubts, the article Politics of Venezuela speaks of a federal republic. Some input from a comparative constitutional law expert is welcome! Pallida  Mors 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Christianity in Europe

I know that the British are Protestant and the Irish, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spaniards are Roman Catholics and Russians, Ukrainians, and Greeks and Balkans are Orthodox. But the question is: Is United Kingdom the only Euro nation whose majority people are Protestants? Are Ireland, Italy, France, Spain and Portugal are the only Euro nations whose majority people are Roman Catholics? and Are Greece, Balkans, Russia and former soviet union nations are the only Euro nations whose majority people are Orthodox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at Image:Christianity percentage by country.png, you'll see that in several of the nations you mention Christians no longer form a majority. If you mean: is the UK the only European country in which the majority of Christians is Protestant, the answer is no. The Scandinavian countries are predominantly Protestant. In Germany and the Netherlands the fraction of Protestants is a tiny bit more than Catholics (see Religion in Germany#Christianity and Religion in the Netherlands#Major Denominations). Many more European nations have a Catholic majority, like Belgium, Austria, Poland, and Hungary. Bulgaria, Romania, and Cyprus are also predominantly Orthodox.  --Lambiam 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland is nearly evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants. Neither group forms a majority there. While a majority in Estonia are not religious, of those who do profess a religion, most are Protestant. The largest religious group in Latvia is also Protestant, though Protestants are not a majority in Latvia. A majority of people in Lithuania are Catholic. Note that the last three countries are former Soviet countries, and none of them has an Orthodox majority. Marco polo (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Balkans cannot be simply lumped together as predominantly Orthodox. Islam became the main religion in some areas under the Ottoman empire, and Catholicism in areas under Austro-Hungarian or Italian/Venetian influence. Even Orthodoxy has Greek, Russian and other local variants. I copy and paste the passage below from Balkans.

Eastern Orthodoxy is the principal religion in the following countries:

   * Bulgaria (Bulgarian Orthodox Church)
   * Greece (Church of Greece)
   * Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian Orthodox Church Although not recognized by other Orthodox Churches)
   * Montenegro (Serbian Orthodox Church and uncanonical Montenegrin Orthodox Church)
   * Romania (Romanian Orthodox Church)
   * Serbia (Serbian Orthodox Church)

Roman Catholicism is the principal religion in the following countries:

   * Croatia
   * Slovenia

Islam is the principal religion in the following countries:

   * Albania
   * Bosnia and Herzegovina
   * Turkey
   * Kosovo   SaundersW (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about present day proportions of Catholics v Protestants but historically Holland, and I believe, the other Low Countries have been fairly prominently Protestant. With the north German states a bit less so. I wouldn't lump the countries of the UK together either as Scotland's very Calvinist brand of Protestantism is quite distinct from that of England and Wales AllanHainey (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say that Europe today is secular, rather than either Catholic or Protestant. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On Albania, more people there have a Muslim heritage than a Christian one, but only a minority of people in Albania who would say they are one thing or the other actually observe the forms of their religions, and they intermarry freely, leading to even less rigidity. You hear people say that an Albanian's true religion is Albanianism. Xn4 23:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Spinoza "On the Improvement of the Understanding"

Can someone please help me to understand better what Spinoza says about the Understanding? - That is explain each of the following statements that Spinoza gives on the Understanding??

I. It involves certainty --in other words, it knows that a thing exists in reality as it is reflected subjectively.

II. That it perceives certain things, or forms some ideas absolutely, some ideas from others. Thus it forms the idea of quantity absolutely, without reference to any other thoughts; but ideas of motion it only forms after taking into consideration the idea of quantity.

III. Those ideas which the understanding forms absolutely express infinity; determinate ideas are derived from other ideas. Thus in the idea of quantity, perceived by means of a cause, the quantity is determined, as when a body is perceived to be formed by the motion of a plane, a plane by the motion of a line, or, again, a line by the motion of a point. All these are perceptions which do not serve toward understanding quantity, but only toward determining it. This is proved by the fact that we conceive them as formed as it were by motion, yet this motion is not perceived unless the quantity be perceived also; we can even prolong the motion so as to form an infinite line, which we certainly could not do unless we had an idea of infinite quantity.

IV. The understanding forms positive ideas before forming negative ideas.

V. It perceives things not so much under the condition of duration as under a certain form of eternity, and in an infinite number; or rather in perceiving things it does not consider either their number or duration, whereas, in imagining them, it perceives them in a determinate number, duration, and quantity.

VI. The ideas which we form as clear and distinct, seem so to follow from the sole necessity of our nature, that they appear to depend absolutely on our sole power; with confused ideas the contrary is the case. They are often formed against our will.

VII. The mind can determine in many ways the ideas of things, which the understanding forms from other ideas: thus, for instance, in order to define the plane of an ellipse, it supposes a point adhering to a cord to be moved round two centres, or, again, it conceives an infinity of points, always in the same fixed relation to a given straight line, or a cone cut in an oblique plane, so that the angle of inclination is greater than the angle of the vertex of the cone, or in an infinity of other ways.

VIII. The more ideas express perfection of any object, the more perfect are they themselves; for we do not admire the architect who has planned a chapel so much as the architect who has planned a splendid temple.

Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.148.10 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that all? Phew. OK. Well, you can start by reading Baruch Spinoza, particularly Baruch Spinoza#Ethical_philosophy. Then move on to Relativism. Conatus may also be helpful. Also, have you tried reading "On the Improvement of the Understanding"? --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd need to get some clear (and distinct) ideas about the Cartesian background first. Have you done that?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 14:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

83.148, I am reminded here of a response T.S. Eliot once gave on being asked at a public reading of the meaning of a poem he had just recited: he proceeded to read the whole thing again! What you have done here is simply to list Spinoza's summary of the issues he has addressed in the body of On the Improvement of the Understanding. An explanation along the lines you have requested would require, in essence, a full recapitulation, or, what is even worse, an amplification of the text, perhaps to impossible lengths.

Yes, I know it's difficult, but you will find the answers you are looking for if you read the essay again, perhaps more than once. If you are still having problems the best thing is to come back with some more tailored question, using your own words. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourism: what are the advantages?

what are the advantages of tourism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.63.97 (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid your question is a little vague. Do you mean what are the advantages to a country of having a developed tourism industry? Or do you mean what are the advantages of being a tourist? Both of these questions seem to have answers that are fairly obvious, so I'm wondering if you mean something else entirely. Can you explain what you're looking for? In the meantime, reading our article tourism might help. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Increases cultural awareness (to a point), and greater communication worldwide, creates jobs for locals, aids the continuing existence of small towns and shires and keeps (or puts) them on the map, raises the local standard of living, can aid in preservation of wildlife, indigenous arts and crafts, creates access to remote areas, replaces failiing local industries with new one, incrreases the chances of raising occupational health and safety standards for workers and travel standards for tourists through competition, gives adventurers ways to earn real money for their special talents, can be therapeutic for people getting away from the ratrace, their home town, opens the mind... (I know, some of these are arguable causes for the downside of tourism) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and promotes growth of eco-tourism, creating wildlife parks and other nature-related industries such as whale-watching and strengthens anti-mining/logging lobbies, highlights reserves and raises the profile of national parks (within limits), enhances importance of hospitality industries and their regulatory bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Rossi (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Daylight savings time zones, Canada

What cities in British Columbia do not follow the time zone change ... my understanding is that there are some cities for historical purposes what cities would this be ? samm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.16.135 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the section on British Columbia in our article Daylight saving time around the world, (eastern) parts of Peace River Regional District (whose largest towns are Dawson Creek and Fort St. John) are on Mountain Standard Time year-round. In effect, they observe the same time as Alberta during late autumn and winter. During the rest of the year, their clocks are set the same as the rest of British Columbia observing Pacific Daylight Time. On this map, the more northerly portion of British Columbia shown as part of the Mountain Time Zone is the one that does not observe daylight saving time. (The more southerly portion on Mountain Time, the East Kootenay region, does observe daylight saving time.) Marco polo (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

March 7

Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Iran

In the article Unitary state, it listed that Afghanistan, Iran and Sri Lanka. I understand that Bangladesh appoints people as Divisional Commissioner and District Commissioner. What about Afghanistan's President? What are the names for the leaders of provinces and districts of Afghanistan? What about Sri Lanka's President? What are the names for leaders of provinces and districts of Sri Lanka? What are the names for the leaders of provinces and district of Iran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking about Afghanistan's president. Here is a list of Afghanistan's governors. Marco polo (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

why was correction to caption rejected?

in the history of world war 2 article "FOCKE-WULF Fw190" i attempted to correct the caption of a photograph of a Fw 190A4 painted as a captured usaaf aircraft. the original caption incorrectly identified the location as a base in europe and the aircraft as a possible example evaluated by the test group. the correct caption should read that the aircraft was located in tunisia,north africa in 1942-3 the mto. this aircraft was operated by the 85th fighter squadron/79th fighter group of 12th air force. my father was an officer/pilot with the twelfh and flew this aircraft. the light blue area on the fuselage near the cockpit/canopy is the patch of the 85th fighter squadron. this unit was known as the "flying skulls". see-http://members.aol.com/brimiljeep/WebPages/SquadronPatchAAFPage.html on that page you will see the insignia of the 85th fighter squadron. my father had a photograph of him flying this focke-wulf fw 190. the photo was taken from another aircraft flying in formation. in the photo the side of the fuselage is clearly visible with the squadron insignia---my father is also clearly recognizable. my correction was an effort nto correct an error and contribute to your data base. the flying photo also appeared in a monthly issue of "wings" a sentry magazine that was highlighting the focke-wulf fw 190 german fighter aircraft. the picture was included as an example of some that were captured when the germans quit north africa in 1943. hope this helps. contact details removed. my father was an air force officer for 32 years. the first plane he ever flew was a Boeing P-12 in 1937. he retired in 1970 as a full colonel. his last position was as chief of staff of 8th air force at westover afb ,mass.Hal whiteman (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the editing of an article, you should take it up on that article's talk page. FiggyBee (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FiggyBee. The editors who undid your change had no idea where you got your information. In particular, if you can provide info about the specific issue of Wings, that would almost certainly address their concern. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Judicial Terror and the Third Reich

The Socialist underground press called what the Nazis did to the Jews after 1935 'Judical Terror.' I would like to know how this worked in practice in the period before the outbreak of the war? It's not so much grand set piece pogroms I am asking about-and here the obvious example is the Night of Broken Glass. Rather I am thinking of the day to day process of persecuation, the way the police and the other agencies of the state acted to enforce discrimination. I would also like to know what impact Nazi policy here had on the public at large? Thank you for your time. Vic Viking (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Roland Freisler, Judges' Trial -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Amongst other things, Vic, the Kripo-the main branch of the Criminal Police- was given specific instructions in June 1937 to arrest all those guilty of breaking the Nuremberg Laws, and send them to concentration camps. In June 1938 the definition of asocials was extended to all Jews who had served minor prison sentences in the past. This meant in practice that they could be rounded up and sent to concentration camps, as over 1500 were, even those in full-time employment, and only released on promise of emigration. This was to be the first such mass round-up in the history of the regime. Other official actions along these lines made it all but impossible for Jewish people to earn a living. The whole point of this organised 'police terror' was to force as many Jews as possible to leave Germany. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben Mathews and the Bakewell tart: source for this?

In your description for the bakewell tart, you give reference to a book by Ben Mathews (1839). I am struggling to find the title to the book, could you reveal the title so i can source it.

84.71.149.244 (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have searched high and low at Wikipedia and the web for the Ben Mathews mentioned at our article Bakewell tart, anonymous questioner. And I have searched using all combinations of Ben-or-Benjamin and Mathews-or-Matthews. I used whole phrases at Google, enclosed in quotes like this: "Ben Mathews". No luck. The text of our article appears to be borrowed, and has been borrowed in turn at many other places, it seems: but no more information comes to light.

Anyone have an idea?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the other "contributions" of the anonymous editor who inserted this, it looks like vandalism. I've removed it, as well as other old vandalism.  --Lambiam 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nineteenth Century Battle, won against the odds?

I am looking for a good example of a nineteenth century battle where a weaker army won in the face of greater odds. I would particularly like to know by what means the victorous general was able to prevail over his opponent, what tactics he used in bringing victory? Was there the element of luck that Napoleon thought essential for a good commander, or was there something less nebulous at work? I suppose what I really want to know is waht are the qualities that make an outstanding commander in the field? 81.151.6.121 (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the Battle of Chancellorsville from the American Civil War. Lee was outnumbered two to one. What we call luck is always in play on both sides and can therefore be discounted. Lee won by daring, good reconnaissance, deception, and energy. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Battle of Brice's Crossroads in the American Civil War, Confederate General Nathan Forrest with about 3200 men defeated Union General Samuel Sturgis who had about 8500 men. Forrest in several other Civil War actions defeated larger Union forces. Edison (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Last stand may be of interest, but most of them did not end well. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Like Milkbreath, I, too, would select Chancellorsville, Lee's great masterpiece, the one engagement that simply leaps to mind here. He was daring because he had to be daring, dividing his weaker army not once but twice, almost certainly the road to suicide for any other commander. But there is something else worth raising here, something in Lee's make-up that Milkbreath has not mentioned; namely the almost intuitive ability he had to read the mind of his opponent. Nowhere was this better demonstrated than at Chancellorsville, where Joseph Hooker,-like a rabbit caught in the headlights-, might be said to have lost the battle before Lee won it. Lee was also fortunate, it also has to be said, in the invaluable support he had from his Right Arm! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Isandlwana The Zulu nation had 10 times more men but they were armed with spears and cow hides. They annihilated a formation of thousands of armed men. Lotsofissues 11:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)

Lotsofissues, have you actually read the article you linked? At Isandlwana exactly one thousand British soldiers faced 25,000 Zulus. Yes, the British were armed with Martini-Henry rifles, but the defensive perimeter was too large and the guns prone to jamming, allowing the Zulus to penetrate the line with ease. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So African auxiliaries don't exist? Why do you only count 1400 British soldiers? Their perimeter was overextended because of poor leadership. Does that detract from Zulu victory? Do Mead's mistakes undermine the claim that Chancellorsville was Lee's masterpiece? In this clash of breech loading rifles against spears, you still claim the disadvantage of being outnumbered? LOLERCOASTER The British had the invincible factor. And they lost. Lotsofissues 09:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There were a lot of incompetent generals in Europe during the 19th century but I can't name them offhand.
Sleigh (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Lotsofissues. Please do not misunderstand me: I am not in any sense discounting the significance of the Zulu victory. My remark was addressed to your contention that 'they annihilated a formation of thousands of men', which is bound to give an entirely misleading impression. Yes, there were local raised troops, but the Natal Native Contingent was not only badly armed but of a highly uneven quality. The British command had a poor opinion of their fighting ability, keeping them in reserve at the outset of the battle, a position from where most would seem to have deserted, hence their relatively low casualty rates. Indeed, it is uncertain to me just how many of the NNC were actually engaged. The Wikipedia article says that over 477 'others' were killed; but it also says that British casualties amounted to 852 officers and men out of a force of 1400. Of this only 55 officers and men are said to have escaped, which leaves some 500 men unaccounted for.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 'invincibility factor', which in the circumstances would seem to be a quite nonsensical expression. Indeed, as I have already said, the Martini-Henry rifle, which should in theory have given the British superiority over the larger Zulu army was prone to jamming, and is now considered to be one of the factors in their defeat. The simple fact remains that the British were overwhelmed by considerably superior numbers. So, if you read 81.151's question again you should be able to conclude that Isandlwana is quite out of place here.

Incidentally, as I have already said, the Union commander at Chancellorsville was Joseph Hooker, not George Mead. Mead's V Corps was kept in reserve throughout the battle, one of the factors in Hooker's defeat. If you read once again what I wrote above you will see that I make it quite plain that Hooker's mistakes were an important part of the Confederate victory; that he 'might be said to have lost the battle before Lee won it.' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio, do you think Hooker would have won if he pressed the attack as Mead wanted? On second thoughts I think I will post this below as a new question. 217.43.8.37 (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

81 asked for an example of a victorious "weaker army" up against great odds. It amazes me that you think 10x, 25x, 100x, or whatever greater manpower nullifies great odds. Again--like a broken record--in this battle pitting spear against rifle, numbers are insignificant to figuring the balance sheet of advantage. Why? Because the gun is invincible! A defensive position bristling with the firepower of many volleys per minute is invincible against men running up. It's nonsensical given the circumstances that anybody got within the length of half a football field. Yet, the Zulus won, beating the most unfavorable odds. Lotsofissues 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In a battle of a large army armed with assegais vs a small army armed with unreliable firearms, I'd go for the former. Especially as the former were a very well disciplined force, nullifying that usual advantage that European powers had over native opposition. Chuck in the extraordinary Zulu bravery and military prowess, it's correct to say that while it was a tremendous victory for the Zulu, it doesn't fit the criteria the questioner asked for. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not what you're looking for, but what about the retreat from Kabul? The failure there was political, rather than military, but the end result was the destruction of the British force. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC) And, of course, the retreat from Moscow, which just scrapes in under your criteria. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Dickens question: his political views?

Thanks to those who responded to my question on Dickens and Utilitarianism. I would now like to know more about the author's political views. For example, was he in favour of Chartism? Was he a Conservative, a Liberal or a Radical? Would he have been in favour of votes for women? I short, what is the best way of summarising his views on the great political questions of the day? Mrs 'Arris (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dickens agreed with Carlyle, right? So that would make him more of a conservative. He thought America was a big mess. My guess is that he would have been against votes for women, though I'm not sure he said anything about it directly. Wrad (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was more of a working class socialist than a conservative - at least modern day conservatism. Most of his books appear to feature people in positions of power (or wealth) who are cruel/unkind/uncaring, and people in positions of poverty who are honest/caring/worthy of help and often I get the impression from his works that he favoured helping the poor and had a general contempt for the rich. Could be wrong mind you, i've not read a lot of his work and i've never 'studied' it. ny156uk (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're absolutely right that he cared about the poor, the conservative thing about him is the way he says that should be done. He agrees with Carlyle. Carlyle was considered a conservative because he favored the monarchy and he favored the class structure as it was, he just argued that rich people should be nicer to poor people. Dickens' A Christmas Carol portrays the transformation of a crusty rich old man into a man who helps poor people. the rich man, however, is the one with the power. In any case, Dickens was not as liberal as John Stuart Mill and the like. Wrad (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dickens hated poor-houses and exploitative factory-owners, but he also hated workers' strikes, and had little sympathy with radical politics or most attempts at broad sweeping social reforms (look at his take on prison reform near the end of David Copperfield...). AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dickens was a middle-class, middle-brow, radical progressive-understood in the nineteenth century sense of the term- and something, on occasions, of an old-fashioned Tory paternalist, though I am quite aware that he would have hated to be described in such a fashion! He hated backward-looking aristocratic reaction, the abuse of power by traditional elites; but he feared the consequences of revolution even more, the essential message of A Tale of Two Cities. No, he was not in favour of Chartism, as we can guess from hostile sentiments he expressed in his correspondence (Letters, III, 282). He celebrated the fall of the French July Monarchy in 1848, while worrying about the spread of 'public bedevilments to England.

His fear of the urban under-class was fully expressed in The Old Curiosity Shop, which takes Little Nell and her Grandfather into England's dangerous industrial heartlands. He hated, above all, forms of demagoguery, which, in his view, exploits the oppressed for selfish political ends. He is generous in his perceptions of the labouring-poor, those, that is, who are deserving of such generosity; people like Betty Higden in Our Mutual Friend. It is best, one supposes, that people like this do not think for themselves over-much, otherwise they end up like the muddle-headed Stephen Blackpool in Hard Times!

But, as far as I am concerned, the best possible summary of Dickens, the great moral campaigner, is that given by George Orwell towards the end of his masterly essay on the subject:

When one reads any strongly individual piece of writing, one has the impression of seeing a face somewhere behind the page. It is not necessarily the actual face of the writer. I feel this very strongly with Swift, with Defoe, with Fielding, Stendhal, Thackeray, Flaubert, though in several cases I do not know what these people looked like and do not want to know. What one sees is the face that the writer ought to have. Well, in the case of Dickens I see a face that is not quite the face of Dickens's photographs, though it resembles it. It is the face of a man of about forty, with a small beard and a high colour. He is laughing, with a touch of anger in his laughter, but no triumph, no malignity. It is the face of a man who is always fighting against something, but who fights in the open and is not frightened, the face of a man who is generously angry — in other words, of a nineteenth-century liberal, a free intelligence, a type hated with equal hatred by all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dickens' modern-day biographer Peter Ackroyd quotes approvingly Walter Bagehot's description of Dickens as a "sentimental radical" and states (with supporting references to Nicholas Nickleby and Barnaby Rudge) "Dickens can pity individuals and individual suffering [...] but he changes his attitude when such individuals are grouped together in a crowd, or 'mob'." With reference to Dickens' attitude to Chartism, he adds that in the late 1830s when the Chartists were active "there is no indication that [...] Dickens played anything but the part of a concerned spectator who did not feel himself to be actively engaged in any of the popular credos of the moment". Around this time Dickens described Robert Peel's Tories as "people whom, politically, I despise and abhor" whilst when a journalist he worked for the liberal/radical Morning Chronicle though as discussed above did not see eye-to-eye with the Utilitarianism espoused by many of the radicals of his time. Valiantis (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There were occasions when he became more conservative, such as after Cawnpore, IIRC. AllenHansen (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Glorious Revolution

Just wondering if anyone could help me: Was the Glorious Revolution of 1688 popular in Scotland and Ireland? I am aware that James II's policies of Catholic toleartion would obviously have been popular in Ireland, therefore winning him some support there and that there were some Catholics who would have been remained loyal to James in Scotland, but were those Scots who were members of the Kirk hostile to William and Mary or welcoming? Finally, how much of an affect did the Enlgish deciding who should rule Scotland and Ireland have an affect on both Anglo-Scottish relationships and Anglo-Irish relationships? Sorry if the question seems complex, its just I am unsure of just how important the Glorious Revolution was! Any help would be much appreiciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.163.242 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a lovely article on the Glorious Revolution that will probably help answer your question quite well. A quick read suggests that there were some Catholic supporters in Ireland and Scotland, but James II's policies also spawned the Jacobite Risings in Scotland, and the Williamite War in Ireland. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on Jacobitism, which discusses opposition to the Glorious Revolution in Scotland and Ireland. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

172.189, on a point of fact, while the English most certainly decided who would rule in Ireland, this is not really the case in Scotland, which still, at that time, was a separate kingdom, with its own government and political institutions. While the government of James VII had not been as unpopular as it had been in England, it was not particularly popular either. The Scottish Privy Council was therefore content to go along with the Glorious Revolution, even though it had been made in the south. Who should occupy the vacant Scottish throne was not decided until the spring of 1689 by a Convention of Estates, on condition that the new monarchs accepted the Claim of Right, the Scottish equivalent of the English Bill of Rights.

The rule of William and Mary was to be particularly welcome in the southern Lowlands, because it produced, in 1690, a Presbyterian settlement to the question of Church government, replacing the Episcopacy favoured since the Restoration in 1660. Jacobite support for James, such as it was, was at this time confined to the western Highlands, to those areas fearful of a restoration of the power of the Campbells. Although some Jacobites were Catholics, others were Episcopalian Protestants, including John Graham of Claverhouse, the leader of the 1689 rising.

The situation in Ireland was altogether different, as the vast majority of the Catholic population supported James. Indeed, there was no Glorious Revolution in Ireland; it had to be carried there by conquest. The defeat of the Jacobites in 1691 left the way open for the Protestant Ascendancy and the subsequent discrimination against Catholics enshrined in the fearsome Penal Laws. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Max Income Before Taxed

As a sole proprietor, what is the most money you can make before you are required to claim it on your taxes? Here7ic (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What country? --NellieBly (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

USA. Here7ic (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Reference Desk does not give legal advice. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not legal advice. It would be legal advice if I was asking for a course of action. I'm asking for a stated fact. Here7ic (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that, while there is a threshold below which you aren't taxed, you are required to claim all forms of income. The point at which enforcement kicks in is poorly defined -- for instance, an audit is unlikely to crack down on a typical teenager's babysitting income. — Lomn 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How about an income within a thousand dollars? Here7ic (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The IRS has one hell of a web site. The publication I found here (after a search of about two minutes, hint, hint) says that you have to file if you get $400 or more. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wizard Weir

On a recent visit to Edinburgh I was told a story about the Wizard Weir. This was apparently a real person who lived I think in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. I have been looking here for more info but can find nothing. Is it just a tall tale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.242.83 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That'll most probably be Major Thomas Weir, also known as "the wizard of West Bow". Google has a few snippets about him including [1], [2], [3] and also it has been put forward that he was the inspiration for the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.[4] Nanonic (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an interesting essay on the subject of Thomas Weir by the Scottish historian David Stevenson, entitled Major Weir: a Justified Sinner? (Scottish Studies, 16, 1972). The author links the case to the Presbyterian obsession with Predestination. Weir made a voluntary confession to his crimes and refused all attempts to persuade him to seek the pardon of God. Even on the gallows, when he was bid to say 'Lord be merciful to me', he responded as before: "Let me alone-I will not-I have lived like a beast and I will die like a beast." The theme of strict predestination, and the possible adverse moral implications of such theology, was later taken up by James Hogg in his novel The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner Clio the Muse (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What the...? Joseph Goebbels' flamboyant "camp" uniform

Goebells created a flamboyant blue suit as a uniform for himself, unlike that of any of the other Nazi's. Today, this would be seen a being rather camp Further more, Hiter apparently enjoyed being deficated on. I do not mean to imply that homosexuals enjoy defication, please dont take this the wrong way, but in the light of these to aspects of thier personalities relate to the Nazi persecution of homosexual persons. Thanks people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw the above question on the miscellaneous desk and thought that people here would be better informed to give a good answer. Is any of this true, or is it just a load of cobblers? Do you believe it? (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is obviously some confusion between Joseph Goebbels and Herman Göring here. It was the latter, not the former, who was known for his 'camp' uniforms, once wearing a coat that Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister, described as the sort of thing that a 'high grade prostitute wears to the opera'. Hitler's alleged coprophilia was a piece of war-time black propaganda, that made its way into the academic mainstream via the absurd conduit of 'psychohistory, represented most particularly by Robert Waite's Hitler: the Psychopathic God, a work best ignored. The Nazi presecution of homosexuals had absolutely nothing to do with the individual eccentricities, or otherwise, of their leadership; and one of the most noted homosexuals in the leading ranks of the Party was as butch as they come. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It began here [5] Julia Rossi (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitler might have enjoyed deification.  --Lambiam 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Has he not already been deified?! Yes, I was sorely tempted to have fun with that, Lambian, but was mindful of the injunction about not making light of a questioner's poor grammar and spelling! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there black propaganda about Roosevelt and Churchill propagated by the Germans to equal that produced by the Allies about the German leaders? Edison (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly a lot of mud thrown in their general direction, but that was of a public nature. Black propaganda is altogether more invidious, unusually percolated through in a medium that conveys a degree of verisimilitude. The British secret service specialised in this sort of thing, using Sefton Delmer, amongst others, to pass on 'revelations', most often about the alleged sexual perversions of the Nazi leadership. The aim was to cause dissension and weaken morale. There is a Wikipedia article on Black Propaganda that you might refer to Edison, though it's quite disappointing in the lack of detail. I do not personally know of any German black propaganda directed against Allied leaders, which is not to say, of course, that it does not exist. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of the rumor that Franklin Roosevelt had syphilis, with additional lurid detailis of how he got it. [6] says the rumor dated back to his first Presidential campaign, but that Hitler was fond of repeating it. Thought to be untrue. Edison (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

All Bones? The Road of Bones, Siberia

I was watching a dvd of Eawan McGregor and Charley Boorman on their motorbike trip around the world. On the road of bones just before Magadan in Siberia there was some discussion of those who died in its construction, the 'intelligent' the 'educated' and so on. Is this true? It made Stalin sound a bit like Pol Pot, but surely there had to be something more to his style of government considering the technical advances of the USSR during his period of rule? Was the purge simply about destruction and nothing else? Did Stalin do nothing to attract people to his side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dun Sin Ane (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You can read all about it at Great Purge, which quotes a figure of 1000 executions per day by the NKVD in '37 and '38. So far as the army goes, our article says: "The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars. In total, 30,000 members of the armed forces were executed." Definitely not a sustainable mode of operation. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As to what the purges were about, it was to remove people from the party ranks who were not fully in line with party ideologies (i.e., had just joined because the party was in power). The educated suffered disproportionately because anyone from the upper classes of society was automatically under suspicion. There had been purges before the Great Purge, but they just involved removing party membership, rather than executions or labor camps (see Purge of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a very real misperception of the purpose and function of the Great Purge in the Stalinist scheme of things. You are right to raise doubts, Dun; for along with the stick there was also a carrot, and the Soviet Union did not in any sense resemble the Cambodia of Pol Pot, where destruction ruled for the sake of destruction. I would suggest that you or, indeed, any anyone else interested in the issues raised here read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward. I would draw your attention in particular to the figure of Pavel Nikolayevich Rusanov, the technocrat who did very well out of the old order, and is worried by the changes introduced after Stalin's death, which represent a threat to his status and position. He serves very well as an archetype for those who emerged, phoenix-like, out of the ashes of the purges, a new class of specialists with limited political vision, not unduly concerned that their place in society was achieved at the expense of others.

Addressing the specific issues you raise it is well to remember that these specialists- technocrats and bureaucrats of all sorts-had been emerging steadily during the course of the 1930s. Such people, Pavel Rusanov and his kin, were the real basis of Stalin's power, not the NKVD and the apparatus of terror. They were almost always Party members, replacing the old non-political specialists, whom Stalin distrusted so much, the people who had raised all sorts of practical objections to the over-optimistic targets of the First Five Year Plan. The new wave included many who were to reach the most senior ranks in the party; men like Leonid Brezhnev, Andrei Gromyko and Alexey Kosygin. I suspect that it was these sorts of individuals that Trotsky had in mind when he wrote The Revolution Betrayed in 1936: the new 'pyramid of bureaucrats' upon which Stalin's power depended

Stalin needed to ensure that the new apparatchiks were kept on side. Their loyalty had to be assured, in other words, by more than propaganda and sloganeering. This was done by increasing consumer spending during the Second Five Year Plan of 1933 to 1937, information which does not appear in the Wikipedia article on the subject. It was during this period that rationing was lifted and all sorts of consumer goods appeared for the new Soviet middle-class, including cameras, gramophones and radios. There was also a rise in the production of all sorts of luxury goods for the new political elite, anything from chocolates to champagne.

This was a time of general retreat from what might be called 'Bolshevik asceticism', with a new emphasis on the compatibility of Consumerism and Communism. Just as the inconvenient old-guard was being swept aside in the purges, propaganda began to place its greatest emphasis on the material rewards of labour. This, of course, meant a retreat from the illusions of Marxist equality. For the new labour aristocracy was rewarded well beyond its needs.

So, yes, not all took the road of bones. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Most powerful woman in the Soviet Union

Is there any one woman who could make a claim to having been the most powerful woman in the history of the Soviet Union? Looking back at claims of famous Soviet citizens, no woman stands out in the political or military realms. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ekaterina Furtseva was no slouch in the Khruschev era. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, Corvus, you would be really hard pressed to find many powerful women in the higher reaches of the CPSU, for the simple reason that-for all its revolutionary pretensions-it was a remarkably sexist organisation. The only figure of any significance that I can think of among the Old Bolsheviks is Alexandra Kollontai, and she was hardly in the first rank. It may be an indication of just how seriously Stalin perceived women in politics that she is the only one of the old guard, not within his circle, to have survived the Great Purge. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for both answers. Corvus cornix_talk 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the extremely radical gender equality policies of the Bolsheviks, I don't really think it's accurate to describe them as "remarkably sexist". Keep in mind that this was the same regime that legalized abortions in the 1920s, and even if that was reversed during Stalin, there were still opportunities for women in the Soviet Unions that weren't available in the West until well after WW II.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter, please forgive me for saying so, but you seem, ever so slightly, to be missing the point here. My remarks were directed at the power structure of the CPSU, to the almost complete absence of women in the higher ranks of the Party and the State, from the earliest days onwards. It is quite possible to be both progressive in theory and sexist in practice when it comes to the exercise of power. A gender equality policy at a lower level in no way militates against this argument. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Smokie Norful song with birds singing

Today I heard a Smokie Norful song with a title like "For All the Lord Has Done" or "For What the Lord Did". It seems to have the word "ding-a-ling" in it, and contains a reference to birds singing. What song is this? I can't find it anywhere online, even though I looked up all of Norful's albums on Amazon and googled for

"smokie norful" bird singing

as well as "smokie norful" birds sing and other variations. Wiwaxia (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

March 8

Different Types of Karma in Buddhism

I know that according to Buddhism, there are four types of karma (kamma is the pali term) one of which is karma that leads toward nirvana (nibbana is the pali term). But how does one produce the karma that leads toward nirvana? Is merit the same thing? What about stupa veneration or Buddha statues? It would be much apreciated if answers could be from a Theravada perspectives. And if it is at all possible, could someone lead me to some related Suttas? RBTruthSeeker (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I searched for info on "four types of karma" in Buddhism and found there to be many different ways of describing karma, some of which use four types, but I couldn't figure out which system involves "karma that leads toward nirvana". Most seem to focus on the stopping of karma as leading toward nirvana. Could you be more specific about where your four karma system comes from? Some pages that may or may not be relevant: Jhana in Theravada, Dhyāna, Arūpajhāna, and Four stages of enlightenment. Also, this book describes four types of karma on pages 19-20, and 8, but none seem to be specifically leading to nirvana. Pfly (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, merit is not quite the same thing. See merit (Buddhism). I'm surprised Plfy didn't mention our article on Karma in Buddhism, although no fourfold analysis is mentioned there either. Some branches of Buddhism delight in breaking down various concepts into constituent types (mostly as an aide-memoire) and karma is no exception. Among the fourfold divisions (I've taken these from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary) are an analysis with regard to function: regenerative karma (janaka-kamma), supportive karma (upatthambhaka-kamma), counteractive karma (upapitaka-kamma), and destructive karma (upaghataka-kamma). Then there is a breakdown with regard to their result: weighty karma (garuka-kamma), habitual karma (acinnaka-kamma), death-proximate karma (maranasanna-kamma), and stored-up karma (katatta-kamma). Most of this sort of stuff is found in the commentaries rather than the suttas themselves, especially the Visuddhimagga. The only reference to nirvana I can think of in this context is that wholesome karma (kusala-kamma) leads to nirvana and unwholesome karma (akusala-kamma) does not. Both these types of karma are broken down into lists of ten (the ten precepts), which are mentioned many times in the suttas, especially in the Sevitabbasevitabba Sutta (Majjhima-Nikaya 114). For more information you might be interested in Nagapriya's Exploring Karma and Rebirth (ISBN 1-899579-61-3).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonies: why did Europeans discover and colonise?

Deleted repeated of question already above.៛ Bielle (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-inserted question moved here from Ref Desk. Misc.. I deleted it in error, being confused by the title.

Why did european countries colonize and discover america, asia and africa? What gave them the advantage of developing sea faring ships and the desire where as africa for instance did nothing of the sort. Why was one more dominant than the other. 193.115.175.247 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Zionist

There are probably as many answers as there are historians. You might find it useful to move this question to the Humanities desk. --68.144.73.245 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to start at our Colonialism article, which discusses the concept of creating colonies and branches off into the history of colonialism as well as many other areas. It looks like a pretty solid starting point. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For one explanation as to Europe's lead in such matters, read the book Guns, Germs and Steel. Corvus cornixtalk 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And you might check out Age of Discovery to think about the specific context of Europe's deciding to go explore and take over the world at that moment. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008

193.115, it's a fairly safe assumption Europe was aware of the existence of Africa and Asia, when Africans and Asians were in the imperial business, not the Europeans! Otherwise, as others have suggested, you should look at the Age of Discovery, Spanish colonization of the Americas along with the History of colonialism and other related articles for a full answer to your question. In terms of technological advancement, military organisation, ship-building and trade Europe was beginning to develop a commanding lead over other parts of the Atlantic sea-world world by the early sixteenth century. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Polynesians colonised Polynesia including New Zealand as late as AD 500. However, they colonised uninhabited islands.
Sleigh (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is wrong. It wasnt just Europeans who discovered and colonised. For example the Chinese went exploring. Its just that european cultural imperialism means that non-european ventures are not transmitted through history and through the media of the time. 80.2.200.28 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

European intervention: why so little, in American Civil War?

Why wasn't there a greater European prescence in the American Civil War, given the stakes? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GeeJo, insofar as I understand the terms of your question, there was certainly sympathy for the Confederate cause among ruling circles in both Britain and France at the outset of the American Civil War. In October 1862, William Ewart Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, went so far as to say that "...there is no doubt that Jefferson Davis and the other leaders of the South have made an army; they are making...a navy; and they have made what is more than either, they have made a nation." It was at this time that there was a strong possibility of Britain and France joining in an offer of mediation, as you will see if you look at Great Britain in the American Civil War. However, after the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam and the subsequent Emancipation Proclamation, the possibility of intervention all but vanished. Besides, France was too heavily involved in trying to prop up Maximilian Habsburg in Mexico to risk alienating Washington any further. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an article on that subject in the little essay-collection book "Why the North Won the Civil War" (which can often be found cheap in used bookstores in the U.S.). The briefest answer is that there was little likelihood of a strong direct European intervention without some consensus among the major European powers, which never materialized. Russia was always against it, France was usually for it, and Britain wavered according to military fluctuations and various diplomatic incidents, but never publicly committed itself to taking action as a matter of formal policy. It was probably a good thing for the Union that the first transatlantic telegraph cable had failed before the war, so that North American news was delayed several weeks before arriving in Europe. AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is "Lady Ann Byron"?

I've been reading some of my grandfathers genealogical research and there is one section that refers to:

"Ann (Maunder) GREGORY (1828-1903), believed to be Lady Ann Byron"

I assumed that Lady Ann Byron was famous in some way, so I did a google search, and Wikipedia check, and have come up completely empty! My grandfather died a few years ago. Can anyone shed any light on it? -- Chuq (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been some people who might correspond to that name, but not to those dates. For example, Anne Isabella "Annabella" Milbanke was the wife of the poet (George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, best known as "Lord Byron"). But her dates are 1792-1860. Anna Ismay Ethel Fitzroy (1884-1966) was the wife of Frederick Ernest Charles Byron, 10th Lord Byron. There was an Anne Molyneux whose husband was John Byron, but he died in 1625. So it's hard to say who, precisely, it was who "believed Ann Maunder Gregory to be Lady Ann Byron", or why. I'm assuming there is some romantic story of faking a death or substituting a birth to go with the supposition; you may want to have a look at Lady Anne Blunt, granddaughter of the poet, whose life might have inspired such a story. Perhaps you can provide more information to go on, or someone else can suggest a likelier possibility. - Nunh-huh 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found the sames names that you found, but as you said, the dates don't line up. The details I have are "Oliver Gregory (1825 - 24 Jan 1902) married Ann Maunder (1828 - 9 Feb 1903)." and the line above "believed to be Lady Ann Byron". They had 16 children between 1847 and 1871. I have found another source online which shows her name as Anne (but no mention of the Lady Byron). -- Chuq (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can be of any real help to you, but you should also tell us what country or location they were in. Your best approach is probably just to try and track down Oliver Gregory and Ann/Anne Maunder, and see if the notation about Byron makes any sense, rather than to try and track down Lady Ann Byron. You could also drop a note to the e-mail of the webmaster of the site you found them on. - Nunh-huh 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tabligh Jamaat

I know that Tabligh Jamaat was formed in Indian Sub-continent and it is practiced by people of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh but nowadays I see people from Somalia and some Arab countries follow this. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at the article Tablighi Jamaat you'll find it's a Muslim missionary movement aiming to bring spiritual revival to the world's muslims. First founded in India it spread throughout other muslim countries in the second half of last century and has political and celebrity links though it is not considered a political movement in itself. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mixed black/white Arab

You know how a kid whose parent is white and the other is black is called a Mulatto, which is a Spanish term because of the Spaniards. What about the Arabic term for a kid whose parent is a white and the other is black? and I am asking this because Arab nations of Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and if possible Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, have not only the white population, but also have the black population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the Arab term for that, but there's the "Mixed race" article with lots of links here [7] you might like to scan for yourself. This link [8] to this section of an article called Social interpretations of race that tells you about mulatto. There's another article Moors that gives some Arab-African history before the words "muslim" and "Islam" came along. Hope this helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea of dividing people up into distinct races based on skin color is really unique to European and European-derived cultures. This idea had its origins in the Atlantic slave trade. In the Arab countries, slaves could come in any number of different colors and from many different ethnic backgrounds, including European. In these countries, religion and ethnicity are the key features of identity, and skin color is fairly trivial. Since the idea of race is alien to many non-European cultures, a term comparable to "mulatto" is unlikely to exist, since its basic meaning is a person whose parents are of different races. To the extent that these cultures would see any point in labeling such a person (and they might not), they might describe the person's skin color as tan or light brown, or they might say that one parent had darker skin than the other, though again, lacking the concept of race, people in these cultures might see no reason to compare the skin colors of a person's parents. Marco polo (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny fact: in Turkey, black people are colloquially called "Arabs".  --Lambiam 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of Bedouins who descend from Sudanese slaves, but they aren't classified separately and they have the exact same position and rights as anyone else. AllenHansen (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Structure of Roman Army

Looking at Roman army, I see: 8 soldiers = 1 contubernium, 10 contubernium (contubernia/contuberniae?) = 1 century; X centuries = 1 maniple; Either 10 or 6 contubernium = 1 cohort; 10 cohorts (1*10 + 9*6 centuries) = 1 legion. So How big is a maniple and what place does it have in the structure since it appears bypassed between centuries and cohorts. -- SGBailey (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where have all the legionnaires gone just when you need them? Never mind, try this article: Maniple (military unit) and get back to us if there's more to it. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The maniple continued to exist after the Marian reforms. It was a pair of (on paper) 80 or 100 man centuries. There is some reason to suppose that these pairings were permanent. In the first cohort of a legion at least, each maniple had its own commander, an officer called an ordinarius, of whom there were five, one for each pair of centuries. How long this state of affairs continued is unknown to me.

Vegetius has ordinarii in his description of a legion, coming immediately after the commander in his list, but from Caesar to Vegetius is four centuries and words do change in meaning. You should bear in mind that paper figures for the strength of military forces are rarely a reliable guide to their actual strength. For the Roman army, where soldiers were always detached to guard governors and tax collectors and imperial this-and-that and to serve as messengers and who knows what else, it is very unlikely that units were ever anywhere close to their paper strength when they marched out of the gate on campaign. The word legion covers Roman formations over 1000 years I suppose. What little evidence there is for the strength of legions - Egyptian papyri of around 300AD which give monetary values for the payrolls of Legio II Traiana and Legio III Diocletiana - suggest legions of around 1000 men, but this probably not something that should be applied to significantly earlier dates.

Southern & Dixon's The Late Roman Army doesn't really go into much depth on internal organisation, although that's largely because not much is known. Webster's The Roman Imperial Army does, or so I recall. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of Human Bondage

I've not long finished Of Human Bondage, Somerset Maugham's masterpiece. What I would like to know is how likely it is that a person of talent and education could fall in love with a social and intellectual inferior, a love that comes close to destroying him, the central theme of the novel? Has this happened in real life? What I mean is has any leading English writer even been in the same position as the fictitious Philip Carey? Balzac's Ghost (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the refdesk Balzac's Ghost – Maugham's own life must have some of this content since the book was based on his personal experiences, for example Philip's club foot is analolgous to Maugham's stutter. Being passed around the family, being shunned, studying medicine, being happiest in Europe were all very real material of his own life. I can't think of another writer off the top of my head, but if you're interested in the interpersonal dynamics of the novel, you could look at martyr complex, codependence, issues of control in unequal relationships and some aspects of the master-slave dialectic in Marxist terms, maybe? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How likely is it that someone of education and talent falls in love with a social inferior? Happens every day. (It used to happen much more, when men had a quasi-monopoly on the professions. Doctors fell for nurses, if not waitresses. Now doctors marry doctors.) Some people are nearly destroyed by by the love affair, some live happily ever after. How likely is it that someone fall in love with their intellectual inferior? See lust. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Bbabe, and all the while I thought it was manipulation. Silly me. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A literary example I can think of is William Henry Davies. From reading his later autobiography, which was kept unplublished before his wife died, he (as far as I recall from reading it) was over fifty and disabled when he married a young woman in her twenties who he had picked up in the street - so I suppose she was a prostitute. A non-literary example is the brief marriage of the elderly billionaire and the former stripper - I forget the names. I've noticed in American films how common it is to have a wrinkly old man with a beautiful young wife - but perhaps that happens for real in US culture? 80.0.101.168 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure - Anna Nicole Smith. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the extreme age difference is all that common but the more minor age difference—guy in his 50s, woman in her 30s—is quite common, and the trope of that is being played to extremes in the films to connote all sorts of moral or humorous issues. Note though that the reversal of genders in such a situation is almost unheard of (though it does exist). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What man cares about the brains of a woman?Mr.K. (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What woman cares about the brains of a man? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends if they taste of chocolate or not. Nanonic (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the relationship between James Joyce and Nora Barnacle is worth mentioning here. That, at least, was positive for both, unlike the story of poor George Gissing, a talented, though now sadly neglected English writer, whose novel The Odd Women was considered by George Orwell to be one of the best in the English language. Poor Gissing had not one but two disastrous relationships!

In some ways his story resembles that of Maugham's Philip Cary, though his experience was far, far worse. When he was still a student he had the misfortune to fall in love with Nell Harrison, a woman he met in a Manchester brothel. In pursuit of his infatuation, he stole books and money from his fellow students to feed Nell's taste for booze as well as for her treatment for syphilis. He was finally caught and sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. This was the same kind of treadmill treatment that Oscar Wilde received at Reading Jail, which meant climbing the equivalent of 10,000 feet a day!

After his release, and a temporary exile in the United States, he returned to England and married Nell, syphilitic as she was. Of course it could not last. But even after they separated Gissing continued to send her money, supporting no less than fifteen members of her family at one point from his tiny income. Yet having rid himself of Nell he immediately picked up one Edith Underwood. No syphilis this time; Edith was just mad! Violent and unstable, she made life hell for George, as he did for her. After they separated she spent the last fifteen years of her life in a mental asylum.

With a life like this you may not be surprised to learn that much of Gissing's oeuvre is of a gloomy nature. He blamed himself for his own unhappiness, tracing it to "my own strongly excitable temperament, operated upon by the hideous experience of low life." Yet he produced some superb novels. To Orwell's recommendation I would add Born in Exile, The Nether World and, above all, New Grub Street, with an autobiographical theme to match that Of Human Bondage. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded here, but a particular thanks to Clio the Muse for that fascinating insight to the misfortunes of George Gissing. Twice! There surely have been some masochism here. I have now added New Grub Street to my reading list. Thanks agsin for taking such time and care over this. Balzac's Ghost (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I too enjoyed New Grub Street and The Odd Women and would recommend them to people who are comfortable with Victorian literature. However, in response to the original question, I would highlight that although NGS is largely autobiographical, the central character, Edward Reardon, marries a woman of higher status, and the marriage breaks down because he cannot attain the literary and financial success that she thought he would. As an aside, the two writers at the centre of the novel have been re-invented as a BBC Radio 4 comedy, Ed Reardon's Week. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Versailles and the end of democracy

President Wilson said that America entered the first world war to make the world safe for democracy but the end of empires in Europe did no such thing. Why did the end of the old Europe cause a rush to dictatorshiop? Was it because the Versailles treaty was grossly unjust? Was there any real solution to Europe's nationality problems? Thank you for your answers. Tommy Stout (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as i remember from history class, many felt Versailles was too harsh, specifically reparations and the "war guilt" clause, where Germany had to accept full responsibility for causing the war. The German people also felt betrayed by their own government because they felt the armistice had been signed prematurely. Take a look at wikipedia's Treaty of Versailles article, specifically the reactions to the treaty section. Think outside the box 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems only right that, having just written about George Gissing's fictions, I should mention that he also wrote about politics and contemporary affairs. Writing before the First World War, he placed no hope in the fashionable notions of democracy, which he saw as "full of menace to all the finer hopes of civilization." What is worse when combined with militarism and nationalism "there has but to arise some Lord of Slaughter and the nations will be tearing at each other's throats."

Tommy, the problem with the Versailles settlement -and by this I mean the whole of the post-war settlement- is not so much that it was unfair, but that it created an unstable peace; a peace based on the satisfaction of some national aspirations and the frustration of others. It also, it has to be said, created tensions within the various successor nations that were simply not compatible with democracy. In place of the nationality problems in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire came the nationality problems in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania, in some ways even more severe that what went before. Most serious of all, it was a peace predicated on the continuing weakness of Germany and Russia, and that could not last forever.

To this mixture of instability there was the added problem of Soviet Russia, where the democratic revolution of February 1917 was effectively destroyed by the Bolshevik counter-revolution in October. And I make no apology here for using the term counter-revolution in this particular context. After the forced dismissal of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918, the only fully democratic body in Russian history to that date, Lenin said that this "means a complete and frank liquidation of the idea of democracy by the idea of dictatorship. It will serve as a good lesson.” It certainly did, in Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933.

Was there a solution to the nationality problem? Yes, I suppose there was, as the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey demonstrated. But can you imagine that happening across Europe, in nation after nation, across multiple frontiers? Can you imagine the upheaval and misery caused? Now go fast forward to 1945. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio's response, is, as usual, dead-on. I think the original questioner might have mixed up two things: The nationality issue and the fragility of democracy in interwar Europe. Czechoslovakia, which had nationality issues as big as any country post-Versailles, was a true democracy all the way up to the cusp of World War II. On the other hand, Hungary never developed a stable democracy, even though it didn't really have any nationality issues inside its borders. (There were, and still are, issues about Hungarians in other countries.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this kind of collar have a name?

[9] --82.169.41.246 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing special about the collar. It is a standard button collar. What makes it look strange is that it is about two inches too small for the guy, so he has the top button unbuttoned. You can see from the creases radiating from the top buttoned button that it is pulled rather tight. -- kainaw™ 19:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In American English: buttoned-down collar. Don't know whether this is also the British English term. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just looks b....y untidy to me what ever it's called!--Artjo (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw is right: the shirt is too small. But I'm not convinced it's a standard button-down collar, but rather a clerical tab collar like this (sorry for the ebay link, best image I could find in a quick search). In which case, the tie is wrong as well. Gwinva (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, after another look at the first photo, I'm not sure; it's pulled so strangely it might be a standard collar. Gwinva (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, the shirt seems just a tight fit on purpose. It seems to be a creative solution to a conservative standard with a definite sense of style about it, a "look". Probably a very recent development. Then again seeing it's from eBay, it could be just someone selling something they have obviously grown out of. I'm with kainaw on this one. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The teenage psycho-killer in the recent novel We Need to Talk about Kevin had a fetish for wearing tight clothes of this sort. His mother, the character writing the letters, explained this by saying he didn't want to grow up, a sort of Peter Pan complex. BrainyBabe (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Canceling an adoption

According to a report in the "Jerusalem Post" in July 1995, the mother of a boy born in England in the late 1950s was an English Catholic and the father a Kuwaiti Moslem, but they were not married. The mother gave the boy over to a Jewish couple for adoption, he was given the name Ian Rosenthal, and he was later converted to Judaism. At a later date he changed his name to Jonathan Bradley and went to the High Court in Britain to have his adoption overturned, but his application was not accepted. According to this newspaper article he intended to bring the case to the House of Lords and, if that failed, to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Does any user know if this case came to these Courts, or that there were any other developments in this matter? Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In July 1995, this case had already gone to the Court of Appeal, where it's called 'B (A Minor)' [1995] EWCA Civ 48. It was heard by Sir Thomas Bingham (then Master of the Rolls, later Lord Chief Justice) and by Lords Justices Simon Brown and Swinton Thomas. Bradley was represented by the late Allan Levy QC and lost again. In a Judgement dated 17 March 1995, all three LJJ dismissed his appeal, while expressing deep sympathy with him, and they also refused him leave to appeal to the House of Lords. So it seems the Jerusalem Post somehow had the story wrong, if its report dated two months later suggests that appeals were still pending. For more detail of the case, see the bailii site here. Xn4 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Change of names of religions - Mohammedan to Muslim

In a few older books I've read, 19th C & earlier, I see Hindu spelt as Hindoo and Muslims referred to as Mohammedans/Islam as Mohammedanism, etc. I'm just wondering when we changed to the current forms & why? I don't think it could be the influence of adherents of those religions as they've got their own spellings/names in their own languages. Anyone know? AllanHainey (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I charted the data for occurrences of the words "Hindoo" and "Hindu" in the New York Times. "Hindoo" was preferred to "Hindu" from 1851 through the early 1880s. From around 1880 to 1984 they were both used in roughly equal frequencies though "Hindu" really started to be used more. From 1900-1910 the spelling of "Hindoo" dropped off considerably, though was still ocassionally used up through the early 1930s, though nowhere nearly as often as the spelling "Hindu", which really sky-rockets. By the 1950s the word "Hindoo" is only used in weird throw-back ways, or for the names of things like racehorses. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hit "edit" for this question to see my data (below) if you want to graph it yourself. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hindu/Hindoo" is simply a case of transliteration. The change of spelling does not indicate a change of name. "Mohammedanism" is rather a more interesting case. That word fell out of favour -- I don't know when or how -- for the very good reason that it grossly misrepresents the religion. Mohammed was of course the prophet who brought the message to the people, and various spellings/transliterations of his name have been used in English over the centuries. But the religion does not worship him, and it is offensive to its followers to suggest that they do. The word "Islam" is a reasonable written approximation of the Arabic word, rendered into the English writing system. The etymology of "Islam" means "to submit", and those who do are now known as "Muslims", but again other spellings have been used -- still, sometimes, "Moslems", and more anciently "Mosselman" and its variants. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that was odd, that Muslims should find "Mohammedan" offensive: Baptists don't worship John the Baptist, Calvinists don't worship Calvin, and Lutherans don't worship Martin Luther, so how does the term "Mohammedan" imply that Muslims worship Mohammed? In all these cases, the religion is simply named after its founder. If Christians don't understand that the position of Mohammed in Islam isn't equivalent to the position of Jesus in Christianity, that has nothing to do with the name that is used. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Offence about religious matters is quite subjective, and mercurial, and is more often than not learned, not innate. A Muslim who had never been told that "Mohammedism" is considered offensive to Muslims, would be unlikely to be personally offended by it. Same goes for swear words; if someone called you a "c**t", and you'd never heard that word before, you might think they were complimenting you, and thank them. Once, it was perfectly acceptable and not considered demeaning in any way to refer to an African-American as a "negro". Now, that's not so - not because the word is inherently offensive, because no words fall into that category, but because of the negative connotations that came to be placed on it. The thing with "Mohammedanism" is that the word was invented by non-Muslims, so even though there may have been no intent to offend, and even though it seems quite reasonable and useful to outsiders when they juxtapose it with words like Buddhism, Christianity, Calvinism etc, Muslims are within their rights in asking that it not be used, just as African-Americans are within their rights to do the same with "negro" and other words now considered pejorative in meaning, if not necessarily in intent. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's actually an Arabic adjective محمدي muħammadī, but it means "pertaining to Muhammad", and is not a synonym for Muslim. However, in the past the abstract noun form المحمدية al-muħammadiyya was occasionally used to refer to the entire Islamic community, and the related word أحمدي aħmadī (derived from the same root) could be used to mean "Islamic" (and still is in certain specific phrases)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In their rights, of course. I wasn't saying they weren't, just thought it was an odd thing to get offended about. "Negro" is different - that was contaminated by racism. I've never heard of anyone using "Mohammedan" as a slur, though I suppose it may have happened. (I mean, I've heard "they" used as a slur, but hey, that's America.) — kwami (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the history of the use of the term "Christian" versus "infidel" or other pejoritive terms by Moslem writers? And if the word "negro" is offensive, then do I offend people when I contribute to the United Negro College Fund? Edison (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The basic term for "Christian" in Arabic is مسيحي masiħi (where the word masiħ is an Arabic adaptation of the Hebrew word Messiah, while Greek Christos was a translation of Hebrew Messiah). However, Muslims have traditionally more often used the word نصراني nasrani (i.e. "Nazarene"). In Qur'an verse 5:72, Muhammad uses a verbal form closely-related to the noun مشرك mushrik to refer to Christians in relation to the Christian Trinity. Mushrik means "polytheist" (most literally "one who makes a partner" for God). The classic word for "infidel" in Arabic is Kafir كافر. Some would say that the term Kafir should properly be used only for those without any monotheistic beliefs (as opposed to "people of the book" such as Jews and Christians), but its usage has not usually been restricted in that way historically, and again, Muhammad set a certain precedent when he used a related verb form to refer to Christians in the same Qur'an verse 5:72 (see the verb forms yushrik and kafara at http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/5/5_72.htm etc.). Finally, there's "Giaour" (not an Arabic word). AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that in southern Africa, "kaffir" came to be used pejoratively of ... well, negroes. I assume this was derived from the Arabic word "kafir" (all corrections gratefully accepted). Which means a word originally used to describe unbelievers came to be used in a racist way. How interesting. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MP3 law question

If I buy a CD, and lose it or it gets corrupted, is it legal for me to download the mp3's off a file sharing service in the United States? I certainly believe it's ethical. Similarly, if I pay the standard fee for a music file, and it comes in a given format, is it legal to convert it to another format? My example, for the second sentence, was that I bought several files from Yahoo music for 79 cents each, and they came in protected wma, but I hated protected media, so I circumvented it by burning it to a CD then ripping it to mp3. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues for replacing a CD: according to the RIAA, it is never legal. The courts haven't tested it out, though — it might be fair use, though I doubt it. Ethical issues: If you lose or break a CD you are not entitled to a new copy for free any more than you are to a new computer if you lose or break it. If it is a manufacturer's error, then that might be different, but just because you bought something once doesn't mean you're entitled to get another one for free. The only reason you see a difference is because you are assuming there is no lost property in creating a digital version (versus the materials needed for a computer), but that's because you're not putting any value on the intellectual property in this context. I don't think it really has much ethical footing.

Legal issues for converting between files: it probably has to do with whether or not the EULA is enforceable. Read our EULA article and you'll see that sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Ethical issues for converting: depends on whether you value the rights of the producer or the rights of the consumer more. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how merely converting the file to a different format would be unethical.Tuesday42 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Khmer rouge

was precedent in khmer rouge empyting Phmom Penn? why and had happened before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.138 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was. In 1971 Pol Pot expressed concerns at meeting of Angkar's Central Committee that the towns in the 'liberated zones’ were reverting to their bad old ways. Two years later he wrote that the only way to deal with the problem was to send townspeople to work in the fields. Otherwise, "if the result of so many sacrifices was that capitalists remain in control, what was the point of the revolution?" Kratié was evacuated in 1973. Not long after 15,000 people were effectively kidnapped from Kampong Cham, and driven to the 'liberated zones'. Oudong was similarly evacuated in March 1974, a year before the much larger operation in Phnom Penn. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch

There's been long-term edit warring over when this child actor was born, and no references for how his name is pronounced. Neither is particularly important, but I thought someone here might know. Thanks, — kwami (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Færch is a Danish name. The problem with Danish is that (as with English) its spelling seems to lag behind its pronunciation, so we need a Dane to tell us more. Dæg is the Old English for 'day', and I believe it means something like 'dark' in the Irish language. Xn4 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saladin's wife

The Saladin article mentions that in the year Saladin marched to Damascus to claim the throne from Nur ad-Din (Nureddin), he married Nureddin's widow as a sign of respect. Who was she? It says on Nureddin's page that he married the daughter of Imad ad-Din Unur, but it doesn't list Unur's issue. Who was Saladin's wife? I am writing a book in which Saladin is one of the characters, and I would like to know for that reason.--Scott Greenstone (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe his wife was called Ismat al-Din. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's her name - `Ismat ad-Din Khatun, or at least that was her title, since it means "Lady Purity-of-the-Faith". Her father's name was Mu'in ad-Din Unur (not Imad), and she married Nur ad-Din when the two allied in 1147. Saladin married her in 1176, and she died in 1186; even though it was a politically convenient marriage and she may have been somewhat older than Saladin, they were apparently close, as Saladin continued to write letters to her everyday, and when she died in January 1186, his retinue was afraid to tell him until March. She wasn't his only wife though; as Lyons and Jackson's biography of Saladin says, "apart from references to Nur al-Din's widow `Ismat al-Din Khatun...there are almost no details to be found about his wives or the slave girls who bore him children..." (pg. 135). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Only somewhat tongue in cheek): "He wrote to her everyday." Did she ever write back? Did he notice when the letters stopped coming? Or did his courtiers make up some excuses, like the server's down, the Pony Express was hijacked, the courier was eaten by wolves, etc? Why did it take him months to notice, and what did he do to the well-meaning liars who had tried to keep the truth from him?BrainyBabe (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hey, he found out she died!" "RUN!" Adam Bishop (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to hunt around some more - the only books at hand are Lyons and Jackson, and the recent translation of Baha ad-Din, who doesn't mention this. I'll try to get to the usual sources for Saladin's life (L&J refer to Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani for example). I was looking at ibn al-Qalanisi for more about `Ismat and Nur ad-Din, but the index is pretty useless so I'll have to dig further. Perhaps an article or two will result! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Voila - the beginnings of an article, Ismat ad-Din Khatun (al-Din works just as well, I tend to prefer the assimilated form though). I found the reference to her in Ibn al-Qalanisi, and I will have to look for Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani and Ibn al-Athir, but otherwise the references given by Lyons and Jackson are probably not going to be accessible by me. I will look at other biographies of Saladin to see what they say as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

March 9

Architecture and Music

This is something I've wondered for a long time. My whole life I've loved music, and yet I fail to see any connection with architecture. Many times I've read on how a well designed building can be translated into song. This whole concept seems rediculous. I mean, has anyone walked past a skyscraper, snapped thier fingers, and thought "great tune, man" ? Could someone please explain this to me? --Sam Science (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I cant find anything on Sophic or Mantic...

Be nice if someone put something in

Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.201.186.150 (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was Goethe who first described architecture as “frozen music”. Michael Flanders in turn suggested that his friend Donald Swann’s music was “defrosted architecture”. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the old quote that "writing about music is like dancing about architecture"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to consider how a composer works. Speaking as a composer myself I doubt that music can actually convey extra musical ideas directly. Music does however convey the emotions and possibly the ideas of a composer very well, far better than text sometimes. Many composers cite architecture as being an inspiration to their music. John Adams has said this for instance. Maybe it a feeling of grandeur from a gothic cathedral, maybe it’s a sense of sleek modernism in a skyscraper, or maybe it’s even a sense of history that a composer is inspired by. Finally, consider how architecture has directly influenced music compositions. In particular many Renaissance composers wrote music specifically designed to be performed in churches and cathedrals. They took into account the very long reverberation time and also the location of the one or more choirs when they wrote, thereby customizing the music for the building in which it would be heard. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just emotions and ideas, but formal elements too can be translated directly from architecture to music, and back again. Both disciplines talk about static and dynamic structure, fundament, the use of space, background, omission, detail, ornament, and so forth. Iannis Xenakis, who was both an architect and a composer, published some thoughts on these translations, though they're quite academic and perhaps not directly related to your question. But yes, there are people who "see" a song in all sorts of things, including architecture, from skyscrapers to beach huts, from crowded airports to hospital waiting rooms. If synesthesia can make music elicit visual imagery, why shouldn't it be possible the other way around as well? And occasionally we do snap our fingers and think: "great tune, man!" ---Sluzzelin talk 11:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of two things John Ruskin said - "A building must do two things: it must shelter us and it must speak to us of the things we find important and need to be reminded of." And "Don't just look at buildings, watch them." That second remark plainly means that while a building is static, its appearance alone isn't the only thing about it that matters: it's also important how people move around it and experience it. Perhaps a building can have many of the qualities and effects of music, although of course the comparison is a metaphysical one. Xn4 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Music and emotion

I am a person of modest education and background who has sometimes been chagrined when persons whose opinions I respect describe popular music as being extremely simple/repetitive/unimaginative as compared to works by Mozart and company. I can see their point in terms of the virtuosity of the composition and performance, but the stuff just leaves me cold. I grew up listening to an NPR station with no shortage of classical music, but none of it can make me actually feel emotion like, say, Too Drunk to Fuck or recent Spencer Krug output or a lot of other pop music. My question: is popular music more popular than more technically masterful music for the same reason that Anne Rice outsells Nabokov, or are these different situations? Thanks.

Anyone who claims classical music is not repetitive has not actually listened to (or especially studied) classical music. I can't help but be reminded of an interview with Jimmy Page where he discusses trading riffs with David Bowie. He said that Bowie told him it must have been like that back in the classical time. Perhaps someone told Beethoven, "Hey man, I got a cool riff for you. It goes da-da-da-dum. I bet you can build a song around that." Then, I can't help but think of many Beatles songs that are far more technically masterful than Mozart. Even Metallica's Master of Puppets is more technically masterful than most classical music. So, your question is based on a fallacy. Classical music is not more technically masterful than popular music. Popular music is more popular because it is popular music. It is wasn't popular, it wouldn't be called popular music. It would be called alternative or underground or college music (or country -- oops, I shouldn't have said that!) -- kainaw™ 03:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw, I disagree and I hardly think David Bowie is a good reference for classical music. lol. Although some classical music is repetitive in a sense (themes are repeated and elaborated on), it is not repetitive in the circular way that popular music is. I’m not sure how Bowie came to that conclusion, but having analyzed numerous works of Mozart, Bach, etc. and a few pieces songs by the Beatles I can’t see any contest. In terms of harmony, rhythm, melodic development, and use of tambour even Edvard Grieg is superior.

To answer the original question – I’m sorry to say this is one question to which you will not find an answer without some degree of musical training. A standard pop song has a repetitive chord progression such as I, IV, V, I (chords move in sequesnce and are labeled with Roman numerals depending on what note of the scale they start on). Compare this to even the most basic composition by Mozart which relies on a complex pattern of relationships between and within keys. Classical music is also generally far more complex and intricate than popular music because of its musical forms such as Sonata form or Rondo. Classical music is often far more expressive and uplifting than popular music. I cannot imagine comparing Too Drunk to Fuck with the searing emotional rollercoaster ride that is Bach’s St Matthew Passion. How can even the any pop love song compare to the beautiful Winterreise? How can even the complexity of on of Frank Zappa’s most experimental songs compare to the intellectual genius of Arnold Schoenberg?

Pop music is easy to absorb and requires zero thought to understand. It appeals to us on essentially a carnal level. “Classical” music requires the listener to participate. Classical music must be understood not just heard, but if you can do that the payoff is a hundred times more wonderful. If you really want to understand this question you could start by looking through Portal:Classical music and reading some of the articles featured there. Hope this helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Music evolves... I think it's simply a case of changing styles. You can't compare classical music which was composed 400 years ago to MTV's top 10 in 2008. To say either is more or less emotive is really for the listener to decide. I see both points and can totally understand each. To answer your question directly, I believe today's "general public" have come to accept things which they can enjoy instantly, and which don't require effort to do so. Like your comment about famous authors, most people would rather read a novella which takes them through a story directly, rather than read an epic classic which might require effort to actually understand and enjoy. It's basically instant gratificaton. The same applies to music. What defines technicality differs from person to person, of course, but as a fan of both the most extreme forms of metal, and the wizardry of Bach, I can state without reservation that old classical music has realms to which even the most complex modern metal compositions still aspire. I think it's blatantly untrue to say that bands such as the Beatles and Metallica produce more complex music than classical greats. Time will tell, of course, but I have my doubts that any of the music we call "popular" these days will still be listened to 1,000 years from now, whilst the great classical composers will surely live on. A personal opinion, of course. --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "technically masterful music" means, whether it has to do with composition or performance. But either way I am skeptical about the link between music that is technically good and music that moves you emotionally. I might even suggest that technique has almost nothing to do with emotion. Pfly (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think by technically masterful the OP means art music. Perhaps there is a link because a very skilled composer can purposefully create specific emotional responses in an audience whereas an amateur or unskilled composer may be able to do the same, but he or she may rely more on luck and inspiration than skill. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular music is 'popular' because it appeals to a broad spectrum of listeners. That makes no difference on whether it is 'technically' good or 'art or 'skilled' - it can range from being some of the best music ever made to being some of the worst music ever made (though all that would be opinion). The reason it sells well is many reasons: Easily accessible, large audience of listeners/people who've heard it to market to, general human desire to be part of the 'norm' or 'mainstream' (not everybody falls into this always, but by and large) and many other reasons. Only pretentious tossers (apologies for the use of language) believe that mainstream must equate to lower quality than niche markets - it is not the case. You may prefer more niche music more (I certainly tend to) but those niche markets churn out just as much crap music as the 'pop' world does. ny156uk (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts, in random order. It's completely fallacious to relegate classical music to that written "400 years ago". I suppose there was a bit of intentional hyperbole involved in that claim, but it just perpetuates the notion that all the classical composers died out at some stage in the past, and "popular" composers are all we have left today. That is 1000% wrong. There is wonderful "classical" music being written as I speak, and there always will be. True, great music from the past is still played, listened to and enjoyed today, precisely because a significant number of people love it and want to keep on spreading the word about it. Same holds true for great literature, sculpture, architecture and painting from the past. If it's timeless, it's timeless. On the other hand, the proportion of works of art from any era that are truly timeless, compared to the totality of all works of art from that era, is small. In amongst the great works are multitudes of lesser works all the way down to utter crap, and no composer wrote only timeless pieces. One measure of the greatness of a composer is the proportion of their entire output that remains loved and played - Bach, Beethoven and Mozart wrote literally hundreds of pieces in this category, which would probably account for 30% of everything they wrote. That might sound like a low figure, but they wrote a hell of a lot, and there isn't enough time in anyone's life to get to know their entire output. Lennon and Macartney would probably score a lot higher than 30% - and they were just as much geniuses as Mozart and co were. Popular music consists, in the main, of 3-minute songs. But when it comes to classical music we're comparing apples and oranges. Mozart's works, for example, ranged from simple 2-minute songs or piano pieces, up to 4-act operas that take 3 hours to perform, and also 4-movement symphonies and concertos, chamber music of extraordinary range and variety, masses and other choral works, etc. I might love particular parts of a certain opera, but quite dislike other parts; others would have a different set of responses. Or I might love opera but despise string quartets, or vice-versa. It's tempting to lump all "classical music" into one basket, but that's as wrong-headed as lumping reggae, jazz, soul, pop, new wave, funk, dance music, and all the other "popular" genres into one basket as if they were all the same. I've played and heard Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata probably close to 1000 times; but if, in some weird Kafka-esque nightmare, I were given the choice of hearing it played 1000 times over and over, or the Beatles' "Yesterday" played 1000 times, I'd choose the latter. One's emotional reaction to music varies greatly - I might listen to a piece on one occasion and get teary; but on another occasion I'll just enjoy it, but with no emotional reaction at all. Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia has a lot to say about emotional responses to music, as do a lot of other books on the subject. There's no explanation, afaik, as to why one person is strongly attracted to "classical" music while others are magnetised by "popular" music. I will never be able to explain why Brahms's Alto Rhapsody moves me and Smells Like Teen Spirit horrifies me. We like what we like, and we can never make anyone like what they don't. Exposure is important, and parents have a duty to expose their kids to a wide range of genres of music and other forms of art, but at the end of the day, what the kids like and enjoy is what their own brains decide for them, not what their parents decide for them. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ragging (in India, especially)

What are the main causes of ragging in India. Can we call a person who conducts ragging as mentally sick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishormahabal (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ragging. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying classical piano piece. Please have a listen!

Last month, I posted here to see if anyone could identify a piece of classical piano from a YouTube clip. Nobody knew it, so I'm back again and hopefully some piano fan will be able to tell us this time what it is. It sounds to me like a Michael Nyman ("The Piano") piece, but the clip is only very short, so I cannot tell. Any help is appreciated. View the clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqMMJV-ZgPQ --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful if people looked at your original posting and the responses then, Soulhunter: so here it is. For some reason it is marked as "solved"; but I don't think it really was, as you indicate.

Why not email the producers of Frasier?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

...or was that a different one? If so, please give a link to correct earlier posting, so people don't have to follow up the same false leads as they did last time.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I think I posted my last request without logging in (i.e. anonymously) so I can't actually find it now. The one you specified above is, indeed, different and was solved. To provide a quick summary, Philip Glass was suggested as the composer, but it was decided that the piece was unlikely to be his. Michael Nyman remains the top runner, but nobody could identify which piece the clip was from. I will keep looking for the old discussion. --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The old discussion is here. --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nutty Nazis?

Why was Hitler's government so marked by people in power with huge mental health issues? Was it due to hand-picking, the leadership role model, a job-specific selection process, or just sheer political manoevering by aggressive, ambitious types with supermen complexes gathered from Nietszche as in jobs for the boys? I take it they were a product of the times, philosophies, national confidence factors etc, but why this particular imbalance when there were a few regular, idealistic, "principled" types like say, Rommel? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you're on the right track, though perhaps supermen complexes would be over-egging it for most party members. On the whole, there aren't many modest and entirely rational people who go into politics, at the best of times. For Germany, the years following the First World War were the worst of times, and when the Nazi party got into government its rise was still linked with the SA as well as the SS. The Nazi Party always presented a theatrical or even melodramatic face to the world. On the inside, I find it hard to see a man like Rommel getting far, even if he'd wanted to be part of the show, which is also hard to imagine. Xn4 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Julia. I'm not at all sure that the Nazi leadership was in fact marked by 'mental health issues', as you have put it. Indeed, I personally would reject such a label as positively dangerous, in the sense that it would seem to offer a convenient and entirely unsatisfactory explanation for the criminal excesses of the Nazi regime. After all, mad people do mad things; don't they? Yes, it is true that Hitler might be said to have some personality disorders, but so, too, did Stalin. Most of the senior Nazi leadership-and I do not include Julius Streicher here-were surprisingly normal, with little in the way of a 'superman complex'. Some had above average intellects; people like Herman Göring, Josef Goebbels, Albert Speer and the 'fellow traveller' Hjalmar Schacht. Others like Heinrich Himmler, Wilhelm Frick and Walther Funk were colourless mediocrities, who, but for Hitler, would almost certainly have passed through life unnoticed by History. Others, most notably Rudolf Hess, were just bizarre eccentrics.

Xn4 is right in drawing attention to the historical circumstances that brought these men together, and allowed them to advance the programme they had. If they were mad then so, too, was Germany. Yes, they were all ambitious, all anxious to make an impact on the world and address what they saw as injustices inflicted on Germany. They all had principles of a kind, not principles you or I may like, but principles nonetheless. Perhaps the only one with a true 'superman complex' was Goebbels, a restlessly ambitious figure with a razor-like intellect and virtually no moral sense at all. But Goebbels was an oddity in a party that stressed an Aryan ideal. Below average height with a club-foot and a large head, he over-compensated for his perceived weaknesses by developing his skills as a publicist, a speaker and an organiser. In these particular areas he had a talent second to none. He was probably one of the few who ever read Nietzsche.

I suppose in the end you have to consider that the Nazi state was torn up by the roots, so to speak, which has allowed the kind of pathology that you have advanced. Yes, it was mad. Yes, they were mad. But just imagine if this had happened with any other state; just think what the records might reveal. What, for example, lies behind Donald Rumsfeld, a man less fitted for senior office I find hard to imagine. Look also at the Soviet leadership under Stalin, little better than a collection of thugs and drunks with a sexual pervert thrown in for good measure. And they all emerged from an ideology that placed its greatest stress on the liberation of the human race! Politics at the best of times is an odd business, attracting odd people. We know all too well what it attracts at the worst of times. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, these men were both angry and capable, but not mad (in your words, "people with huge mental health issues"). Mad people need tremendous luck to organize their own success, and the leading Nazis had to make their own luck and did succeed to a large degree, both in their own careers and in taking over their country. After the Great War, Germany had been treated meanly and foolishly in defeat, and in the midst of economic collapse and mass unemployment the Nazis set about harnessing the anger of the German nation to bring themselves to power. That course took them into extreme paths, and when they got into power (especially later, under war-time conditions) it corrupted them further. When Hess flew to the UK in 1941, he was closely examined and found to be suffering from mental illness and depression, but was not not found to be mad. In all the circumstances, that's hardly surprising. Hitler, surely, was mad by the end, and the killing of the Goebbels children surely shows madness, but people do crack up under such pressures. I agree with Clio that we see forms of mental illness at the top in all directions. Xn4 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That clarifies things for me, that syndromes of incapacitating mental health problems weren't the thing, but tendencies to be crazy were in the party and were aggravated under pressure. Re "principled", it was the turn of phrase meaning having some sense of responsibility to others and doing the best job they could contrasting with the cruelty and excesses of people in power - rightly the Nazis had their own principles as in a chain of reasoning, so I didn't mean to be so woolly there. It's been very helpful to have the overview, connections with will and power and politics and the background of Germany between the wars as a recipe for ensuing developments. I take it the fascism wasn't against a background of suzerainty that was Stalin's- though this isn't to make excuses for anyone abusing power in the way that these are examples (or models) of, but I couldn't see how the mad ones accumulated the way they did, so it's been helpful to think about that. I guess too that having an extremist in leadership attaches and protects others with the same um... aptitudes as himself and keeping them around him. It's disturbing to see "forms of mental illness at the top in all directions". In the end, power is about oppression to stay in place and other syndromes such as paranoia emerge in that context. It's a rich field to think about lots of things - including what a prevailing power understands by what it means to be human - and not. Thanks for your thoughtful information, both of you. Politics, anyone? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not mad, but severely lacking in moral judgement. AllenHansen (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumsfeld is a Princeton graduate. There is no point comparing him to the Nazis and I dont know how Clio the Muse got this information that he is the man "less fitted for office that she could imagine". Perhaps she thinks Churchill is much more of an intellectual as him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Rumsfeld with Churchill. Big mistake. Flamarande (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Churchill's an interesting comparison and undoubtedly suffered from mental illness. In 1758, the Duke of Newcastle warned George II against promoting James Wolfe, claiming he was mad. Thackeray's William Pitt (1827) quotes the king as replying "Mad, is he? Then I wish he would bite some other of my generals". Xn4 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain seemed to have a weak grasp on reality in the period leading up to WW2, in evaluating and reacting to the German threat to peace, and in evaluating the ability of Poland to resist invasion. Insane or merely incompetent? Edison (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither! Would you like me to mount a defence of Chamberlain and Appeasement, Edison? Then you only have to post it as a separate question! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Churchill suffered from depression specially towards the end of his life, but I don't know how this influenced his actions. Anyway, it is nothing like some kind of delusional thinking that is what the RP may be searching for. Mr.K. (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a short rebuttal to "Rumsfeld is a Princeton graduate". A few years ago, the Hamburg historian Michael Wildt took a closer look at the RSHA, one of the chief organizers of the Third Reich's most monstrous and pathological achievement, the Holocaust. (Generation des Unbedingten. Das Führungskorps des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes, Generation of the Unbound: The Leadership Corps of the Reich Security Main Office. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2002 (Engl., in original German, Hamburg: 2002). ISBN 9653081624.).

According to the study, 75% of the RSHA'ss leading officials had an Abitur, about two thirds had a University degree (most often law), and about one third had a PhD. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But in any case, since when was a university degree considered a prerequisite for political office? The best leadership takes natural political skill, which cannot be taught in a university environment. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, delusional was the word and the feature I was after. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "Beastorn"

A recent question about Byzantium/Byzantine reminds me that in July last year of 2006, on a thread about words to do with Byzantium – see here - I asked a side question about the origin of the word “Beastorn”, or even whether it’s a real word. It appeared in "Barry Jones Dictionary of World Biography" (Information Australia, 2nd ed., 1996), in the article on Charlemagne, and the full quote is as follows:

• By 800, Charlemagne was the supreme power in western Europe, and he and his counsellors, such as the English Alcuin, wishing to emphasise an imaginary continuity between Charles his empire [sic] and that of Rome, argued that the imperial throne was vacant owing to the crimes of the Beastorn (Byzantine) empress Irene. (my emphasis)

I took the advice last year that it was probably a misprint for “Eastern”, but that's never quite sat right in my brain. The book, as I said last year, has an extremely surprising number of factual and spelling errors for a person of Jones's undoubted erudition, so it could well be just another one. However, the spelling errors (apart from transliterations of Russian names, about which he’s very inconsistent) tend to be more related to type-setting rather than those perpetrated by Jones himself, e.g. in many places where the letter l (el) belongs, the numeral 1 (one) appears. And on the back cover, there’s a blurb for the reader, signed by Barry Jones, and with his name printed under his signature. It’s spelled “Barry 0. Jones” - that’s Barry zero Jones, not Barry O (for Owen) Jones. I know this because in the body of the blurb he refers to Edna O’Brien and O.J. Simpson, both spelled correctly with an O and not a 0. There’s no way he would misspell his own name so egregiously. There was a later edition of the Dictionary in 1998, but I don't have it so I can't compare.

I remain inclined to the view that it's not a typo, and that Jones uses the word Beastorn quite deliberately, if for no other reason than that he explains, by the use of a word in brackets, what he’s referring to. If it were a typo for "Eastern", no explanation would be required, and the word "Byzantine" would not require any brackets. The first time I ever read this passage, the word sprang out at me and I knew absolutely that I’d seen it somewhere before, but I still can’t remember where or when. On Google there are precisely 3 hits for “Beastorn” – my original question from last year 2006; a weird Spanish “grammer” [sic] site which has quoted my question without authority (what cheek!); and a rather amazing porn site named “Beastporn” (I had to open it in the interests of literary and historical research, you understand). But that's all. I seem to be in very dubious company lately. I did check with Michael Quinion last year, but he drew a complete blank. So, it seems to be just about unknown, except to Barry Jones and me (well, at least my taste in friends is improving).

OK, after that long-winded intro, I’m now casting around for anyone who can help me with the etymology of this word and its relationship to things Byzantine. Clio – if anyone knows about stuff like this, you would. Any ideas? Noetica - you’ve turned up here since those heady days – does the OED have anything to say about this melancholy and haunting word? Or anyone else? I'm depending on you. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly unlikely that "Eastern" might be qualified by "Byzantine" in that context. I remember this discussion from before; the typo explanation still seems most reasonable. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

so what is this 'beastporn' site like? are we talking animals here or what?...:)Perry-mankster (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not animals in the sense of non-human. More like super-human, if you get my drift. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack, is that really a published dictionary definition? It's positively breathless! It also makes Alcuin sound like some kind of collective or tribe! What on earth are the alleged crimes of the Empress Irene? In actual fact Pope Leo III and Charlemagne considered the imperial throne to be vacant for entirely sexist reasons. Irene was, well, a woman! Perhaps that was her chief crime?! I have no idea where 'Beastorn'-a truly ugly word-comes from. I imagine-and please forgive me for saying so-that it is a product of Mr. Jones intellectual confusion. I must have a look at this dictionary. If this is typical it must be full of laughs!

Incidentally, I did not see this first time around because the Language Desk is not among my happy hunting grounds. In reading it over I was surprised to note that the first respondent had never heard of Byzantium. I seem always to have known of its existence, dragged into consciousness from some past life perhaps! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The real reason you didn't see it is that it was posted in July 2006, Clio, before your arrival in these hallowed environs, not last year as I incorrectly stated. The quote above is not a definition, just the full sentence in which the word appears; it's part of a considerably longer article on Charlemagne. I quoted it to provide the context in which the word Beastorn appears; I thought that might help respondents to understand what was going on. Unfortunately, the Dictionary doesn't have an article on the empress Irene, so I have no idea to which "crimes" Jones was referring. In his autobiography A Thinking Reed (2006), he goes into great detail about the genesis of this Dictionary (he started work on it in the mid 1950s!), and explains the troubles he had with publishers in earlier versions. These included various editions being published under his name, but without his knowledge, and with massive unauthorised changes and deletions made by the publishers. Apparently he wrote a stinging denunciation of the troubled history of the work in Private Eye. I can't agree about the ugliness of Beastorn - it's certainly not a beautiful word, but it does evoke another place and another time - it has a really haunting quality for me, hence my lingering obsession with it. But that's just me. Thanks anyway, Clio. So, where does this leave me? Noetica, you may be my last hope. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Constantine_VI does not sound an ideal son, having him kidnapped and blinded might be considered an ummotherly act, or even a crime. SaundersW (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That the Empress was notorious for having blinded and murdered her own son was, in the minds of both Leo and Charles, almost immaterial: it was enough that she was a woman. The female sex was known to be incapable of governing, and by the old Salic tradition was debarred from doing so. As far as Western Europe was concerned, the Throne of the Emperors was vacant: Irene's claim to it was merely additional proof, if any were needed, of the degeneration into which the so-called Roman Empire had fallen. John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: the Early Centuries, 1988, p. 378.

As I have said, no women, thank you very much! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Questing knight Sir Noetica hunts down the legendary Beastorn while a dew-clad nymph applauds.

Ariel-like at your bidding, JackofOz, I have skimmed the logosphere, and dallied the while among dew-clad nymphs of lexicomania, ears a-strain. But I hear nothing like unto beastorn, neither at OED nor under no manner cowslip.

Eastern, meseems, is an hypothesis not lightly to be dismissed. If there is an infelicity here, it would not be the first from Jones. In Decades of Decision he derives utopia as if it were eutopia (a separate and much rarer word). This is a schoolboy howler, where I come from. Similarly, in live conversation with Jones I ascertained that for all his fine talk concerning reductionism in Sleepers, Wake!, he has an... unusual understanding of its role in integrating the special sciences.

On Friday I might be able to check later editions of his dictionary. Would you like that? If so, give me a little more information (chapter title; proportion of the way through the chapter, etc.) to guide me. Failing that, there are certain surpassing good gurus we can consult in quest of the fabled beastorn.

Clio, I have a copy of Norwich's Byzantium: the Early Centuries. You inspire me to advance it in my list of legenda.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I could go into chapter and verse about the errors I've spotted in the Dictionary of World Biography, but that would take all week. To be fair, though, I have no reason to believe other than that the overwhelming proportion of facts he states are true; it's just that, where he goes wrong, he sometimes goes badly and inéxplicably wrong, and these errors really stand out and assume a gravitas out of proportion to their numbers. I can't resist giving a few examples: (a) Of Sir Roger Bannister, he says: English athlete. The first to achieve a four-minute mile (6 May 1954), he was knighted in 1979. All true, except that there's no reference to his other life as a physician. His knighthood could reasonably be assumed to have been bestowed for services to athletics, when in fact it had nothing to do with this but was entirely for his services to medicine. (b) In the article on Mary, the mother of Jesus, he describes the Immaculate Conception to mean that she was "the subject of a virgin birth". In fact, the doctrine says no such thing. It says she was born without stain of original sin. Although she is said to have remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, there's never been any suggestion that Mary's mother remained a virgin after giving birth to Mary. (c) He says, of King Alfonso XIII of Spain, As a posthumous child of Alfonso XII, he may be said to have been a king before he was born. Well, hardly. He wasn't even legally a person till he was born, let alone a king. (d) On Cecil Beaton, he says that he was the friend and (briefly) lover of Greta Garbo. Maybe so, but that entirely obscures the flaming homosexuality which characterised his main relationships. (e) He says that Irving Berlin's original given name was "Isidore", when it was actually Israel. Isidore was his middle name. (f) He talks, in reference to the appearances at Lourdes claimed by Bernadette Soubirous, of "the vision" and "the event" - there were no less than 18 such claimed visions and events! (g) Of Humphrey Bogart, he talks of his first big success in The Petrified Forest (1934), which led to a long series of 75 films including ... you guessed it, The Petrified Forest. And so on. In one of his other books, Barry Jones' Guide to Modern History: Age of Apocalypse (1975), he refers to the Ottoman Empire as "a Mohammedan power" (!). I guess it's easy to nitpick, but it is fun.

Back to the Dictionary: There are no chapters, simply a continuous series of short articles on prominent people throughout history, arranged alphabetically by surname. The article on Charlemagne is on page 147 of the 1996 edition (820 pages), and the sentence I quoted above is about 45% of the way down the article. Yes, thank you, Noetica, I'd be very interested to learn whether this word is replicated in the later edition (which I've learned today is for some odd reason referred to as "the 1999 edition" despite being published in 1998). I'm pretty much convinced, if reluctantly, by now, that "Beastorn" must really be a typo for "Eastern", but I am very keen to put this rest once and for all. Thank you all for your forbearance with me; I know I should have been shut up a while ago. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "Beastorn" may become another one of those obscure RD jokes. How could one possibly misspell "eastern" in such a manner? I have to check this book out for myself. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is an "RD" joke, Anon? Why do I get the feeling you are not treating this matter with due seriousness? What is the capital of Assyria?

JofO, how silly of me. Of course it has no chapters! I'll get back to you when I have trawled the tomes.

O, and Jones was spotted more recently (last year?) on The Einstein Factor (nonsense that it is!) confidently confusing helium and hydrogen in the most, um, elementary way. Excruciating, from a former Minister for Science. Still. He's done such things; we have not.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As to how the error could possibly have occurred, my guess is that the text was scanned at some point and the infelicities for which this technology is notorious happened this way. What else could explain the literally hundreds of examples where an l (letter el) is replaced with a 1 (number one), and an O (letter) is replaced with a 0 (zero). Also, many words are broken into 2 parts (without sometimes becomes "with out", throughout sometimes becomes "through out", etc). Chabrier's influence was "no table" (i.e. notable). In the Charles I entry, we read about Archbishop William Laud's "at tempt" to influence matters. We're told that Archimedes "calculated the value of ! [sic, and my own personal !] to a close approximation" - surely this was meant to be π . And so on and on. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wild Geese: "Flight of the wild geese"

Where did the name "Flight of the Wild Geese" come from? --12.169.167.154 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I found nothing definite, but would have guessed that like the feathered geese, they migrated southward in large numbers, hoping to return one day, when the climate is warmer again.

I did find this quote by Seán Ó Faoláin:

"The Wild Geese come in their thousands with the October moon. They blacken the sky and they cry the coming of Autumn. Where there are low marshlands, or sloblands, they settle down, and then the cabins are cooking them with much butter or grease in the bastables all the Winter. About the estuary of the Shannon, and all up the river into Limerick, they must have whizzed and moaned, that Winter of 1691, when Ginkel offered the terms that ended the Jacobite War, and started bitter quarrels among the tired and tattered Irish. The flying Irish, down the Shannon or down the Lee with Sarsfield, looked up at the skies, and took the name, The Wild Geese. It was the end of a period. It was all but the end of a race." [10]

---Sluzzelin talk 10:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this "French ships, which came to the west coast of Ireland smuggling brandy and wine, would leave with recruits for the Irish Brigade. To hide their movements from the English, the men would be listed on the ship's manifest as 'Wild Geese,' thus the origin of the name" here[11]. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Singing: what is this "quivering" of the voice?

In this rendition of 'ne me quiite pas', the singer's voice possesses a quality; a sort of quiver that occurs at certain points throughout - is there a name for this kind of "quivering" of the voice? --Seans Potato Business 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tremolo. Gdr 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me rather as though the tremolo is produced in rather than being an intrinsic quality of her voice, though. SaundersW (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when used by skilled singers, tremolo is a musical technique rather than an accidental occurrence. It can be used to great effect when applied artistically. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vibrato. Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vibrato is a fluctuation in pitch rather than the fluctuation in intensity of tremolo. By the way, I meant only that this particular tremolo sounded artificial, not that it is artificial in general. SaundersW (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Britain, UK, British Isles, etc.

I have been aware on past visits to Wikipedia of the battles that flare up from time to time over the use of the term 'British Isles' as applied to the whole archipelago, including the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Thinking about the politics here I was wondering how the label 'Britain' evolved in relation to Britain itself, that part of the archipelago excluding Ireland. The Roman provance of Britannia did not include-or describe-the whole island; so how did the concept evolve after the departure of the Romans? Does any of this make sense? probably not. But I'm sure some of you guys will give me a good answer. I'm relying on you!King Knut (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the very detailed British Isles (terminology)#Historical aspects? Gdr 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Yes, I have read all of that page. What I am asking about though is the evolution of a POLITICAL as opposed to a geographic concept. I am sorry I did not make this clearer. King Knut (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the page the previous respondent referred to covers the political as well as the geographical use of the name in some detail. Additional information not in that article might include that the term Bretwalda - usually understood to mean "Lord of Britain" - was used in the Anglo-Saxon period to refer to an Anglo-Saxon ruler who had dominance over the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. How, why, and to what extent the term was used is a matter of some debate - as the article I've linked to sets out. The term King of the Britons was sometimes used to refer specifically to Welsh princes prior to Wales' incorporation into the Kingdom of England.

Put simply, the island continued to be called Britain after the Romans left, and when a state emerged that occupied the whole of the island, the geographic name was adopted for that state. 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Britain was always both a political and a geographic concept. However, things start to get complicated after the Romans left in the fifth century. Bede, for instance, obviously thinks of the Britons as a very specific group of people, under attack from both the Irish and the Picts. As he has it "...we call them races from over the waters, not because they dwelt outside Britain but because they were separated from the Britons by two wide and long arms of the sea, one of which enters the land from the east, the other from the west, thought they do not meet." The 'arms of the sea' here refer to the Firths of Clyde and Forth.

Going forward to the ninth century Historia Brittonum again we see two Britains. There is the island inhabited by the Scots, Picts, Saxons and Britons. But the author-traditionally named as Nennius-goes on to describe the thirty-three cities of Britain, none further north than Dumbarton-the fort of the Britons-on the Clyde estuary, suggesting a non-British kingdom beyond to the north. This distinction is maintained by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which divides the island between the Picts to the north and the Britons to the south.

By the tenth century we find Edward the Elder being described as "King of the English, raised by the right hand of the Almighty to the throne of the kingdom of all Britain." But the first who might truly be entitled to that title was Athelstan, his son.

There was still at this time confusion, though over the precise terminology, as 'King of Britain' could effectively still mean dominion only over the old Roman province. The one way of getting round this might have been the style 'King of all Britain', which appears with increasing frequency in the Chronicles, or 'King of Albion’, a tenth-century neologism Eadwig, for example, is described as 'king not only of the Anglo-Saxons but also truly of the whole island of Albion.'

In reading early Medieval sources it is as also as well to remember that Britain could still mean 'the land of the Britions', as opposed to England. In Asser's Life of King Alfred it is used specifically in reference to Wales, with Offa's Dyke "the great rampart made from sea to sea between Britain and Mercia.” In is only from the twelfth century that the Britons of the west were described as being from 'Wealas', the Old English for foreigner or Celt, though the Welsh still thought of themselves as British. By the following century the Normans, abandoning the old Anglo-Saxon preoccupation with the whole island, thought of Britain as the old name for their own kingdom of England.

In his History of the Kings of Britain Geoffrey of Monmouth managed to create an elaborate and bogus genealogy, giving comfort to both the Welsh and the English in their claims to authentic Britishness! The competition between the two over historical roots found some resolution in Elizabethan times, when Edmund Spencer celebrated in the Faerie Queene a Britain made up exclusively of England and Wales. It took a northern interloper to bring a new and not entirely welcome expansion of this idea! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A Dutch patriotic song

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v8YMbB6f7k

What is the song in the movie "A Bridge too Far". It is also in the movie "Soldaat van Oranje". -- Toytoy (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's "Oranje boven, oranje boven, leve de koningin." The best way to translate it would be something like "Up Orange, Up Orange, long live the Queen!" It's hard to translate the word "boven" correctly. Literally it means up or above, but in this context it means something along the lines of "hail ...". This song is sung to this day. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How are you going to sing this when you will be ruled by a king? Will it scan?  --Lambiam 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be very honest with you: I have no idea, since we haven't had a king since November 1890. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "koning" could easily be substituted for "koningin". There are plenty of precedents, like the version from the wedding of Juliana and Bernhard, where "het bruidspaar" was substituted. I am afraid this would be the solution. If you are really interested in the nauseating history of these Orangist songs you might try the site "www.geheugenvannederland.nl" and enter "Oranje boven" (with quotes) in its search engine. This will bring a number of sheet music examples going back to 1813. There are a number of different songs, using the slogan "Oranje boven" in their lyrics. Try this example, for instance [12] I hope this is useful as a first approximation--Ereunetes (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing koningin with koning doesn't sound well metrically though, because one syllable is missing. Maybe it would be possible if koning is sung 'konihing'. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The estate of Anna Nicole Smith

Who will get her money eventually, in American law, as the son she left her money to in her will is deceased? 80.0.106.88 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea but a scan through articles such as probate, inheritance and Uniform Probate Code might help you find out more. 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith's daughter will inherit late mother's estate. Corvus cornix_talk 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the daughter receive estate as a beneficiary in a testamentary clause or through intestate succession? 75Janice (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article linked by CorcusCorvus cornix says, "A Los Angeles judge on Tuesday made 18-month-old Dannielynn Hope the sole heir and set up a trust in the girl's name", I suspect the latter. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Close to the latter. Anna Nicole Smith didn't quite die intestate, but her will named no beneficiaries that were alive at the time of her death (she had left everything to her son Daniel, and had not revised her will following Daniel's death and Dannielynn's birth). The size of Anna Nicole's estate is not particularly large unless she wins her suit regarding the provisions of J. Howard Marshall's will, and we are faced with the prospect of a protracted legal battle between representatives of two dead people, which will be economically beneficial primarily for the lawyers involved. Ideally, a settlement would be reached between Marshall's other heirs and Dannielynn's representatives (which should be possible now that Anna Nicole is dead, and the ill-feelings between the heirs should be of lesser importance), but that would require that Dannielynn's representatives place her interests above their own. We shall see what transpires, as Howard Stern is involved. One is reminded of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding loan talks (germany post war)

Some background: The best research on the Morgenthau plan I've found so-far is this paper: Frederick H. Gareau "Morgenthau's Plan for Industrial Disarmament in Germany" The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jun., 1961), pp. 517–534 Here Gareau explains how the plan was longterm policy, it won the day at the Potsdam conference thanks to the political bent of the U.S. delegation, and then gradually was watered out, although its effects on Germany lasted well into the 50's.

There were two main turning points, one was the September 1946 speech which most reputable historians have rightly labeled as the primary turning point, see also John Gimbel "On the Implementation of the Potsdam Agreement: An Essay on U.S. Postwar German Policy" Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 2. (Jun., 1972), pp. 242-269.

The second main turning point was Hoovers March 1947 report where he candidly stated "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It can not be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it.", as for example used here. This report in a convoluted way led to the U.S. occupation directive being rescinded.

I found this paper, released in 2006 on the UK government secret discussions from 21 October 1946, where they pretty much prove that the historians who saw the Byrnes speech as one of the pivotal point were right. I.e. "b) U.S. policy was pastoralising (Morgenthan) until Stuttgart speech. They supported R. & Fr. case - to point of reducing steel prodn to 5.8 m. tons. And during Loan talks, cdn´t oppose them too strongly." "...They forced us to 5.8 m. - but all experience has shown we were right on APW Cttee in our figure of 11 m. " "Before this was completed I had seen Byrnes (before Stuttgart speech) & asked wtr. this meant he wd. overthrow Morgenthau policy. He said yes - with Truman´s authy."

What buggs me is that I would like to know more about the "And during Loan talks, cdn´t oppose them too strongly." Which loans was it that the U.S. so strongly opposed? Any ideas on this? i presume they were some sort of reconstruction loans for Germany that the Morgenthauers in the U.S. administration wanted no part of? Regards--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

EB (Ernest Bevin) is talking about the Anglo-American loan - the UK economy had a very large dollar deficit, not all of it home-grown, and a desperate need of dollar-denominated credits - which had been agreed in December 1945. It wasn't the US that "cdn´t oppose", it was EB who couldn't oppose US plans to deindustrialise Germany until after the loan was agreed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okey, thanks a lot for clearing that up for me. Although I have to say that from EB's 1949 letter to Schuman he does not seem very opposed to de-industrialisation per see.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"I must tell you frankly that the continuation of dismantling is causing great disquiet among the Labour Party here and is becoming more and more unpopular in Parliament." [I am opposed] "In my view we cannot afford to wait until our whole dismantling policy falls about our ears ... ." [So we should stop now]

The Americans got the scenery, the Russians got the agriculture and the British got the (heavy) industry. The day-to-day priority of the British administration was to keep steel and coal and finished goods flowing out of the British zone and food flowing in. But dismantling didn't help with that.

"[A]s long as [the dismantling issue] remained unsettled it was the British who had to bear the brunt of German resentment and American criticism." [Bullock, Ernest Bevin: A Biography, p. 671] Had conditions been different, food could have been imported from the Sterling bloc, but in 1945-1947 feeding Germans meant spending dollars and we've already seen that dollars were one thing the British did not have. The short version is that Alled post-war policy in Germany was made everywhere but London. "England is so weak she must follow our leadership. She will do anything that we insist upon ..." said W. Averell Harriman. And he was right. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discographies: Alberto Ginastera's "Danzas Argentinas"

Hi, I'm trying to compile a discography of Alberto Ginastera's "Danzas Argentinas" but have not had any luck. I've tried online databases, but they have results that are outdated, and therefore inaccurate. I was wondering if you could help point me in the right direction, or know of any sites that would help (that I haven't been able to find yet). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.5 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm... Surely you have already checked this article. I guess this link and this other one are not of much help. Maybe you want to try posting your query on the Entertainment Desk, where such kinds of search usually receive helpful treatment. Pallida  Mors 02:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

March 10

Artificial Competition

Is there an example (from past or present...NO FUTURE PLEASE) of a Parent Company manufacturing two different but similar products for the purpose of creating the illusion of competition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.192.184 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Procter & Gamble produce detergents and haircare products under many different brands. Another classic example is the car industry, where multiple marques are owned by one parent company and vehicles are badge engineered; for example, in the US market GM produces the all-but-indistinguishable Chevrolet Trailblazer, Oldsmobile Bravada, GMC Envoy, Isuzu Ascender, Buick Rainier and Saab 9-7X. Whether the goal is to "create the illusion of competition" is debatable; more often, it's because one company has bought out another, and fears losing market share if they retire one of the brands. FiggyBee (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

When I worked for Sony, the professional equipment was sold at a high price with a Sony brand on it. The same internal equipment was placed in a drabber looking case and branded either National or Panasonic and sold at a lower price. As such, I performed the same repairs/maintenance on Sony and Panasonic equiment - often switching parts between the two brands. I can only assume the reasoning is that some people will buy Sony because of brand loyalty, but others will pay 1/3 the price to Panasonic because they think it is a great deal over the Sony model. Wish they'd do that with the PS3. I'd be more than happy to buy a Panasonic FunStation3. -- kainaw™ 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all the many margerines sold are owned by a few companies. I don't think the idea is to create the illusion of competition, but that the different images appeal to different people. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, the same company owns more than two newspapers including The Times and The Sun. One upmarket, the other a downmarket tabloid or comic-for-adults. 80.2.206.197 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the US, newspapers are per-city rather than national, and for cities that have two major newspapers, it's not uncommon for the two to be run by the same company and share printing facilities. Sometimes the only difference is that one paper is written from a Republican/conservative perspective, and the other is written from a Democratic/liberal perspective. --Carnildo (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a single company to make products aimed at different segments of the same market. P&G and GM have been mentioned before. Anheuser-Busch markets Busch Beer for the working class, Budweiser for the middle class and Michelob for the upper-middle class. None of those examples meet the original poster's criteria, however. There may be examples in antitrust law. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's called product proliferation, and the aim is not so much the "illusion of competition" but a desire to gain a larger market share, and make it more difficult for new companies to edge in. If, say, there were 5 brands of shampoo, and you had 1, then you would cover approx 1/5 of the market. If someone else steps in with a new brand, then that drops to 1/6. Better, then, to market 5 brands yourself: 5/9 is a much bigger share, and a new one-brand competitor will only shift that to 5/10. FiggyBee mentions P&G above. Check out how many laundry detergents (for example) are listed at the List of Procter & Gamble brands. As Mwalcoff notes, it also enables them to aim at different markets. ps. Product proliferation is an orphan stub. A worthy candidate for an eager editor. Gwinva (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

People Who Were Important in Establishing Bilingual Education Programs in the United States

I need to know about three or four people who were important in establishing bilingual education programs in the United States. 99.135.154.196 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look on the website of, or contact directly, the professional organisation known as TESOL Inc.. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Chancellorsville

I read about the battle of Chancellorsville as a result of an interesting discussion here about nineteenth century battles. General Hooker lost this battle but what I would like to know is could he have won the campaign if he had pressed the attack as General Mead wanted? I know this may call for a lot of speculation, but I still think it worthwhile. Also I am amazed in considering these civil war battles more generally just how fantastically high the casualty rates were. Figures like this today would cause national outrage. Was there a reason for such high battle casualties, apart from clumsiness by the opposing commanders? 217.43.8.37 (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Casualties of that time were particularly high for a number of reasons. I would note particularly the primitive battlefield medicine of the time, as medical-related casualties were fearful. Additionally, the war coincided with major advances in infantry weapons -- the rifled musket and, to a lesser extent, the breech-loader. It took quite some time for tactics to catch up to the realities of the battlefield, much as with World War I and the machine gun. — Lomn 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The weapons used at the time weren't conducive to minor wounds, either: the muskets of the time fired bullets that today would be considered small cannonballs. --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressing myself to the first part of your question, 217.43, I do not think that Fighting Joe was the man who could have won that campaign. His plan was bold, but he simply lost the will and the ability to execute it; he had lost confidence, in other words, in Joe Hooker.

But looking at your question from a slightly difficult angle, I think George Mead was right: the Army of the Potomac could have pressed on despite the losses at Chancellorsville. After all, Mead's own V Corps had hardly been engaged. More than that, despite the heavy losses, the Army of the Potomac was still in better shape than Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Chancellorsville's was indeed Lee's masterpiece, a victory gained by a combination of audacity and tactical brilliance; but he and the Confederacy paid a heavy price. Proportionally his casualties were far greater than Hooker's, amounting to a staggering 25% of the total force engaged. What is worse, the Confederacy had reached a stage in the war where such high losses could not easily be made good.

The simple fact is the path to Richmond was never going to be easy. For as long as the Union army was commanded by generals who were in the habit of retreating at the first reverse no progress was going to be made. I am convinced that if US Grant had been in command, and even if he had suffered the same scale of defeat as Hooker, he would still have continued the advance, as he was to do the following year, time, and time and time again. By 1863 the Army of the Potomac had become a superb fighting force. It just needed the right man at its head. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The decision to advance or retreat after a battle comes from two different schools of thought. The early commanders of the Army of the Potomac were of the "decisive battle" school: they were looking for a decisive battle that would break and scatter the Army of Northern Virginia, leaving the road to Richmond open. When they failed to get such a battle, they would retreat and rebuild the army for another try. Grant was of the newer "campaign" school of thought: instead of trying to destroy the Army of Northern Virigina, he applied pressure to it, forcing it to either retreat or move out of his way, trusting his supply lines to make up for losses of men and materiel. --Carnildo (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 US presidential Campiagn

Sirs, I am compiling a dossier on the present American presidential campaign, press cuttings, magazine articles and the like. At the moment I am looking for amusing comments on any of the main candidates that have appeared in the form of letters to the press. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Ward Jason (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I might just be able to help you, Ward! The Spectator, carried at article in the issue of 23 February by one Venetia Thompson, entitled Obama is the Othello for our times. I've been reading The Spectator for some years now, and I feel confident enough to say that this was possibly the silliest piece that it has ever carried. Let me give you a flavour:

Say a white girl introduces her new black boyfriend to her largely white group of school and university friends. He will be embraced into the fold like an old chum. But watch carefully and you might see one of her white male friends conspiratorially whisper in her ear 'So is it true what they say?' as soon as his back is turned.

Yes, it's as crass and stupid as that! This elicited a hilarious response in the letters page of the 8 March issue from a reader in North Kingstown, Rhode Island:

I am relieved to know that my concerns about the possibility of a President Obama are due not to any substantive matters but solely to my 'primeval racist fears of the black super-male.’

Before reading Venetia Thompson's article I had mistakenly attributed my opposition to Senator Obama to his hard-left notions about government policy. It is a comfort to know that objection-and others, such as his lack of executive experience and minimal tenure in national politics-are mere self-deluding artifices to conceal racism within my fearful and embittered psyche.

I can stop fretting now over superficialities-like not wanting my country to be led by a socialist-and focus on making amends for my thoughtcrimes. Thank you, Venetia, for helping me see the light. (Meanwhile, is it true what they say?)

Enjoy! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Confederate Emancipation Proclaimation

In late 1864, Davis authorized an envoy, Duncan Kenner to go to France and GB and offer emancipation for intervention, sacrificing slavery for independence. The war was fought to preserve slavery. So why would the Confederates strike such a dumb bargain?

Lotsofissues 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the period, but surely the fact that the confederates were obviously losing the war is relevant? Algebraist 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The war was not about slavery, it was, from the Confederate point of view, about states' rights. Corvus cornix_talk 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Corvus is right. Even the Union fought more for preservation of the Union than for slavery. Wrad (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The slavery issue with the Civil War is a product of revisionist history. In my history book when I was in grade school, it stated clearly that Lincoln demanded that all slaves be freed and the South revolted and immediately went to war with the North. There is no truth in that at all, but it is what was taught to every student who used the same text book. The goal is to rewrite history by repeatedly telling each generation the same thing until anyone who states what actually happened is deemed an idiot. -- kainaw™ 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the article Origins of the American Civil War shows that the reasons were much more complex than that. However, I think that the issue of slavery became the apple of discord/bone of contention before the civil war. Someone of the north would attack slavery passionately and someone of the south would defend his right to enslave blacks with tooth and claws. After the war there was trend to focus upon pre-war slavery by part of Northern historians and academics and upon states rights by part of their Southern counterparts. I particularly like this statement inside the article Lost Cause: "Stampp also mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States" as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat". Flamarande (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the claim that the Civil War was not about slavery is, in fact, a revisionist position, since it ignores what Confederate leaders said about the meaning of the war at the time. (For example, Southern slave owners were not in favor of states' rights when it came to protecting slavery: the Southern demand for the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act was the antithesis of states' rights.) A second claim—that the North went to war to end slavery—is also false, of course. I think people tend to realize that this second claim is false, which then seems to confuse some of them into thinking that the first claim—that the war was not about slavery—is valid. —Kevin Myers 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it really revisionism if it's a grade school textbook? Do you think it would do any good to teach children anything more complex than that? They wouldn't understand, and they mostly think history is boring enough already. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw, Ppl who believe the CONFEDERACY (not Union) didn't fight the war to preserve slavery should be deemed idiots. The casus belli is so plainly written. In the South Carolina secession document [13], what completely engrosses what they say? Lotsofissues 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.224.203 (talk)

Flamarande is right. The pernicious and tendentious revisionism has been from the pro-South side, which labored with unfortunate success for a long time to disguise the obvious, that the war was about slavery. The old saw was that if history is written by the victors, then it is clear the South won the war. The origins article here understates the past dominance of these views. The Southern position on states rights was not due to some inherent bias or philosophy compared to the North - it was an effect of its desire to have a local right to enslave, not an independent cause. If sectionalism was what it was about, why did Southern representatives wax wroth, practically foam at the mouth, when John Quincy Adams proposed the North secede from its slaveholding rump? If one understands how slavery was a cause of the other causes, one is left with little else. See Cornerstone Speech for more on Stephens' speech.4.234.135.242 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The simple way to demonstrate this is to look at the arguments for and documents of secession from the various states. Yes, it was about "states rights" -- solely, however, the right to own human beings as chattel slaves. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution as it existed in 1860 didn't give the federal government any authority to interfere with slavery within each individual state, and no mainstream northern politician ever claimed that the federal government had any authority to interfere with slavery within an individual state. So the Civil War wasn't originally about that issue. However, the origin of the Civil War was in fact very closely connected with the issue of the extension of slavery into the various mid-west territories, since the origin of the Republican Party (and the corresponding decline of the Whig Party) was closely connected with the repeal of the Compromise of 1850 by Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to Bleeding Kansas (a controversy which was exacerbated by the Dred Scott decision). The vice-president of the Confederacy himself said that racial supremacy as expressed through slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy in his infamous Cornerstone Speech. -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we all know that the constitution of the USA was a compromise in some delicate aspects. Let's wrap the issue up with: "If the Southern states had ended with slavery on their own (as the rest of the civilized world was slowly doing anyway) they wouldn't try to leave the Union in the first place (they would have been left in peace by the abolitionists - whose whole reason of being would cease to exist). Without an attempt to secede - and the Lincoln/Union's (North) reaction and determination of preserving it - there wouldn't be a American civil war. Flamarande (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming babies after dead siblings

It seems to have been usual in nineteenth-century England, at least, for a family to keep giving each newborn a certain name until one lived. For instance, if a Molly Smith died at age three, the next girl born to her parents would often be named Molly. Is there a name for this practice, and is it codified or sanctioned anywhere, such as in the Bible or in tradition or in imitation of blueblood practice? In other words, is there some reason for it beyond the obvious reasons that come to mind? --Milkbreath (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a practice of letting land with the lease to run for the length of the lifetimes of persons named in the lease (which seems to be related to pur autre vie). I have found this in relation to the practice in Ireland. Lease:

The frequent term of a lease was 21 or 31 years, known as a 'lease of years'. Alternatively land was leased for the life time of named individuals otherwise known as a 'lease of lives', eg. typically there were three named lives, including the tenant, his son and another named individual. The lease and rent agreement remained in force until the death of all three named persons. Some of the more prosperous tenants secured the right to get renewable leases for ever, or leases for several hundred years, which were essentially freehold in all but name. However over 80% of all tenancies in the mid nineteenth century were annually set, with no security and no formal lease.

The naming of several children with the same name was sometimes related to this type of lease, since only the name of the son, and the fact of his relationship was given, not the date of birth. I read this in the notes on a novel, and sadly can't remember which, so sorry, no ref. SaundersW (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Salvador Dali, his parents told him he was the reincarnation of his dead brother Salvador, who died 9 months before he was born. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Victorian era, but during the Middle Ages is was quite common to give children the same names -they didn't even need to die first! (eg. Two of the sons of John Paston, of Paston Letters fame, were named John, and both lived to adulthood.) Names were generally chosen to be meaningful in some way. Children were frequently named after their godparents, so if they all had the same names (or you reused godparents), then so be it. Family traditions also counted, so names were sometimes reused if the original bearer died, or several living children were named after key family members. Saints were also important: if you felt your family was blessed by a saint (or you were desirous of obtaining the blessing of a saint) then you might name a number of your children in recognition of that. But don't forget, these are their baptismal/legal names; they probably all had pet names that their family used. Whether this all instituted a tradition that continued into the 19th century would be speculation on my part, but someone else might know. Gwinva (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lorna Doone

I'm reading Lorna Doone and there are some things I just can't get. Who are the men of Gotham (page 116)? What was the dispute between court and city mentioned on page 186 and what is the great conspiracy mentioned on page 187? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myra McCartney (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have the book handy at the moment, but assume that he's referring to the legendary Fools of Gotham and the royal-parliamentarian tensions that led to the English Civil War... AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's on wikisource. The dispute is in 1683, so it's not civil war-related. The conspiracy is the Rye House Plot. Algebraist 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a BBC account of the Wise men of Gotham and their adventures with King John. The great dispute is explained in that paragraph: the court (of the king) wishes to appoint the chief officers of the Corporation of London, and the citizens maintain that they have the right to appoint the officers themselves. From the names Lord William Russell and Algernon Sidney, the great conspiracy would be the Rye House Plot. SaundersW (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Accounting practises for branch accounting

I am working for an organisation which has field offices around South India. All the expenses for the field offices are being sent by Head Office. what sort of accounts the branches should maintain ? Is there any book in India which can be referred for this purpose ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.81.248 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Profit centres or cost centres perhaps? 80.0.98.55 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discrete and Insular Minority

I have been trying to understand the legal meaning of this phrase for a paper I am writing. The phrase si first seen in Carolen Products v United States, Footnote Four in 1937. I understand what discrete means, as well as what insular means, but there is a great difference between the legal meaning of a word and the practical representation of the same word. If anyone could point me to any legal references, it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.210.17 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Digital copy of House Bill 775?

Does anybody have a digital copy of House Bill 775 filed by Tim Couch (R-Ken) or where I could find one? I did some perusing of Kentucky's Legislature website to no avail. It's the bill proposing to make illegal anonymous posting on the internet, and I have a strong desire to read it. There's a fair amount of buzz on sites like Digg if you don't know what I'm talking about. Here7ic (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's proposed in the US house of representatives there's no reason it would be on the kentucky legislature website. —Random832 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, Couch is a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives; this question concerns a bill introduced at the state level. The parenthetical notation after his name should read "R-Hyden". --LarryMac | Talk 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to the bill (MS Word format) on this page. Oh, and I suppose you could call him (R-90th) also. --LarryMac | Talk 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What is it with Kentucky and intellectually challenged people named Tim Couch? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What is Rep. Couch's relationship to the quarterback of the same name? They're both from Hyden. Corvus cornix_talk 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Machiavelli-the devil?

The church put Machiavelli's The Prince on its index of banned books, and it is sometimes said that Old Nick, another name for the devil, comes from his name. Is there a specifically anti-christian message in the Prince? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.105.7 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's definately an un-christian message contained there. Not much of 'the meek will inherit the earth' 'or blessed are the alms givers' type thought in there - maybe that's the reason?

If you search for the "prince machiavelli banned" it will turn up numerous essays explaining why the church found it unnaceptable87.102.94.48 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it was considered a satire at the time, such seeming cynicism? Does satire have a tendency towards papal bans?87.102.94.48 (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The old Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about The Prince:

Again, a prince must keep clear of crime not only when it is hurtful to his interests but when it is useless. He should try to win the love of his subjects, by simulating virtue if he does not possess it; he ought to encourage trade so that his people, busied in getting rich, may have no time for politics; he ought to show concern for religion, because it is a potent means for keeping his people submissive and obedient. Such is the general teaching of the "Principe", which has been often refuted. As a theory Machiavellism may perhaps be called an innovation; but as a practice it is as old as political society. It was a most immoral work, in that it cuts politics adrift from all morality, and it was rightly put on the Index in 1559. It is worth noting that the "Principe" with its glorification of absolutism is totally opposed to its author's ideas of democracy, which led to his ruin. To explain the difficulty it is not necessary to claim that the book is a satire, nor that it is evidence of how easily the writer could change his political views provided he could stand well with the Medici. Much as Machiavelli loved liberty and Florence he dreamed of a "larger Italy" of the Italians. As a practical man he saw that his dream could be realized only through a prince of character and energy who would walk in the steps of Cæsar Borgia, and he conceded that the individual good must give way to the general well-being.

There is, I believe, some debate over whether Machiavelli was actually advocating the ideas contained in The Prince, or was just describing the fractious politics in the Italy of his day. Keep in my also that he was involved with the Florentine government that had kicked out the de Medici family, which hardly endeared him to the papacy. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, 217.42, let me give you just one reasonably well-known statement from Chapter Six of The Prince: "Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed." For Machiavelli this is the central lesson of history. But it is also a message that goes against that of the church: for the 'unarmed prophet' is Christ. The 'prophet armed' is, of course, Mohammed.

However, I do not think that 'Old Nick' was delivering am anti-Christian message as such. After all, for centuries the Christians had taken up arms, in wars both just and unjust. Machiavelli’s great crime was, as I have said on other occasions, to describe the practice of politics, free from ethical and theological fictions: for it was right, as he puts it, "to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined."

In essence, therefore, the message was a practical one; that in a world of deceit and treachery that those who seek to act virtuously in every way-to follow pure Christian doctrine, if you like-are on the road to self-destruction, not self-preservation. If the Prince is to maintain his rule he must learn "how not to be virtuous and make use of it according to need." Christ was shown the kingdoms of the world and rejected them. For the Prince Machiavelli repeats Satan's temptation, urging him to take up the sword for the sake of the good that can only be accomplished by the possession of power.

I do not in any way think that Machiavelli intended his brilliant little treatise as 'a satire', but an analysis of how attain power and, more important, how to hold it. In the treacherous world of sixteenth-century Italian realpolitik there is simply nothing to be gained from the exercise of virtue for the sake of virtue. The exhortations of his Humanist contemporaries, notably Thomas More and Erasmus, the Christian ethics they advance, were no more than a comforting illusion. It's acutely ironic that the Church, for all its disapproval, advanced men like Pope Julius II, for whom The Prince might very well have served as a personal manifesto. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In 17th-century English, there was even an eponymous word "Machiavel" which meant "an intriguer or unscrupulous schemer" (OED 1st edition). AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the fundamental difference between the mindset that produced The Prince and that which banned it would be this: Machiavelli is interested in how to keep power, and advocates what might be seen as extreme measures in doing so. The papal authority is (in theory, anyway) not interested in power, it is interested in human goodness. To them, the ends do not justify the means. Machiavelli would counter that such rank idealism ('everyone treat each other nicely!') produces worse conditions for the populace at large, and that by making a few brutal examples of your enemies, the greater happiness and harmony is achieved.

In summary: Machiavelli is pragmatic, the Church is idealistic. I leave it to the reader to decide which mindset is more conducive to a good life. Vranak (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The modern English equivalent is the adjective "Machiavellian". --Carnildo (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Southern States: which US states are "southern"

Ancestry in the 2000 census

Which U.S. states are considered as Southern due to their Southern accent and history of slavery?

Have you read Southern United States? — Kpalion^(talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"The South" has always been hard to define. One definition is "where kudzu grows." A good sociological one might be where a plurality of people in the 2000 census considered their ancestry to be "American" or "African American." (outside of Northern urban counties with large black populations) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Counties with Baptists as the leading church body, as in this map, make a semi-decent delineation -- with a few caveats perhaps. Pfly (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

the Confederate States of America

Those states which formed the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War are, from a historic perspective, the Southern States. These states ceded from the union over the issue of slavery. C mon (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disraeli and Jewishness

Benjamin Disraeli famously defended his Jewish ancestry but could it not be said that in some of his published writing he actualy provided grounds for anti-semitic conspiracy theory? I understand that he may even have been responsible for giving Gobineau inspiration for his theory of races, though I cannot trace the source of this story. Do any of you know anything about this? 86.157.194.63 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean his novels, 86.157, when you refer to his 'published writings’? It is here that he advances a view of human history based on the pre-eminence of race. Anyway, here is what he says about the Jews in Coningsby;

And at this moment, in spite of centuries, of tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws, which you still obey; of their literature, with which your minds are saturated; but of the living Hebrew intellect. You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews; that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organised and principally carried on by Jews; that mighty revolution which is at the moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs in Germany...(1844, pp. 182-3).

It's all really terribly silly, a form of bragging not taken at all seriously in his homeland; but on the Continent it was fuel for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which were to proceed, with variations on this basic theme, right into the twentieth century.

So far as I am aware the theory that Disraeli met and advised Gobineau on matters of race was first put forward by one Karl Koehne, a German author, in an essay published in 1926. It's complete nonsense. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget about one of the all-time great comebacks, albeit perhaps apocryphal, in political history (perhaps mixed up with a similar retort by Judah Benjamin). In a debate with an Irish opponent, Disraeli took a remark as a slight against his heritage. He responded: "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Mwalcoff, the facts are are not quite as straightforward as often assumed! The 'Irish opponent' of Disraeli was none other than the Great Liberator himself. Now while O’Connell’s remarks were anti-Disraeli, rather than anti-Semitic, Disraeli's response was most definitely anti-Irish, using imagery that would have been readily understood by a mid-nineteenth century Victorian audience. Anyway, I've copied below a response I gave to this last March.

I suspect the remark in question may have been made in an exchange with Daniel O'Connell during the Taunton by-election of 1835 (which Disraeli lost) rather than in Parliament. Disraeli did not enter Parliament until July 1837, as the member for Maidstone. To be fair, insult had been traded for insult, and Disraeli had previously referred to O'Connell as an 'incendiary and a traitor.' The two men even came close to fighting a duel. Disraeli, in point of fact, was not a practicing Jew, but a Christian. Jews, as such, were not allowed entry to Parliament until 1858. Clio the Muse 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Right folks, I've now managed to track this down, with some degree of difficulty, I have to say. It is a popular misconception that the remark was made in the Commons; it was not: it appeared in an open letter in The Times in 1835, addressed to Daniel O'Connell. During the Taunton by-election Disraeli, standing as a Tory, attacked the Whigs and their alliance with O'Connell, and the Irish radicals, in highly immoderate terms. He was particularly offensive in his remarks about the great Liberator. In response O'Connell, no less skilled in invective, denounced him as the 'worst possible type of Jew'-He has just the qualities of that impertinent thief on the cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli's family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, that same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude. Disraeli responded by challenging O'Connell's son, Morgan, to a duel; and when this was refused his letter with the famous quote was published. O'Connell was not, in fact, denouncing Disraeli as a Jew as such, but as the descendent of a criminal. Disraeli took the occasion not just to celebrate a more elevated Jewish ancestry-the priests in the temple-, but to denounce the 'savage' Irish, in terms that would have appealed to all the prejudices of Victorian England. The whole matter, therefore, is not quite as simple as conventionally depicted. The details of the quarrel can be found in Disraeli by Sarah Bradford, published by Weidenfield and Nicholson in 1982 (and which I have just hooked out from our library). Clio the Muse 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Classical or pastiche? Dido and Aeneas

I have a printed page before me with forty or fifty lines written in a classical or mock-classical tone. It begins "Oh, sorrow crowned love of my life, why hast thou forsaken me? Am I not fair? I have loved thee long, and all the places of silence know my wailings. I have loved thee beyond life with all its sweetness, and the sweetnesses have turned to cloves and to almonds..." and it ends "May the gods bless thee and sustain thee, oh light, and may their judgment not come too heavy upon thee for this thing thou hast done. Aeneas, I burn for thee! Fire, be my last love!"

Anyone know what this is? Obviously the Aeneid is the first port of call, but I would have thought some googling would throw one of these lines up, but so far, nothing. FreeMorpheme (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would guess the lines are spoken when Aeneas meets Dido in the Underworld in Book VI. I don't have a copy of the work handy, though. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to be directly from any straight translation of the Aeneid, Obiterdicta: neither in the underworld, nor when Dido earlier threw herself in the flames. But it is clearly based on this episode. Nor is it closely related to anything in the libretto of Purcell's Dido and Aeneas. I do like the lines! They look latish-19th-century mock-archaic, to me. I am reminded of these lines from Leonard Cohen's song "Joan of Arc":

"then fire, make your body cold,

I’m going to give you mine to hold,"

Saying this she climbed inside

To be his one, to be his only bride.

Same general theme. But she died a virgin...

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor to Marlowe's Dido, Queen of Carthage. [Christopher Marlowe, Dido, Queen of Carthage] SaundersW (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing a superdelegate

If Eliot Spitzer should step down as Governor of New York prior to the Democratic Convention, would he lose his Superdelegate status? How would his superdelegate vote be replaced? Corvus cornix_talk 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, he'd lose the spot, as he'd no longer be governor. Lt. Gov. David Paterson is already an at-large superdelegate as a DNC member; I guess he could step down from his DNC position, and it could be filled by someone else? Regardless, subtract one from the Clinton column for the meantime. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Interesting blog post: Would Spitzer Lose His Superdelegate Vote? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both. That slate post is informative. Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Books on Sexual Practices & General Sexuality in America 1900-1940 Needed

Hello,

I'm currently doing a research paper for my American History Class. My topic is "Sex, Sexuality and Sexual Attitudes in Early 20th Century America, 1900-1940". I have tons of sources on feminism & women's rights, gay & lesbian history and gender roles, but I can't find many sources relating directly to sexual practices and other "in the bedroom" information of around that time. I've got the "Sexuality" and "Sexual Attitudes" but not the "Sex". Can anyone point me in the direction of some good books on this particular theme so that I can order them from the library?

Thanks, Slayton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.246.235 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The classic is the Kinsey Report, though how valid its statistics were is a matter of dispute. AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

- The Kinsey Report was published in the fifties. I need books both from and about sex from 1900-1940. ~Slayton~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.242.162 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See Ideal Marriage: Its Physiology and Technique (book) by van de Velde from 1926. The article about that book includes links to other sources of info on such books from the era you are interested in. It was a widely cited and reportedly wildly wrong book of that era, per later writers such as Masters and Johnson. The Van de Veld book was also sold under the English title "Perfect Marriage." You might wish to compare the first edition with the later revisions, since it has been brought up to date. Edison (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on finding anything accurate and direct for the early C20. There will be plenty of circumlocutions, but your best bet might be a bit of lateral thinking. For example, look for surrogate indicators: venereal disease (as they called it then) will rise and fall, and you can extrapolate. Another useful phrase to search for is "sexual hygiene" -- the latter word means healthiness in general, not washing behind one's ears. You might find many promising books with that in the title. Whatever they inveigh against must have been popular enough to command attention. No use in fulminating against lesbianism if no one was doing it. Vibrators began to be sold to individuals (previously only doctors had used them on "hysterical" female patients -- yes, really). Finally, I know she wasn't American, but read up on Marie Stopes and her crusading attitude, including Married Love.

March 11

Philosophy of Law

I got three questions: 1) In the 1950s, the federal government enacted legislation that forcibly removed some Inuit groups from their land and relocated them to Ellesmere and Cornwallis islands in the Far North a) What argument would Cicero have offered against such legislation? b) According to John Austin, why would such legislation be acceptable? c) Would this plan be contrary to John Stuart Mill's theory of utilitarianism? Explain d) Thomas Hobbes and Aquinas would have had opposing views on this issue. What would they have said about this legislation?

2)During WWII, the Cdn. gov't enacted legislation that put many Japanese in prisoner-in-war camps and confiscated their property, fearing they might be spies, or might collaborate with the enemy. What would Aristotle, Plato, or Cicero have thought about such legislation? Explain.

3)In the Murdoch case in 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Ms. Murdoch was not entitled to receive a share of the family property after her husband sold their farm and their marriage broke down. What would Cicero and John Austin think of this law?

By the way, this is not homework but, opinion questions.

Don Mustafa Toronto, Ontario, Canada 20:15 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of an aasignment, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not for a moment think this is a homework assignment; or, if it is, it is in the form that might have been handed out in Plato's Academy! Anyway, it's hopelessly ambitious. It would require an enormous amount of basic research to formulate an answer. But, to be frank, I suspect there is a certain amount of 'playing' here; a tune to which I, for one, am not prepared to dance. It strikes me as being altogether bogus. I am sorry to be so direct. Clio the Muse (talk)

Actually, it kind of does sound like the type of homework assignment a Canadian teacher might give. Canadians, of course, have to find a Canadian angle to everything, including Plato! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it does sound like that (argh, the memories!), but not quite, since it's kind of impossible to answer. Did Don have a class where all this was specifically taught? Otherwise what on earth do any of these things have to do with each other? Don doesn't usually ask homework-ish questions, but he does always ask pretty bizarre ones... Adam Bishop (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are these really like canadian homework questions - wow - is this how the canadian mind works?

With all respect to the original poster - too many questions at once, and too obscure to expect people to give opinions on all of them. Note: you would be asking for example to give opinions based on 'moral systems' set out in books to various cases. Saying 'what would cicero think' sounds very schoolish - why not try again with 'comment on this using Thomas Hobbes work as a specific reference' - it might not be your homework - so please don't give us uneccessary homework to do too!87.102.14.194 (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not exactly, but we like to think there is a Canadian connection to everything. Canada's role in world history is often extremely overstated. You know, we burned down the White House, we won both World Wars, that kind of thing. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you burned down the Pink House, and then we white-washed it - forever sealing pink's demise as a fashionable colour. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Canada's role in world history is often extremely overstated". I don't think that's what you meant. It implies everyone thinks Canada had a bigger role than it really does. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is exactly what he meant. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For "everyone", read "all Canadians". Canadians think Canada has had a wide impact on the world stage. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

history of languages - a 'taxonomy'

Hi.! Can someone link me to a 'taxonomy' of human languages, or the relavent page, specifically I'm trying to find a page that describes a link (if any) between the indo-european languages, and the other language groups (chinese or whatever) - is there a common root etc. Just a link would do - I just seem to get lost when searching as I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject. Thanks.87.102.14.194 (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of a link between all languages is a very controversial subject in linguistics. We have lots of articles about it though - Nostratic, Proto-World, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ok that got me going - thanks.87.102.14.194 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

indo / turkic / sino

1. Does turkic/altaic language in any way form a link between the two others?

2. The difference between 'east' and 'west' seems to go back a long way - is there anything other than speculation that can be solidly said about this human separation (either in terms of language or genetics?

3. Any theories that make a connection between the 'naturally developed language' and 'race' eg does a language preference have racial underpinings - is there any evidence that a person of a particular type would prefer to speak a specific language eg tongue structure making one language easier or more natural to speak?87.102.14.194 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Linguists have not been able to make any real progress in substantially reconstructing proto-languages before about 5000 B.C., and all the "macro" hypotheses such as Nostratic etc. remain unproven.

2) There is absolutely no necessary correlation between language and "race" -- babies of any "race" can learn any language, if brought up surrounded by that language. Furthermore, since the days of Franz Boas, it has been recognized that there's no such thing as a "primitive language" among natively-spoken human languages (i.e. not contact pidgins). AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of a predisposition to certain vowel/consonent sounds - that over time might cause languages to diverge - otherwise I totally accept your answer. Thanks87.102.14.194 (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe any such predispostion exists. It is not unusual that you think it might: Korean parents are so keen to get their kids to learn prefect English pronunciation that they pay for oral surgery to cut the frenulum, the membrance that restricts the tongue, in the quest for the L and R sounds. [14] But you know what? Ethnic Korean kids born into the Anglosphere have perfect English pronunciation. It isn't any putative racial difference in tongues that matter. It is the sounds and language(s) one is exposed to as an infant and child. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. #2—East and West correspond to the directions the sun rises and sets, the major time-setting event in human lives (and one that has many cultural manifestations, even today, when nighttime no longer means total darkness for most). That's probably the major reason for the universal(?) distinction. Re. #3—I can't think of a plausible reason for there to be anything like a correlation between biological notions of race and language. Infants babble in all phonemes, I recall reading once. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mhm I think you answered a different question in No.2 than the one I had in mind, never mind - I was sort of asking the reverse question - ie what can we tell about a ('hypothetical') parting of the peoples into different 'races' (ie people living in the east ie asia and west ie europe etc) in terms of their language ie can language be used as a archaeological tool in terms of prehistory of human migration.. It wasn't very clear I can see that now.

If it's true that all babies babble the same that would be most interesting..87.102.74.53 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Physical geography shows why links between East and West have followed just three channels. The Burma-Assam tropical link, with the Tibetan barrier north of it; the Silk Road link, probably as old as Homo erectus, with impassable desert north of it; the Eurasian steppe, a grassland connector for herders, with tundra north of it, a barrier which requires specialists. All cultural history uses these three routes until sea routes open. --Wetman (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon in 1813-14

Considering that the Russian campaign had been such a serious disaster for France I would be interested to know how and by what means Napoleon was able to recover to fight the campaign of 1813-14? Where did the troops come from? Did he try to keep his allies onside? What military tactics did he follow and what were the factors leading to his ultimate downfall?217.42.109.254 (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The new army in 1813, and it was essentially a new army, came from a variety of places. First of all, there were the remnants of the old army, largely the parts which had never gone into Russia since little came out, but much of that was under siege in Danzig and the rest. The next step was to collect all of the soldiers who were left in depots in France, certainly these ran into the tens of thousands. Next, the navy, especially the corps of naval gunners who were more soldierly than the rest, provided thousands of men. The 1813 class of conscripts, and many who had been exempted in earlier years, were called up. Most of the Italian army was sent to Germany. Troops were collected from Spain. The Saxons and Bavarians and the rest of France's German allies were expected to provide sizable new contingents. Poles, Spanish and Neapolitans also formed part of the Grand Army in 1813. The army in 1814 was mainly French, no more Dutch or German or Italian "Frenchmen" then, and included lots of underage conscripts, the Marie Louises.

War of the Sixth Coalition and the various battle articles explain what happened. The introduction to the Sixth Coalition gives you an idea of what to expect: "The final stage of the war, the defence of France, saw the Emperor temporarily regain his former mastery; he repulsed vastly superior armies in the Six Days Campaign, which many believe to be the most brilliant feat of generalship of his illustrious career." Hmm, so how come this genius lost?

Well, it's a fair question. He lost in 1814 because no matter how clever he was, and how well he did in one minor battle, while he was winning that pointless victory other Allied armies were plodding on towards Paris. And when he moved to the next one, the one he'd beaten got moving again. The explanation is not unlike why the Confederates lost when Grant came on the scene: by 1814 nothing short of a miraculous destruction of an Allied army would stop it picking itself up after a defeat and advancing again.

The problem in 1813 was not dissimilar, especially after the Austrians joined the war. There was only one Napoleon, the rest of the French high command were fairly ordinary. Take the victory at the Battle of Dresden at the end of August. Yes, that's a significant win for Napoleon, but a week earlier Oudinot had lost at the Battle of Großbeeren, and in the week that followed MacDonald lost badly at the Battle of Katzbach and Vandamme lost half his army at the Battle of Kulm. The week after that the last French advance on Berlin ended with a defeat for Ney's army at the Battle of Dennewitz. This led to the Bavarians joining the Allies. Like Lee in Virginia, Napoleon could usually do well in battles where he was present, but the 1813 campaign was fought over a very large area, the "German front" extending from around Hamburg to near Breslau (modern Wrocław) with other armies in Italy and Spain, so he usually wasn't present.

1813-1814 didn't see any tactical innovations. The French army was much less professional and the Allies didn't have any particularly innovative commanders. It did see one technical innovation. Congreve rockets were used at the Battle of Leipzig, their first major land battle, with rather mixed results. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did Napoleon lose? Like Hannibal he couldn't be everywhere at once. A good way to defeat a military genius is to attack at several fronts at the same time. Flamarande (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have one or two additional points. Napoleon hoped to raise a new army of 650,000 men, of which only 140,000 would be recruited in France itself. As well as drawing from every available pool, including the gendarmerie and the National Guard, he trawled the French peasantry once again, moving further and further down the age scale. The whole thing was deeply unpopular, as was the additional burden of taxation. By in large it was an army of older men and raw recruits, with few experienced officers. There was also a serious shortage of horses for the cavalry to replace the huge losses suffered during the Russian campaign.

He managed to preserve his alliance with most of the minor German states, though he lost Prussia and then Austria. The Prussian change of side was particularly serious because, thanks to the brilliant planning and organisation of August von Gneisenau, they were immediately able to raise an additional force of 80,000 men to join with the 200,000 advancing westwards from Russia and 40,000 Swedes under Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, the renegade Marshall. Napoleon did try to keep Austria 'onside', as you have put it, 217.42, but the terms offered by Metternich were framed in a way that would have been impossible for him to accept.

The counter the forces moving against him on a wide front from the east he attempted to use his old tactic of divide and rule, with rapid marches and maneuvers, with the intention of defeating each of the hostile forces in detail. He behaved with his usual boldness and élan, hoping to bring superior force to bear to destroy one enemy army before moving on to another, the tactic that had served him so well in the campaign of 1805. But the Allies had developed an effective counter-strategy-the Trachenberg Plan-which required each army when under attack to withdraw and liaise with the others. Napoleon also made some serious errors, especially in the wide dispersal of his armies, and in his over reliance on inferior commanders. It added to his misfortune that the Allies possessed in Gebhard von Blücher a skilled old war-horse-and an innovative commander-, who played a brilliant cat-and-mouse game. In the end Napoleon simply could not get the kind of knock-out victory that he so desperately needed. As Blücher's army surged back and forward across Germany, by October 1813 the only ally Napoleon had left was Saxony.

It is possible that Napoleon could have won if the Allies had behaved in the same amateurish fashion as they had during the War of the Third Coalition; but they did not. At the Battle of Leipzig his army was faced with a concentrated and superior force, the nightmare he had tried to inflict on others. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Being and Nothingness: political commentary?

Considering Sartre's magnum opus was published in 1943 during the occupation I was wondering if it had anything to say about the political situation of the day? Do any of Sartre's other works have any bearing here? Why were the Germans so indulgent towards expressions of French intellectual life? F Hebert (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Envisage, if you can, Paris in 1943: a bleak place, one where the arena of personal freedom was growing more circumscribed by the day. In the streets, alongside the German occupiers, there were French Fascist auxiliaries of one kind or another, with links to Marcel Déat and others among the so-called Paris Collaborators. The previous year all French Jews had been required to wear the yellow star, not by order of the Germans, but on the initiative of Darquier de Pellepoix, Vichy's Commissioner for Jewish Affairs. Round-ups and deportations were now a regular occurrence. Through the city German propaganda, evoking final victory, was an ever-present feature of life in public places. Denunciations, anonymous letters and police raids wee a constant threat. France has been seized by a Judeo-Bolshevik phobia. The atmosphere is stifling.

So, for Sartre, and every other Frenchman, objective freedom has all but gone. It is against this background that Being and Nothingness, was published, a profoundly Cartesian work, one where subjective forms of freedom find their greatest defence. There, in subjective consciousness, lies the origin of one's absolute freedom, one that is shaped in a state of permanent criticism. All labels are rejected-"How them shall I experience the objective limits of my being: Jew, Aryan, ugly, handsome, kind, a civil servant, untouchable, etc.-when will speech have informed me as to which of these are my limits?" It is from these labels that alienation and inauthenticity are created: "Here I am-Jew or Aryan, handsome or ugly, one armed etc. All this for the Other with no hope of apprehending this meaning which I have outside and still, more important, with no hope of changing it...in a more general way the encounter with a prohibition in my path ('No Jews allowed here')...can only have meaning only on and through the foundations of my free choice. In fact according to the free possibilities which I choose, I can disobey the prohibition, pay no attention to it, or, on the contrary, confer upon it a coercive value which it can hold only because of the weight I attach to it."

Sartre's theory of freedom is expressed, for the most part, in highly abstract terms, but it still has to be read against a specific historical background. The call for freedom, and the parallel denunciation of all forms of bad-faith, was never more meaningful in Nazi France.

Why did the Germans allow this, F Hebert? Well, because they operated in some areas a fairly relaxed censorship policy, especially over such abstract works as Being and Nothingness. It also helped if the author expressed an anti-German message which the Germans themselves could not understand, as Sartre did in his play, No Exit, which concludes with his most famous quote "Hell is other People", or "l'enfer, c'est les autres" in French. By this time the French ad long ceased to refer to the occupiers as Boches-they were, quite simply, Les autres. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio. Arising from that, why weren't the Germans (Nazis) even a little bit suspicious if it was something intellectual that they couldn't understand? Was this a blindness in occupied France but not in other countries they occupied? I might have missed the point, though Julia Rossi (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the censors in Paris probably could understand Being and Nothingness reasonably well, Julia; it was really a question of what kind of impact such am abstruse work was likely to have. It has to be said that the German authorities, in Paris at least, acted with quite a high degree of liberality when it came to certain areas of French intellectual life, much more so than they did elsewhere in Europe, especially in places-like Poland-where all intellectual freedom was ruthlessly suppressed. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Henry Rudolf de Salis, UK, businessman and author, 1866-1936

I am looking for biographical information about the life, career and family of Henry Rudolf de Salis. I know that the de Salis family originated in Switzerland and has branches in the UK and Australia. Henry Rudolf de Salis was a director and the Chairman of an English canal carrying comany called Fellows, Morton & Clayton. He wrote "Bradshaw's Canals and Navigable Rivers of England and Wales" first published in 1904. Andries van de Boom Andries van de Boom (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on John Francis Charles, 7th Count de Salis-Soglio, who appears to be Henry Rodolph's brother. It contains some outline information about Henry Rodolph, and some of the references at the bottom of the article may be useful. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Saints: Black Madonna of Częstochowa

Does anyone know the saints by our lady the Black Madonna of Częstochowa in this mosaic ? Bewareofdog 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Researching... but here is a photo showing the mosaic on the outside of the basilica. SaundersW (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

From the attributes, and from the various histories of the icon, my guess is that the figure on the left with the book is St Luke the Evangelist who is supposed to have painted the icon of the Black Madonna in the basilica, and the figure to the right in monk's robes is Saint Paul of Thebes after whom the order of monks who held the icon is named. Sorry, no positive information. SaundersW (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell you for sure, Bewareofdog, and maybe SaundersW is right, but considering that the two men have no halos, they might not be saints at all. It could be that they are King John II Casimir of Poland (though you can't be sure as he's not wearing crown) and Abbot Augustyn Kordecki. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. There are very few clues to their identity, and apart from the book, no strong reason to identify the left hand figure as an evangelist. Neither have enough attributes to make any positive identification. The date on the mosaic is 2000 and the signature if "FAVRET - ITALY". SaundersW (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

EEUU: meaning of this abbreviation?

Why does this redirect to USA? What does it stand for? - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Estados Unidos" is abbreviated as "EEUU" (also: EE. UU.) because in Spanish the abbreviation for a plural item doubles the letter of the abbreviation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a section of an article about plural acronyms, although the doubling thing only gets one paragraph: Acronym_and_initialism#Representing_plurals_and_possessives. --Allen (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This only works if each of the pluralized terms is abbreviated into one single letter (as is this case, in which E stands for Estados and U for Unidos. The correct form of the abbreviation is "EE. UU.".

Another example is FF. AA., Fuerzas Armadas (Military Forces). Pallida  Mors 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dickens on Social Class

What was Charles Dicken's views on social class? How are these views expressd in his novels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs 'Arris (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to read them. Of course, if you only wan't to know for an exam or term paper, you won't bother, but it will be your loss. AllenHansen (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

His protagonists are almost always solid, hard-working middle-class types, such as would appeal in the Victorian reading public. Excepting Oliver Twist and Great Expectations, none his novel has a central working-class hero or heroine; and even Oliver is found to come from solid stock in the end, and Pip is taken far beyond his lowly origins.. What his novels express above all, though, is the distaste the new aspiring middle-class have for traditional elites; either narrow in vision, like Sir Leicester Deadlock in Bleak House; predatory and treacherous, like Sir Mulberry Hawk in Nicholas Nickleby, or foppish and stupid, like Sir Mulberry's friend, Lord Frederick Verisopht. Even Steerforth, whom Dickens’s treats with a degree of sympathy in David Copperfield, has a languid and amoral quality that the author always associates with a certain kind of decadent upper-class seducer. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Any heaven in Judaism? If not, why bother?

It is not very clear, from the articles I've looked at here, if there is anything like a heaven in Judaism. If there is not (either being nothing, or being the same for 'saints' and 'sinners') then what motivates Jewish people to continue with their religious observances? 80.0.102.233 (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish eschatology#The afterlife and olam haba (the "world to come") might be useful. Algebraist 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The second half of your question is interesting to me, though I come at it from a different angle: What are the different motivations for religious practice, and how do we predict who will share which motivations? I can't find much on Wikipedia about this question... I would have expected it to be at Psychology of religion, but there are only a few hints there. --Allen (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Generally, pressure from the family and community is what keeps Jewish people Jewish. And, of course, a genuine belief among many people that it's the right thing to do. Some Jewish people might believe that failing to abide by God's commandments may lead to divine punishment on this world, but I would guess that most people nowadays see the warnings of Deuteronomy as warnings to the community as a whole and/or warnings that people who abandon the Torah's moral principles will wind up screwing up their own lives. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

March 12

human flagpoles

A previous questioner's too homework-like query reminded me of something I had got nowhere investigating. I too had heard that (in the 1950s?) the Canadian government had moved a handful of Inuit families hundreds or thousands of kms to an otherwise uninhabited island, for the sole purpose of claiming that this bit of the high Arctic was Canadian by virtue of being lived on by Canadian citizens. They transported and stranded those families there without any real consent and without even sufficient supplies. The phrase that got attached to this scandal was "human flagpoles" -- people moved around like pawns on the geopolitical chessboard.

A) Can anyone substantiate this?

B) Have there been other examples in other countries of a government moving a few people to an empty land in order to claim it? Note that this was in no sense a mass population movement, and nor was there any question of pushing others off their territory. It really was terra nulis.

All of this has increased relevance with the melting of the Northwest Passage. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two settlements in northern Canada that originated with the forced relocation of Inuits: Resolute and Grise Fiord. Marco polo (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Enjoyable, readable ancient classics?

I enjoyed reading The Golden Ass in translation - it was both interesting and perhaps more importantly of a style easy to read for a modern reader (which may be due to the translation more than the original perhaps). I also enjoyed reading the Satyricon. I found The Odyssey on the other hand, hard work and only got half-way though it. Are there any other clasical texts that are both easy and enjoyable reads please? 80.0.102.233 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of Virgil's stuff is really beautiful, but for a modern reader of English, I suggest off the top of my head Ovid's Metamorphoses . Pallida  Mors 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bits of Herodotus are fun, if you skip the battles. Ancient Greek comedies like Aristophanes are very amusing if you have a good translation (The Frogs and The Birds, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you liked the Golden Ass and Satyricon, you will definitely like the Metamorphoses suggested by Pallida. You might also like the Apocolocyntosis (The Pumpkinification of Claudius). And along a different line, the poems of Catullus. - Nunh-huh 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

When someone pulls your credit report, what do they see? (For USA)

For the USA... I am submitting an application to a new landlord and they charge $15 for a "credit check". Do you have any idea what information they get back. Now if in the case they don't merely do a FICO score but a hard credit card, what do they see--do they just see my debts and payments of them or do they see things like how much income I make and all kinds of other things? William Ortiz (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Document on American perceptions of federalism

I need a reliable document detailing how Americans currently feel about their statehood (specifically, whether they feel there is any significant difference between citizens of two different states) compared to how they felt around 1787 ASAP.Tuesday42 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)