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

April 4

fraud and copyright

Over on Wikisource, a sister project, a false start at putting the Dossiers Secrets online (s:Dossiers secrets d'Henri Lobineau) has me wondering ... if a document is purported to be of a certain date that would put it out of copyright, by way of fraud, does the author regain the copyright after the mystery has been unravelled and the fraudster has been identified?

In order to host these documents on the English Wikipedia and English Wikisource, only the US law is involved. In order to host them on Commons, both the US and French laws come into play. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an assumption here in the use of the term "regain" that the author at some point lost the copyright. I don't see a legal basis for that, though.  --Lambiam 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal and science

Does the Wall Street Journal have a science editor? If not, have they ever? --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This recent text suggest that Jerry E. Bishop, winner of the Science writing award in 1990, was the WSJ's last science editor, and he left "A Black Hole In The WSJ" since his retirement in 1996. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Why is she a candidate for US president? The US isn't supposed to have a female president. 58.168.128.66 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't? Where is this rule, please? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps by inductive logic, since all Presidents have been white men. Previous results would seem to favor a rich old white protestant male in a contest against an opponent lacking any of those characteristics. Being tall and having a full head of hair have also been characteristics of winners in general in Presidential elections. Hillary seems to have ample hair, money, age, and to be a protestant. Edison (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there are exceptions. Bill Clinton, among others, was not particularly rich at the time he was elected President (although he is now), nor was he old. John F. Kennedy was not a Protestant and did not live long enough to become old. James Madison was only 5'4" (1.63 m) tall, and Dwight Eisenhower's head was not full of hair during his presidency. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Two of the United States Constitution list only three qualifications for President: being a natural-born citizen, being at least thirty-five years old and being an inhabitant of the United States for at least fourteen years. Even though all previous US Presidents have been male, there is no law requiring this trend to continue. Thomprod (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget that Hillary Clinton is not the first or only female candidate, though no woman has come this close before. Victoria Woodhull was the first female presidential candidate in the 1872 elections, though she wouldn't have been eligible because of her age (see above) not because of her gender! Carol Moseley Braun, Cathy Gordon Brown, Elaine Brown, Shirley Chisholm, Elizabeth Dole, Marsha Feinland, Lenora Fulani, Linda Jenness, Gloria La Riva, Belva Ann Lockwood, Ellen McCormack, Charlene Mitchell, Evelyn Reed, Patricia Schroeder, and Margaret Chase Smith would not all have entered the race if the U.S. wasn't "supposed to have a female president". Democratic candidate Walter Mondale wouldn't have chosen Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984, if she couldn't have also become president. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has been blocked for vandalism.[1]  --Lambiam 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[2] - Akamad (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tito and the crisis of 1956

What role did Tito play? How did he view the uprising in Hungary and Soviet action there? Was he opposed?Stefan Dusan (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this, but from what I can gather, Tito may have been ambivalent about the uprising, but he ended up supporting the Soviet action. Here are a couple of references: [3] [4] Hopefully Clio will come to the rescue with a nuanced explanation of Tito's position. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

She can but try!

It might be possible to argue, Stefan, that Tito shared some indirect responsibility for the events that lead to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the subsequent Soviet reaction. After the death of Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev began a charm offensive, attempting to win Yugoslavia back into the Soviet bloc. He held talks with Tito in Belgrade in May 1955, blaming Lavrenti Beria for the hard-line policy adopted in 1948. Tito rejected this, emphasising the attitude of Stalin. But much more crucially he told Khrushchev that it would be easier to convince the Yugoslavs that Soviet policy had really changed if Stalin and Stalinism were publicly repudiated. I have little doubt that such action was already in Khrushchev’s mind, but the timing of his famous speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February 1956 was in part due to Yugoslav pressure.

It was in consequence of this that Stalinism began to lose its icy hold of parts of the Soviet imperium. In Hungary Imre Nagy advocated a more liberal policy in opposition to Mátyás Rákosi, the hard-line premier. Again Tito played a part, urging Khrushchev to get rid of Rákosi, who was duly replaced by Erno Gero. Under pressure from Tito, Gero announced that László Rajk, a leading Hungarian Communist executed in 1949 as a Titoist spy, had been wrongly convicted. The memorial meeting held in his memory in Budapest in late October 1956 turned into a full-scale anti-Russian and anti-Communist riot. In the political avalanche that followed Gero gave way to Nagy. Tito sent a note of support, but warned him not to allow the situation to slip into 'counter-revolution.'

Tito continued to believe that that the Hungarian emergency would never have arisen but for the brutal incompetence of Stalin and Rákosi, but agreed with Khrushchev at a secret meeting in early November that the country was indeed in the grip of a 'counter-revolution', which, if allowed to proceed, would destroy Socialism throughout Eastern Europe. In these circumstances the Soviets had no choice but to send in the Red Army. It was on Tito's suggestion, moreover, that Khrushchev decided to replace Nagy with János Kádár, who had formerly been imprisoned by Rákosi as a 'Titoist.'

Khrushchev was pleased by the outcome of the this meeting, expecting the same kind of opposition to Soviet intervention as expressed by Gomulka and the Polish Communists;

But we were pleasantly surprised. Tito said we were absolutely right and that we should send our soldiers into action as quickly as possible. He said we had an obligation to help Hungary crush the counter-revolution...We had been ready for resistance, but instead we received his whole-hearted support. I would even say he went further that we did in urging a speedy and decisive resolution of the problem.

After the suppression of the Hungarian patriots Tito gave a speech at the military college in Pula, in which he said that people had been so enraged by the Stalinists that the right-wing supporters of Admiral Horthy, the pre-war dictator of Hungary, were able to take advantage of the situation:

The justified uprising against the Rákosi clique turned into an insurrection against Socialism and the Soviet Union, and the Communists who found themselves in the ranks of the rebels saw that their objective, whether they wanted it or not, was no longer the fight for Socialism but for a return of the old order after the reaction had taken things in hand. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are great. Stefan Dusan (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So are you! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam and terrorism

Were the Hashashin the world's first terrorists? Is terrorism, then, an integeral part of the Islamic world view? No polemic, no soap-boxing, no trolling. I think this is a valid set of questions and I am genuinely interested in some dispassionate answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.0.128 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do recall in an episode of West Wing that they mentioned them as one of the earliest terrorist groups. But if we go by this definition of terrorism [5]: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives," then I imagine that terrorism has been around for a few millenia, long before the Hashashins. - Akamad (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The earliest example mentioned in our history of terrorism article is the Sicarii zealots who were reisiting the Roman occupation of Judea. That article also sagely notes that "underground resistance groups are often branded terrorists by the authorities they oppose". It lists numerous historical examples of what we would now call terrorism, including the Gunpowder Plot, the Sons of Liberty, John Brown, the Ku Klux Klan and the Suffragette movement. Very few of these examples have any connection with the Muslim world. Based on the evidence in this article, a dispassionate conclusion would be that terrorism is an integral part of the Western world view. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hashshashin are one of the oldest group of people that I know of that used acts of terrorism as an identity. They are not, in any way, the first terrorists. Formed in 1090, they simply didn't exists for the many earlier years in which groups would perform "hit and run" attacks on enemies. However, they are not in any way an integral part of the Islamic world view. They are a small offshoot of Islam. To put in perspective, the KKK claims to Christian. Does that mean that white supremacy is an integral part of Christianity? Of course not. You cannot judge a large group of people by the actions of a minority. The problem we have is that the American media has not interest in interviewing the millions of people in the Islamic world who condemn terrorism. They only want to show us the small group that applaud it. -- kainaw™ 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read a book about Muhammad and how he preached, converted, and united the Arab tribes. I remember that during a battle over a certain water well he was telling his warriors that if they died for Islam they would go immediately to heaven. A warrior asked if this was really so easy, and Muhammad answered affirmatively. The warrior immediately charged the enemy and died (anyone's guess if he went to heaven or not). And to be honest Muhammad united the Arab tribes by converting them but also using military might, force, and simple violence and No, he wasn't a pacifist. Some British historian commented that "Islam came with a sword" (later Christianity is also guilty of that, but I don't recall Jesus or even Buddha advocating violence). Flamarande (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Although ironically during WWII most of the involved were christian people. Not only that but catholics kill catholics and protestants killing protestants on both sides. Sorry had to add that! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From our article on the Crusades: "In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given his blessing to Iberian Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle ... Most <crusaders> believed that by retaking Jerusalem they would go straight to heaven after death". The history of militant Christianity, from the Crusades through the Inquisition to The Troubles, is sadly as full of dubious motivations and flimsy rationalisations of violence as that of any other ideology. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BAH! I think we can all agree that all violence (wars, massacres, forced coversions, etc) committed by Christians was done despite (and even against) the words and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (love thy enemy). However AFAIK Muhammad in fact preached war against Non-believers (you will go to heaven if you fight for Islam). Flamarande (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what your point is, Flamarande. Islam is not the only religion whose founder was not a pacifist - some of the founders of Sikhism, for example, were equally militant. And many religions have been used to justify ends that were far from the intentions of their founding fathers - the Shinto religion, for example, was used to justify Japanese militarism in the first half of the 20th century. One could conceivably argue that all acts or violence, agression or intolerance are morally wrong, even if they appear to be justified by religious beliefs - is that perhaps your point ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

81.156, on a point of information the Hashashins were not the first group in the Islamic world to make use of terror as a political weapon; they were predated by several hundred years by the Kharijites, a movement which is almost as old as Islam itself. It was they who were responsible for the assassination of the Caliph Ali in 661AD, and caused severe problems for centuries thereafter. These 'withdrawers', former supporters of Ali, took a particularly strict interpretation of Islam, considering those who did not support their position to be worse than infidels, and thus deserving of death. Recognising only the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, they offered a challenge to all subsequent 'usurpers.'

The 'prophet armed' is, of course, part of Islamic tradition. A militant defence of the faith had to be grafted on to Christianity by St. Augustine of Hippo, amongst others, in the notion of the just war. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition of terrorism is an amorphous one. Perhaps you should be more specific. Do you mean bombing of civilians? Radical Zionists did this in Israel long before the Muslims did, and it had been practiced by anarchists long before that. Do you mean suicide bombing? That came about only in the last two decades and can hardly be thought of as an integral part of Islam (and was a tactic originated by radical Hindus). Do you just mean violence, including towards civilians? It's no more a part of Islam than it is a part of Christianity; which is to say, it has been a common tactic throughout human history, the sort of thing that everyone justifies as righteous when done in desperate times and deplores whenever they're on the other side of it. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Clio - explicit military imagery has, of course, also been part of Christian tradition, from the New Testament (in the Armor of God, for example) through to the present day, in denominations such as the Salvation Army and interdenominational organisations such as the Boys' Brigade/Girls' Brigade. Sadly, Christian pacifism has always been a minority position within all branches of Christianity, with only a small number of denominations (the peace churches) officially embracing absolute pacificism. The idea that Christ Himself was an absolute pacificist is plausible, but very few of His followers have conformed to that particular aspect of His teachings. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The God of the New Testament may have come with armour, but never with a sword. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article even on that! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And the main point here is that His followers often came with a sword, and although that may have been an over-zealous misinterpretation of His will, that is of no comfort to their victims. Those of us in the Western world are in no position to take the moral high grounds and criticise the founders and followers of other religions for not being pacificists when the history of our own mainstream religion is so steeped in bloodshed and violence. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Gandalf; very noble, very commendable, and utterly and fatuously beside the point! Please forgive me for being so woundingly blunt. I try to avoid polemics here, confining myself to matters of fact, or to constructing interpretations based on fact. But as your remarks are addressed to me, I have no choice but to accept the challenge. Please have the goodness to read again what I wrote. I do not believe that I am in any way traducing or caricaturing Islam in saying that it is born of a militant tradition. It came, so to speak, sword in hand; Christianity did not. This is not to say that Christians have been less bloodthirsty than any other religion, which is manifestly untrue. Nevertheless, Christian militancy could not be justified by reference to the Gospels. It could only achieve retrospective moral and theological validation in the Augustinian concept of the just war. Please do note the stress here. It might very well be argued, if one were of a mind to do so, that such rationalisations, not supported by sacred text, place Christianity in a far more hypocritical light than Islam. And, oh, I never take the 'moral high ground', having no idea of its location. Ha! Ha! Ha! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, it may be your opinion that Christian militancy cannot be justified by reference to the Gospels, but not all theologians agree. For example, here is an article from The Plain Truth that uses quotations from the Gospels, including Christ's own words in Matthew 10:34, to argue that there is Biblical support for the "just war" concept. Its conclusion is "although the New Testament has little to say specifically on the subject of war, general principles can be drawn ... those principles support the legitimacy of maintaining armies and waging war". Historically, Thomas Aquinas used similar Biblical arguments in his Summa Theologica. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Aquinas takes Augustine as his point of departure. Honestly, Gandalf, I really do not want to get into the depths of hermeneutics and Biblical exegesis. All I will say is that it is possible to twist words to prove absolutely anything. The truly important thing is always to interpret and define meaning in context: and the context of the Gospels, the ever present background, is a message of peace. The whole concept of the just war is a later rationalisation, an importation with the thinnest of supports in sacred text. I can say no more on this; and thus my message stands. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, I respect your opinions and personal convictions. However, the clear evidence is that the "just war" concept has been and still is justified by some mainstream theologians from New Testament principles, including Christ's own words in Matthew 10:34 and elsewhere. You may disagree with their reasoning, but that is beside the point. Our responses here on the Reference Desks should be based on verifiable facts and the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Foch quote

While attending a lecture today, the speaker presented a slide which said "the airplane has no military value" and he attributed this as a quote from Marshall Foch 1910. Is this an accurate quote? I find it hard to believe given his position in the French Military as his anaylsis of military history.24.224.215.10 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Corpen

The quote "Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value" is attributed to him. I'm uncertain of the provenance. I think he was professor of strategy at the Ecole Superiure de Guerre at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And French military incompetence in WWI and WWII is simply undeniable. It went as far as the French Army Mutinies (1917). Flamarande (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would deny it. The French fought with incredible tenacity in the Great War, the incompetence of Robert Nivelle notwithstanding. In 1940 there was no country in the world, of similar size and military capacity, that could have withstood the kind of offensive mounted by the Germans. The Soviet Union was able to do so in 1941 because it had the space to absorb the shock of the Blitzkrieg. I know the quotation about airplanes is attributed to Ferdinand Foch, but I would be interested to know the exact context of his remark. Armies had been using observation balloons as far back as the American Civil War. So, airplanes clearly did have some military value. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You would deny it? Well I vaguely recall that French officers commented "that this new weapon (machine-gun) would have no major impact upon warfare" (said before the WWI). The French army had to be rescued by the British in the WWI, and the French army nearly mutinied (so much for their incredible tenacity). In WWII France was conquered in a couple of weeks despite the French and the British army having more tanks and more men in continental Europe than the whole German Wehrmacht. In fact AFAIK the French commander-in-chief was directing the French army from a beautiful French castle without a single telephon, thereby ensuring that all reports had to be brought to him (I might be mistaken here). The French officers were simply incompetent. Flamarande (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would deny it. I cannot comment on your vague recollection about French officers and the machine-gun, but I imagine that it would be possible to find such an attitude on all sides prior to 1914. Experience is a great teacher. I am not quite sure what you mean in saying that the 'French Army had to be rescued by the British in WWI.' In any case it is quite, quite wrong. In 1914 the British only deployed four divisions on the Western Front, compared with five French armies. The decisive action in out-maneuvering the Germans, both in the First Battle of the Marne and in the subsequent Race to the Sea, was undertaken by the French. Parts of the French army did mutiny, for reasons that you may understand if you care to read about the Nivelle Offensive and the Second Battle of the Aisne, but even at the height of their 'strike'-a better word than mutiny in this context-they made sure that the front against the Germans was held. French soldiers continued to display tremendous tenacity-and I make absolutely no apology for using that word-after the events of June 1917, playing a crucial part in the Hundred Days Offensive and other actions. Your comment about French officers, moreover, is, quite simply, an ignorant generalisation. Might I suggest that you do just a little bit more research, Flamarande, before making blanket and ill-informed statements? It might help you to understand the experience and mentality of the French soldier in the Great War just a little better if you read Under Fire by Henri Barbusse.

The defeat of 1940 was due to the Blitzkrieg tactics employed by the Germans. As I have said, there was no country in the world of similar size and military capacity that could have resisted such tactics; even the Russians almost gave way in 1941. The important point is not that the French had more men and tanks but how these forces were organised. The Germans had their armour concentrated in panzer divisions, which, closely supported by infantry and air attacks, cut easily through the enemy defences. The French armour-like the Russian armour in 1941-was too widely scattered among the whole army, intended as a defensive support, rather than a cutting-edge offensive weapon. Again,-and with all due respect-you really need to deepen your knowledge and your understanding of these issues. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, first of all I already knew (and know) how the much fewer German tanks were much better organized and employed during the invasion of France (I own and have read the book Panzer Leader, but I don't claim to have studied it exaustably). Don't assume merely because I don't give a long explaination like you do that I'm ignorant of such matters. Don't focus yourself upon 1914 (the beginning of WWI). How about all the other years? All the British reinforcements were vital for the Allied war effort. Without it the French would have lost the war. In the last great offensives the French army was being pushed way back and was in real danger of losing its physical connection to the British lines.

Basicly you are explaining in a very detailed fashion how and why the French (and the British) failed to oppose the German Wehrmacht in WWII upon the Battle of France. Explaining why they failed doesn't excuse the failure itself. Fact is that they had failed to understand that the nature of warfare had changed. While certain German officers (like Guderian among others, and certain American officers like Patton) had read and studied books (written by Liddel Hart, a British officer, and others) with new ideas on how to employ tanks French and British officers (the second would learn from their mistakes afterwards) were largely expecting a repetition of WWI warfare. Trenches, barbwire, large and costly infantry offensives supported by tanks, the whole muddy nightmare.

Therefore the French built and expanded the Maginot line on the German border and expected that the German offensives would come from the north through Belgium and the Netherlands. Then they (and the British) would move their best units to the north waiting for the Germans and believing that they would just counter the old Shlieffen plan. They were decieved by the advance of the Germans and then surprised by the Manstein Plan which called for a quick offensive through the Ardennes, catching the best allied armies between two German armies. The allies had to retreat towards the UK through Dunekerk.

Military officers (and generals) who don't understand how the enemy fights, and fail to understand how to use their equipment (tanks and airplanes), to adapt themselves to new tactics, and to discard old strategies are best described in one word: incompetents. Flamarande (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: I do not see much point continuing this exchange either, Flamarande. I could challenge each of your latest points in detail, but what purpose would be served? I will say, though, that France was on the winning side in both the First and Second World Wars as part of a grand alliance, with each of the elements playing a vital part. My sole object in beginning this debate was to challenge your contention that French incompetence in the wars was 'undeniable', an invitation to a bogus consensus. Now you, and the rest of the Reference Desk Community, know that it is deniable. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Airplanes were developing rapidly at the time. The first well-attended demonstration of a reasonably practical airplane was only in 1908. If Foch did say that in 1910, he might well have been correct or nearly so for the planes he had seen or heard about up to then, and nevertheless wrong for the planes of 1914. --Anonymous, 23:24 UTC, April 4, 2008.

Who was the father of science fiction?

Moved question here from wikipedia help desk on behalf of 59.93.74.65. --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The most common answer to this question is Jules Verne, the second-most common answer is H. G. Wells. These answers make sense if you accept that "SF proper requires a consciousness of the scientific outlook", and that "a cognitive, scientific way of looking at the world did not emerge until the 17th century, and did not percolate into society at large until the 19th century" (Peter Nicholls, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the most common answer I've heard is Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein, often called the first sci-fi novel. It was published a full ten years before Jules Verne was even born, and about 50 years before wells. She wrote at the very beginning of the 17th century, at a time when science was just beginning to make discoveries many saw as frightening, and her book has been emulated in many form of science fiction even to the present day. Shelley is not a man, so she would have to be called the "Mother of science fiction". Other authors who reflected on the day's science at this time include Lord Byron, whose poem "Darkness" is about a world where the sun burns out. All of these authors wrote much earlier than Verne or Wells, and are equally as famous, if not more. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Finding the source of a literary genre is rarely an exact science, though. See History of science fiction. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(After e.c.) Well, I thought the querent was looking for an absolute crossword-puzzle-type answer; an author who was first to specialize in and establish this genre, but of course there are many possible precursors. See history of science fiction. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I get carried away when talking about literature :) . Wrad (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To carry us away is one of science fiction's duties! After having read these appetizers I have decided to look for Somnium, Other Worlds (see below), The Blazing World, and also The Last Man when I get one of these. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that there's no single right answer to this. There's a reason why the Hugo award is named after Hugo Gernsback rather than any of those earlier and more literary authors. And hey, look what it says in the first paragraph of his article. --Anonymous, 23:27 UTC, April 4, 2008.

I would nominate Cyrano de Bergerac. From our article:

Bergerac's most prominent work, now known as Other Worlds, is a collection of stories describing journeys to the Moon and Sun. The methods of space travel he described are inventive, often ingenious, and sometimes rooted in science. It should be noted, however, that Bergerac's primary purpose in writing those early science fiction novels was to criticize subtly the anthropocentric view of our place in creation, as well as the social injustices of the 17th century.

Highly recommended, definitely more in the social or soft SF than hard category. To go to the moon, very simple: trap dew in an inverted vase or carafe, attach the carafes around your belt and when it evaporates in the morning, pjiuuu jetpack. Beats any meta-protonic drive. For earlier see Ancient astronaut theories? Keria (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The stormy averter of evil, the gracious protector of oaths, fathered all such fictions. I have spoken. Olympian Zeus (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All hail to Thee, great Storm Father! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The term 'Science Fiction' dates back to 1851; see Brian Aldiss's masterly critical history of S.F., "Trillion Year Spree". Rhinoracer (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that Mary Shelley was writing at the beginning of the 19th not the 17th Century, Frankenstein was published in 1818. Lord Foppington (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Matthias Daniel Pöppelmann or Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann

Are these two people the same? They both were alive in the same time period and I'm wondering if one was just an anglicization of the name. Eóin (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the same person. Matthäus is the correct spelling. This site, for instance, confirms that Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann contributed significantly to the Saxon Axis, along with Joachim Daniel Jauch, Johann Christoph Naumann, and later also Carl Friedrich Pöppelmann, one of Matthäus Daniel's notable sons. The other famous son was the painter Johann Adolph Pöppelmann. The Matthias Daniel Pöppelmann article should be redirected or merged. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've merged Matthias Daniel Pöppelmann into Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann. Xn4 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Apparently Matthes Daniel Pöppelmann can be found occasionally too. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

historical misconceptions

HI, reading the above thread on medieval childhood reminded me of the subject of historical misconceptions. There is also a book out by an academic called Flat Earth, claiming that, despite the popular wisdom, very few medieval people really thought the earth was flat. Can anyone tell me of any other current misconceptions about earlier times in history, especially on a similar scale to our delusions about flat-earth beliefs? I'm also interested in misconceptions that have been held at earlier times, that people have wised up to, for example any myth that might have been prevalent a century or so ago, even if it has disappeared from the popular imagination today. 203.221.126.95 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The article on scientific mythology has a number of these sorts of things (some better cited than others). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Vikings and their horned helmets is always a popular myth. A good one from the past week is that L'Osservatore Romano seems to be under the impression that this year is "the first time in history" that Catholicism has not been the most populous religion. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answers so far. Adam, do you mean just that Vikings never wore horned helmets? Thanks in advance. 143.238.215.40 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On rare ceremonial occasions their priests may have worn helmets with horns on them but they looked nothing like the kind we know today. There's an article on that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APL (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems our idea of the millenial panic as the year 1000 AD approached is grossly inflated. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people might have been alarmed if their local monk told them that it would soon be 1,000 years after the birth (or the death) of Jesus, but at that period extremely few people frequently encountered A.D. dates as part of their ordinary daily lives, so that the widespread spontaneous "odometer" fascination of 1999 A.D. would have had no counterpart in 999 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? There are so many! The following are all myths about the Middle Ages: women were oppressed; women had more children than now (upper classes did, for various reasons, but not lower classes); knights' armour was so heavy they had to be lifted onto a horse and couldn't move if they fell off; destriers were as big as shire horses and could only walk; swords were heavy and unwieldy; medieval men were short; bodkin arrows could pierce armour; any arrows could pierce mail; medieval people didn't wash; medicine was useless and all science superstitious nonsense; and so it goes on... Gwinva (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, questioner. I assumed you were only interested in the grand fictions. I could add many more small ones, if you are interested. And, yes, the Vikings never wore horned helmets! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone again. Clio, I'm interested in the grandest fictions that would fit reasonably into the format of an answer on this ref desk. We have some good ones above; I believe the nature of the question is such that people can try to compete (so to speak) at producing the biggest. I wouldn't expect too many like the Flat Earth one, although someone could take the opposite tack and try to convince me that the Flat Earth is no myth after all, and that they did believe in this. 203.221.127.76 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing

Move to entertainment desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is going too far, Brainy Babe. I specifically stated that it was here because I trusted the taste of people who read the reference desk, specifically the Humanities desk (though I admit I forgot to mention this bit). It is not an entertainment question, it is about the pedagogical value of the show The West Wing, although I needed to confirm the value according to dramatic criteria as well. Please folks, don't go overboard with moving questions, since they are often here for a good reason. A lot of questions could go on two or even three ref desks, so the fairest standard is simply that no one blatantly violates the purpose of each ref desk, eg asking for a track listing on a rap album on this page would be clearly asking for the question to be shifted. Thanks anyway for answers so far on the entertainment desk. 143.238.215.40 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it have any pedagogical value? I rather thought it was emotional compensation for left-leaning television executives. After all, it seems that the only way to get a liberal-minded Democrat into the White House is in fiction! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April 5

policy record

Our local bus service has installed multiple cameras on it buses. No one informed me or asked my opinion before the installation. I sit there with the occasional thought that I'm being watched, but I prefer the reduced commotion on the bus and fewer rowdy patrons.

Google has camera vans for Google Maps Street View that have covered about 95 percent of every street in about 30+ major cities. You can log onto Google maps and see a panoramic, 360 degree view at about 10 foot intervals from the street. The last set was taken just before I mowed the lawn in Dec 2007, but future updates are scheduled. Contracts to mount cameras on garbage trucks for twice a week updates or on mail trucks for updates once a day are planned.

Under these circumstances I have a friend from out of town who visits and rides the bus to look for places to live. He brings his camera with him to make an album to show his family no different than any tourist. At the local transit center, however, he is told he can not take pictures while standing on the transit center property because of 9/11, but it is perfectly okay for him to step over to the sidewalk and take all the pictures he wants. The transit center manager says the reason is government orders. The transit authority telephone complaint desk says it is orders from George W Bush.

Is there a record of any such policy or is the transit authority merely using 9/11 as an excuse to avoid video or photographic evidence other than its own? 71.100.173.69 (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the President of the United States has the authority to order local transit centers not to allow the taking of pictures from transit center property. It is possible that this was a recommendation from Homeland Security.  --Lambiam 10:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Where can I find a record of any such recommendation? 71.100.173.69 (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be of interest: [6]. Your friend should ask the transit center manager to provide the policy in writing with a citation of the applicable law. --Nricardo (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this link. I've asked the transit authority for the information. 71.100.173.69 (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamic versus Jewish perception of the law

Currently the impression I have of the difference between Islamic perception of law and Jewish perception of law in general is that the Jewish perception is that in public or private the law applies whereas the Islamic perception is that the law only applies in public. Is this impression correct? 71.100.173.69 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean religious prescriptions? Then I think that in general the impression is not correct. With Ramadan, Muslims are required to fast from sunrise to sunset, whether in public or in private. Furthermore, there is no such thing thing as the Islamic perception and the Jewish perception; some are more mainstream than others, but there are no generally recognized central authorities.  --Lambiam 21:20, April 5, 2008 (UTC)

Non Aligned Movement

Whatever happened to the Non-Aligned Movement? It seems to have disappeared altogether from public view? Topseyturvey (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that its influence hinged on playing off the democratic First World and the communist Second. When the latter lost the Cold War, the U.S. no longer had a pressing need to cater to it. Non-Aligned Movement also says it fractured when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no more Cold War, no more rationale for non-alignment. However, there is still an echo of the old order, I suppose, in Hugo Chavez's invocations of 'democratic socialism' and 'anti-imperialism'. I think the delightful Senor Chavez sees himself as the new champion of the downtrodden, standing, as he does, against the advance of American-led globalisation, in a fashion that might just have been recognised by those who attended the Bandung Conference all those years ago. Ah; bless him! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nowadays the Non-Aligned Movement is effectively just another "G" grouping, like the G77 etc. etc. -- and it's far from being the most influential or successful "G" grouping either... AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese in East Africa

Is their any comaprison to be made between the sixteenth century Portuguese voyages to East Africa and the exploits of people like Cortes and Pizarro in the Americas? Topseyturvey (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A difference is that Cortez and Pizarro conducted invasions by land of large empires in a totally "New World", while the Portuguese were setting up a rival maritime trading system within an ancient pre-existing one in the Indian Ocean. A similarity, perhaps, is that both the Spanish and Portuguese would have been lost without local help. Pfly (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The other important difference was the exploits of the Conquistadors were largely free-enterprise and buccaneering, having little in the way of direct financial support from the Spanish Crown, whereas the Portuguese monarchs were closely involved from the start in the African voyages. Theirs was the pursuit of profit. Even the pirate cruises of Tristão da Cunha and Afonso de Albuquerque in 1506-7, which plundered the African coast, and ravaged northern Madagascar, had a clear commercial purpose.

It is also true that whereas Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro set out to establish territorial empires, this was not the Portuguese intention, at least to begin with. Given the fortunes to be made by commerce and free-booting alone, the Portuguese at first very little point in going to the expense and trouble of large-scale conquest. However, the 1560s saw a major shift in priorities, in part explained by the growing influence of the Jesuits, who believed that territorial domination was the one sure way of advancing their mission in Africa. The Portuguese crown was also impressed by the Spanish discovery of important silver deposits in Mexico. Gold was known to be mined in central Africa, and the Portuguese suspected that silver might also be present. The new conquistador spirit was also encouraged by the growing hunger for territory and office for the adventures-the fidalgo- who travelled to the existing bases in the Indian Ocean. The result of all these pressures was a series of major expeditions in both east and west Africa, comparable in every way with those of the Castilian conquerors.

In 1556 Baltasar Lobo de Sousa was made Captain-General of Madagascar, with the right to conquer and hold the islands off its coast. His grant also included the African coastline as far south as the Cape of Good Hope. Little came of this, though the crown a dispatched fresh expedition in 1569, with the aim of conquering the mines of Monomotapa. Another royal army was sent to the Congo in 1571, the same year that Paulo Dias de Novais, the Portuguese Cortes, entered into a contract for the conquest of Angola. His exploits were mirrored in the east by Francisco Barreto, 'Conqueror of the Mines' and the Pizarrro, it might be said, to Novais' Cortes, who advance with an army into the highlands of Mozambique in search of gold. It was these expeditions that laid the foundations for the lengthy Portuguese presence in both east and west Africa, though, in the end, it cost more, and produced less, than the Spanish conquests in the Americas. Clio the Muse (talk)

Cromwell and Prince Rupert

waht were the factors that made Oliver Cromwell a better commander than Prince Rupert? Why was Tom Fairfax given command of the new model army and not Cromwell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie Gabriel (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What were the factors that drew you here instead of your school library for these answers? FreeMorpheme (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It would help you to understand why Oliver Cromwell was a better cavalry commander than Prince Rupert, Archie, if you examine the Battle of Edgehill, the Battle of Marston Moor and the Battle of Naseby in some detail. Rupert was a bold commander, with heaps of cavalier dash and élan; but his tactic was, in essence, one throw only. His cavalry charges carried all before them, but his squadrons lost all discipline and cohesion in the process, making further intervention impossible in battles that were far from over. Cromwell, in contrast, retained tight control over his men, enabling him at both of the latter battles to wheel round back into combat after driving off the enemy to his front.

Sir Thomas Fairfax was given command of the New Model Army because Cromwell, a Member of Parliament, was ineligible under the terms of the Self-Denying Ordinance. He was given command of the cavalry by special Parliamentary dispensation, and eventually took over full command in 1650, when Fairfax, opposed to the invasion of Scotland, resigned. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're too nice, Clio. FreeMorpheme (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only try! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely confusing

If Andrew Chan was sentenced to death, why doesn't his article say that he is dead? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Because he may not have been executed yet? People are often imprisoned ("on death row") for a long time after being sentenced to death, due to appeals and clemency procedures. Sandstein (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bali Nine article goes into the current sentences of these defendants. Chan remains under death penalty after his appeal. Rmhermen (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

creativity

is there a significant relationship between creativity and academic achievement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.252.28 (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a facile response, I would suspect the answer to be no, there'd be a low correlation. Academia is all writing in a particular style, following conventions, staying withing the boundaries of good sense, inquiring along certainly lines of thought that are not damaging to the Establishment. Creativity needs divine, often mad, inspiration, room to grow and breathe, and has no sacred cows, like Professor Werneke and his tenured position at $100k per annum. Vranak (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Academia is full of status loving weasels. It is much more about polishing an image. It is a social accomplishment rather than an intellectual. WikiWiking (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Social, intellectual, spiritual: all same thing (ego). Vranak (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See also similar question on the languages desk here[7]. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

the most cruel statement

which is the most cruel statement in english literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.252.28 (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the 'cruel to be kind' line in Hamlet that Hamlet uses to justify being horrible to Ophelia so that she won't be sad when the story comes to its murderous conclusion. Turns out he drives her to suicide by this technique, so its legitimacy is certainly in doubt. Vranak (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Thank God!" - Brenda Last's statement in Evelyn Waugh's novel, A Handful of Dust, when she realises that the 'John' who has just died is not her lover, but her son. Rhinoracer (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

...and what's that bit from George Orwell's '1984' about a boot stamping on a human face forever?

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - Akamad (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, there's cruelty aplenty in the Jacobean plays of John Webster and of Cyril Tourneur.

Heh, I'm beginning to warm to this topic...eh... eh... Rhinoracer (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking to something modern, David Eldridge's play Festen (Celebration) has the line that makes the whole audience gasp. When the father (Helge) is accused by his son of incest, the son plaintively asks "Why? Why would you do this to your children?" And Helge answers, "Because you were good for nothing else." I can't find the source for the exact line. I did see the play at the Lyric Theatre in London about 4 years ago. That may be good enough for the Ref Desk. :-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Tessman to Brack, final scene of Hedda Gabler: "Shot herself in the temple! Fancy that!". Corvus cornix_talk 22:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's easy: Pinkie's bequest to Rose in Brighton Rock. Her pain, the death of her beliefs, and her comforting delusions of love, which Graham Greene only leaves us to imagine, are just too terrible to contemplate. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Kosovo Serbs

How serious was persecution of Kosovo Serbs by Albanians in the Second World War? Is this why Serbs fear rule by independent Kosovo? Stefan Dusan (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

After the Italian annexation of the region in 1941, Stefan, the local Albanian community was given a virtual free-hand to pursue their vendetta against the Serbs. Thousands of were killed, and Orthodox churches burnt, in a wave of serious 'ethnic cleansing'. Some 20,000 people managed to flee to Serbia itself, followed by a further 10,000 in 1944. The hostility between the Serbs and Albanians is clearly of long-standing, and obviously has a bearing on present-day attitudes. It is a pity, though, that the world seems to have lost sight of the fact that the Serbs are also victims. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ustase race policy

Did the Nazis decree the racial policy of Ustase Croatia? Stefan Dusan (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Axis powers may have brought Ante Pavelic and the Ustase to power, but they did not set the regime’s racial agenda. It was, of its own volition, the most savagely intolerant in Europe, excepting only Nazi Germany itself. Its aim was to create an ethnically pure Croatia, in which Serbs-the chief enemy-, Jews and Gypsies would have no place. On 17 April 1941, the very day that Yugoslavia surrendered, the Ustase began their attacks on the Serbs. In June Mile Budak, Pavelic's Minister of Education, announced that of Croatia's Serb population of 1.9 million one third would be deported, one third converted to Catholicism, and thus Croatianised, and one third killed. The killing was carried out by militia forces, and in places like the Jasenovac extermination camp. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speech

What is the most moving and important political speech in history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.69 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to classify any single speech as been the most important, but here are a list of some of the most important: [8]. - Akamad (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving and important are not necessarily parallel characteristics of a speech.

In terms of converts and considering the extent and the longevity of its effects, I would put the Sermon on the Mount as number one. Of course, it may not be a political speech in the narrow sense but it has been published (and still is) in a bestseller. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is, as far as I am concerned, nothing to equal the simple power of the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln's beautiful words, their rhythm and their pulse, transform mere politics into poetry; into eternal values.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost any of Churchill's war time speeches would qualify.--Artjo (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For moving speeches, David Lange's still making an impression[9] and [10] versus Jerry Falwell Oxford Union debate 1985. I liked it too, though I guess Falwell was a handy foil.Julia Rossi (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I will throw my vote in with Clio on the Gettysburg Address, but she failed to point out one of the greatest things about it - its length. Earlier in the day, Edward Everett gave a 13,607-word speech, going for two hours, which to me sounds very much like what happens when you tell any politician to make a speech. Lincoln then stood up, said less than 300 words, and within a couple of minutes he was done. Most of what he said would have been covered by Everett already. And yet, years later, it is Lincoln's "dedicatory remarks" that are still being quoted, still being alluded to in such other monumental works as I Have a Dream, still upheld as an example of the power of well-chosen words. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Brazil

Pardon for not asking a more pointed question; the reference desk has been so helpful I've grown to rely on a lot generally!: I'm more or less tagging along to Brazil this summer, going with my girlfriend who wants to WWOOF around the country for a month or so. I want to know if there are any particularly interesting social phenomena--forgive the awkward phrasing--taking place in Brazil now. I'm interested in social/political theory and anthropology and was looking for anything that might be relevant. I've tried searching around for things without much luck, and I don't know anyone particularly knowledgeable about Brazil, so I'd very much appreciate any advice or direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.160.116 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The MST is the "largest social movement in Latin America". DAVID ŠENEK 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) A quick google for brazil + "social movement" gives leads for children's rights, mental health, AIDS, and hunger, as well as the landlessness mentioned above. (2) Your girlfriend's WWOOF contacts are likely to be in contact with interesting things going on. You can try approaching them before your arrival, by email, phone or letter (with international reply coupons). If you have to go via the national or regional co-ordinators, remember that they are volunteers: donations to the organisation are not likely to be refused. (3) Are there any Brazilians where you live now? If not a community centre, then perhaps a restaurant? Go there at a quiet time and explain that you are doing research and would like to talk to people who can point you in the right direction. Buy drinks. Leave flyers. (4) Find Wikipedia articles that are relevant to your quest, and portals and projects too, and look at which editors have contributed recently and knowledgeably. Leave a brief polite note on their talk page explaining what you are seeking and ask them if you might email them with a more focussed query. (5) Contact any organisations (your university, union, place of worship, service organisation, pressure group, charity, etc.) of which you are already a member and ask for their Brazilian contacts or parallel organisations. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

British awards to French and Belgium Cities

I am seeking a list of British military decorations to French and Belgium cities in World War 1.

Note 2 in the article “Conspicuous Gallantry Cross” use to state, until I updated the article, that the award to the Royal Irish Regiment "is the first time this medal has been collectively awarded to a military unit, and only the third occasion that such a collective award has been bestowed (the others being the 1942 George Cross to Malta and the 1999 George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary)". The statement that this is the third occasion that such a collective award has been bestowed ignores awards of British military decorations to French and Belgium cities in World War 1. I do not have a complete list (I would appreciate one if someone does) but Ypres and Verdun were awarded the Military Cross and Dunkirk, which was a major naval base for the British in World War 1, was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. For the Military Cross award to the City of Verdun see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E07E0DB1F31E733A05757C1A96F9C946796D6CF Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Verb: to truffle

Is it possible to use the word "truffle" as a verb, as in: "Sean truffled down the pancakes" or similar? In my family is it well a word that we use in such a manner. ----Seans Potato Business 15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED does not recognize any such definition. The verbs they mention are the ones you would expect given the root meaning of the word. I have never personally heard this "truffle" of yours, but I don't get out much these days. I also can't think of a similar word that it might be a variant of. A few synonyms are gobble, scarf, and wolf. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: the French word truffer can mean something like "to stuff", "to overfill". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of how pigs stereotypically snort and gobble and snoffle and scoff their food. Pigs are used to sniff out truffles, and even though they don't get to eat them, being highly valued commercial products reserved for humans, I can see how "truffle" might have come to mean the actions of pigs. If that applies to your family, please accept this as my inability to accept your hypothetical invitation to come over and have a meal.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Burning heretics

Why was burning introduced in England in the fifteenth century as a punishment for heresy when it had not been the practice before this?81.152.108.51 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because Henry IV, a usurper, needed all the support he could get, especially from the church. The Church was worried by Lollardy; Henry was worried by rivalry. Thus it was that an alliance was formed between Church and State. It was through this door that De heretico comburendo made its entry into the law of England. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern front in the first world war

I read in a discussion on U Tube that the eastern front in the first world war was much more mobile than in the west, and that there was no trench warfare. Is this true? Evan Bates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan Bates (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The larger areas and smaller armies involved meant that any attempt to establish trench lines could be flanked. Trenches defending specific areas (like cities) or for specific battles could appear, but the years-long stalemate of the western front never developed. --Carnildo (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is wrong, Carnildo. Evan, following the Second Battle of the Masurian Lakes and the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive in 1915, the Russians abandoned the Polish salient, establishing a front to the east with a full system of entrenchments on exactly the same basis as those in the West. And thus it was that the Eastern Front remained largely static over huge sectors, until the collapse of 1917. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

National languages in Punjab Pakistan

According to your article "Punjab(Pakistan)", it says the main languages are Urdu, Punjabi, Hindko, Saraiki, Pashto and Baloch. I read the article Hindko before and it says that two districts speak Hindko in Punjab, but what about Saraiki, Pashto and Baloch? Which districts in Punjab speak Saraki? Which districts in Punjab speak Pashto? and which districts in Punjab speak Baloch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

National languages in Balochistan Pakistan

In your article Balochistan (Paksitan), it says that the main languages are Balochi, Urdu, Pashto and Brahui, but the questions are which districts in Balochistan speak Pashto, which districts in Balochistan speak Brahui? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles on the specific languages (Saraiki, Pashto, Baloch and Brahui) have some information on that. Pashto has a map with distributions of the two Iranian languages, Pashto and Balochi. The article on the Baloch people includes a map showing the areas where they live. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

National languages in North-West Frontier Province

In your article North-West Frontier Province, is says the main languages are Pashto, Khowar, Urdu, Hindko and Persian. In the article Hindko, it says that six districts speak the language in N.W.F.P, but what about Khowar and Persian? Which districts speak Kowar and which districts speak Persian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

National languages in SIndh

In your articles Sindh, it says that the main languages are Urdu, Pashto, Balochi, Saraiki, and English and Sindhi. Which districts speak Pashto? Which districts speak Balochi? and which districts speak Saraiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Tahir-ul Qadri

Does anybody know if Dr.Tahir-ul Qadri ever speak Punjabi or gave a lecture in Punjabi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All Souls

Could anyone tell me the name of the essay in which Joseph Addison, the eighteenth century English writer, says that native Americans believe that all creatures, animate and inanimate, have souls? Thank you. J T Bloom (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is from The Spectator No.56 (Friday, 4 May, 1717) - 'The Americans believe that all Creatures have Souls, not only Men and Women, but Brutes, Vegetables, nay even the most inanimate things, as Stocks and Stones. They believe the same of all the Works of Art, as of Knives, Boats, Looking-glasses: And that as any of these things perish, their Souls go into another World, which is inhabited by the Ghosts of Men and Women. For this Reason they always place by the Corpse of their dead Friend a Bow and Arrows, that he may make use of the Souls of them in the other World, as he did of their wooden Bodies in this.' Lord Foppington (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The essay is known as The Vision of Marraton. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find a it here: [11] Lord Foppington (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for that information. I'm developing an interest in English essays of the eighteenth and ninetenth centuries, dealing with factual and semi-factual topics; with ideas, social practices, moods, events and cultural attitudes. Can you recommend any work along these lines after Addison? J T Bloom (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There are so many, J T. I would suggest that you have a look at the work of Charles Lamb and William Hazlitt, who happens to be my personal favourite! Reader! Have you ever seen a fight? If not, you have a pleasure to come. You do, indeed, have a pleasure to come! Clio the Muse (talk)

Armenian troubles

what was cause of Armenian troubles in 1890s in Ottoman empire and how did government in Istanbul respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enver M (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Hamidian massacres of 1894-95? Or possibly the Armenian Genocide during World War I? --D. Monack | talk 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Armenian diaspora, disappointed by the outcome of the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, responded by forming a variety of organisations aiming at the independence of territories in Eastern Anatolia, held by the Ottoman Empire. Two of these organisations, the Hunchak and the Dashnak, espoused violence as a means towards this end. Even Turkish reprisals were welcome as a way of securing international attention. Because of the disorders in the eastern provinces, Sultan Abdul Hamid II raised Hamidiye irregular cavalry from among the Kurds to police the area, generally adding to the murderous confusion. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Screw-guns

Rudyard Kipling's poem "Screw-Guns" is about the titular screw-guns, extremely portable artillery pieces. Does Wikipedia have articles on the actual weapons or military units involved? --Carnildo (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RML 2.5 inch Mountain Gun.—eric 01:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a hatnote to screw gun. -Arch dude (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a social science journal for undergraduate students?

Is there a journal of the social sciences (particularly political science) that publishes undergraduate student research/papers? If one (or many) exists, how does the submission and review process work?

Thank you.

Renbelcher (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Renbelcher; I don't believe so; not in England, anyway. You should have a look at the submission process in some of the mainstream journals, usually to be found on the inside covers. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes; I should add that it is a really bad idea to send in papers cold. In the first place you should write to the commissioning editor, outlining the details of your work. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Many university undergraduate societies put out such journals. At my alma mater the undergraduate history journal was, amusingly, Clio's Scroll. There were undergrad political science journals there too, I imagine it must be pretty common elsewhere as well. If you're an undergrad now, you might consider consulting with your local university department to see if they have recommendations. That's probably the only area you're going to find journals looking for specifically undergraduate work. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also the name of the Cambridge University History Society - 6k. She gets around, she does! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If the paper is of sufficient quality, it should (ideally) not matter to an academic journal that the author happens to be a student. In this less than ideal world mediocre papers written by an established authority are more likely to be published than papers of the same quality authored by some unknown scholar.  --Lambiam 10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Though if one is going to try and get undergrad work published, it is usually important to run it by a professor in the field first and let them know if your intentions. They'll be able to say what sorts of things would need to be tightened up, fleshed out, added, etc. for it to be in the running. The main problem with undergraduate work is, of course, that undergraduates are not usually indoctrinated into the corpus of "important books and ideas" in a given discipline, and thus don't know how to adequately tie in their research with a preexisting set of concerns. In my experience, even very capable undergrads (at very fancy institutions) have not really learned how to write scholarly articles by the time they graduate (indeed, even very capable graduate students—myself included—need a little bit of practice at that before getting published). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the review (and revision) process is usually long enough that you'd need to have most of the paper worked out by sometime early in your junior year to have a hope of getting it accepted by the time you apply for grad schools which is an extremely high standard for most top undergraduates.--droptone (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglo Portuguese Alliance

Why did England and Portugal enter into a close alliance in 1386? Also is it true as your article on the Treaty of Windsor says that this is the oldest diplomatic alliance in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by H Bishop (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They had long been important trading partners and had an interest in mutual action against the Kingdom of Castile, a dangerous political rival for Portugal and the focus of the regal ambitions of John of Gaunt, brother of Edward III and uncle of Richard II. The Portuguese were also able to offer naval assistance to the English in the continuing struggles of the Hundred Year's War. It was on this basis that the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance was formed, confirmed in the Treaty of Windsor in 1386.

It would be truer to say that it is the longest lasting alliance in diplomatic history, H Bishop. The honour of being the oldest surely must go to the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France, first concluded in 1295. That particular bond was finally terminated in the sixteenth century. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

England and Portugal were also connected as far back as the 12th century, when English ships helped capture Lisbon, and an English monk became bishop of Lisbon. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As Clio knows but must have mistyped, John of Gaunt was the son of Edward III, brother of Edward, the Black Prince, and Uncle of Richard II. 194.36.2.233 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes; what a silly error! Yes, of course she knows! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April 6

a la Victor Frankl

Inspired by Victor Frankl, A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich, and even stories of people who made photographs, kept and developed film or watercolour sketches say, throughout their time in concentration camps, how did they preserve their material against all odds? Were there cases of camp supervisors who turned a blind eye or helped them to conceal their projects or were people with a purpose just determinedly clever at it? Is there an article on wikipedia? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head (i.e. from my day job): photodocumentation by Nazi-era ghetto and camp inmates, requiring the use of a camera, was far less common than artwork in media using available tools and materials. Some of the latter were improvised (e.g. sticks of charred wood, purloined paper, etc.), others supplied by camp staff in the case of recognized artists being exploited by their captors to produce decorative works, portraits, and even counterfeiting. There were two main ways of preserving the works (other than those extant at the time of a camp's liberation): smuggling them out with a sympathetic collaborator among the captors or fellow captives who succeeded in escaping, or hiding them in structures (under floorboards, recesses in walls, etc.) or buried in the ground. A good deal of documentation has been published in English, Hebrew, and assorted European languages, though not much seems to have made it (yet) to Wikipedia. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much Deborahjay. It would be good to see it in Wikipedia – because it's a kind of hidden achievement that would have cost lives and when you see examples iin a war memorial say, it's easy to underestimate what it took for that (or those) documents to be produced and preserved. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about history.

When was the war of 1812? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.44.178 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

About 1812 I think.--Artjo (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The War of 1812 as you might think, started in 1812 and according to our article lasted til 1815, although a peace treaty was signed in 1814. Mhicaoidh (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There were at least two big wars in 1812: Britain vs US and France vs Russia. Which one are you asking about? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nearly a quarter past six hotclaws 10:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ab urbe condita 2565

Armenian calendar 1261

ԹՎ ՌՄԿԱ

Bahá'í calendar -31

Berber calendar 2762

Buddhist calendar 2356

Burmese calendar 1174

Chinese calendar 4449/4509-11-28

(壬申年十一月廿八日)

Coptic calendar 1528

Ethiopian calendar 1804

Hebrew calendar 5572

Hindu calendars

- Vikram Samvat 1868

- Shaka Samvat 1735

- Kali Yuga 4914

Holocene calendar 11812

Iranian calendar 1191

Islamic calendar 1226/1227

Japanese calendar Bunka 9

(文化9年)

- Imperial Year Kōki 2472

(皇紀2472年)

Korean calendar 4145

Thai solar calendar 2355

HS7 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Graduate school admission criteria

What criteria is admission to a graduate school based on? The prestige of your undergraduate school? Your grades? Your GRE? I’m particularly interested in music composition PhD programs in Europe and the UK. How do schools like the Conservatoire de Paris judge an American applicant? (Don’t worry; I’m planning to talk with professors and others as well. I just wanted to hear your take on it.) Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for European schools but my own experience was importance placed on how interesting, challenging and far-reaching were the ideas in my proposal. (Oh I forgot, and the first that backed me up. So, yep, grad grade as well. Another thing was that I went to the competition who quite liked the idea of the uni I was from, by reputation. Looks like it's prestige as well. But there's nothing like what you have to offer them research-wise, I naively believe.) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For me it was essentially the same as applying to university as an undergraduate. We don't have GREs here so it was all based on marks (and I even took an extra year of easy classes as a part-time student after I graduated, to boost my average!). The biggest difference was that I was expected to know what sort of area I wanted to research, and it helped to contact professors before applying, and I had to take some tests to prove I knew various relevant languages. The prestige of the undergraduate school didn't have anything to do with (in Canada there are relatively few universities to begin with - there are "old" and "new" ones but they are all basically equal, in the end). For music, wouldn't you need to submit some sort of portfolio as proof of competency, or audition for them? I don't know about Europe but I think that was the case with people I know in music programs here. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure graduate programs like composition at the CNMSDP[12] actually confer Ph.D. degrees.  --Lambiam 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian questions

I have some questions about Russia after the revolution of 1917.

a) What were the political consequences of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk? b) Why did the Communists move the capital from Petrograd to Moscow? c) What form exactly did the railway war take? d) Why were the white armies so often violently anti-semitic? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.231 (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, taking them in turn, the answers to your questions are as follows;

• The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk caused serious divisions within the Bolshevik government, with Nikolai Bukharin heading the left opposition. The position taken by Lenin-that it was a necessary retreat-eventually prevailed, though, in fact, the retreat went further in more ways than he may have imagined. The acceptance of diplomatic and political reality meant the programme of world revolution lost all of its purity. Bit by bit Realpolitik would replace Revolution.

• The capital was moved to Moscow precisely because the territorial concessions of Brest-Litovsk brought the Germans dangerously close to Petrograd. This was another concession to strategic realities. Before the October Revolution the Bolsheviks had criticised the Provisional Government for considering such a move.

• The Railway or Eshelonia War is a term generally used to describe the opening stages of the Russian Civil War because there was no static front. The whole thing was fluid and mobile, the outcome of particular battles being determined by the movement of troops from here to there on the railroads.

• Well, for one thing the White Guard often-though not always-attracted those who already had some anti-Semitic inclinations, nurtured by such publications as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For another, much of the Bolshevik leadership had a Jewish background, fitting in with assumptions that the Revolution had been born of a Jewish conspiracy. The other factor is that a good many of the White troops were Cossacks, whose anti-Semitic passions went as far back as the time of the Khmelnytsky Uprising. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusing Kruger

What case can be made against Paul Kruger for starting the second Boer War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shako Z (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You should begin by analysing your pre-formed perception that "someone" "starts' a war. --Wetman (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the causes of wars are always complex, nowhere more so than with the Second Boer War, but if I were to draw up a prosecution case against Paul Kruger it would be formed as follows. His government denied basic political rights to the Uitlanders while taxing them heavily, using the money obtained to stockpile weapons of the latest design, purchased from such manufactures as Creusots and Krupps. This was not just for reasons of self-defence. In October 1899 he sent a telegram demanding the removal of British troops from the Transvaal borders within forty-eight hours, an ultimatum he knew the British would never accept. He then declared war and immediately launched offensive operations. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Portrait of a Lady

Hello, everybody. I've just finished reading Henry James "Portrait of a Lady" and am not quite sure what to make of it. Have any of you read it and what did you think? Dee Young (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like Henry James, but here goes. He's part of an artistic realism movement. His story illustrates the advantages of painting art from "reality", and how different art can be from reality at times. It's basically a disguised discussion of the philosophies behind realism. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I read The Portrait of a Lady last year, Dee, my first serious introduction to the work of Henry James. Did I enjoy it? Well, yes, I suppose I did; I certainly admired James' craftsmanship. More to the point, did I believe it; did I believe in the people he created? Here I have more difficulty. There was something so terribly cerebral and bloodless about the whole thing. I simply cannot conceive of people like Isobel and Gilbert existing in any real sense, outwith, it might be said, ghostly forms of Platonic consciousness. They are like icebergs, drifting to no particular end. I close the book, I turn away, and they are no longer there. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Serious Question

Something I have not done any real research on until now, but what were the Jews before Exodus? In the Bible it says they all worshiped idols and a large variety of different gods, which prompted Moses to go up to the mountain and come back with the Ten Commandments. They can't have been 'Jews' as we know the term today, so was it just the name of a particular tribe living in the area (i.e. 'nationality' in modern terms) and the religion (as we know it) came about on the way out of Egypt? --ChokinBako (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

They were the Hebrews, the ancestors of the Israelites, the forerunners of the Jewish People. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did all the different names originate? And why are there no Egyptian records whatsoever of this mass exodus of slaves? --ChokinBako (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The answers to the origin of the terms are largely to be found in the links given by Captain RD.

There is very little undisputed evidence on the historical factuality of the major part of the Torah / Pentateuch. Until an Egyptologist / Biblical scholar / modern day Maimonides wanders past this question you may want to check the references above. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance at the above links yields a lot of information, and it might be hard to make sense of it all, so I shall attempt a summary for you, ChokinBako. Firstly, the Israelites were not idolators prior to the Exodus and Moses's ascent up Mt Sinai, which is why their construction of the golden calf was seen in such a bad light: they had wilfully turned their back on a God who had displayed his faithfulness to them. In order to understand this (and the use of the differing terms) we need to backtrack a little.

The pre-history in the early part of Genesis shows a number of faithful men interacting with God (eg Adam, Abel, Noah, Enoch). One of these is Shem, a son of Noah. God's blessing lay on Shem, and his descendents (see Gen 9:26): the Shemites or Semites. A later descendant of these, Eber, gives rise to the term "Hebrew" (ie. descendant of Eber). The story gains impetus in Gen 12 with the calling of Abraham, and the original covenant between God and man (hence Old Covenant → Old Testament in Christian thought). Basically, this covenant between God and Abraham (on behalf of his descendants) was that God would be their God, and Abraham's descendents would be His people. With the covenant comes a birth of a people, the "sons of Abraham". He was known as "Abraham the Hebrew", and thus that name is also used for the people, particularly during their exile in Egypt.

But before we get there, Abraham has a son Isaac, and Isaac two sons, Esau and Jacob (Gen 25). Jacob is given a second name: "Israel". Jacob, in turn, has twelve sons: the ancestors of the "twelve Tribes of Israel". It is the 11th son Joseph (of technicolour coat fame) who first goes to Egypt; the rest of the family join him there, and over time the family (the Hebrews/sons of Abraham/Semites) become oppressed and legislated into slavery. But God remembers his people and call them out of Egypt: we see the plagues, the first passover, and the escape through the Red Sea, into the wilderness, where the Hebrews forget God's faithfulness and provision and build themselves an idol to while away the time while Moses is climbing mountains. Moses gains the Law of God (more than just the Ten Commandments), but the relationship had been there prior to that.

And so, the People of God move on into Canaan (interestingly, Canaan was a grandson of Noah, through Ham), where they conquer a nation and create "Israel" the country for "Israel" the people. Skipping ahead through various political activities, Israel is split into two kingdoms: Israel and Judah (after one of the sons of Abraham). Israel collapses, and Judah is left: the Jews. Judah eventually metamorphises, through various conquered and assimilated incarnations, into the Roman province of Judea, in which Jesus was born.

A rather potted history, but I hope it helps. As to your second question about historical authenticity, that opens up another large debate, which has kept academics busy for many years! If I get a chance, and no one else answers in the meantime, I will hunt out some sources for you. Gwinva (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct name for the above is historicised narrative. It should not be taken as history, no matter how it presents itself. The Egyptian name-element Moses, "son of" as in Thutmose, is discussed at Moses#Moses' name, but you'll have to read with critical attention (as you should always). --Wetman (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. A lot of information there. I know about the name Moses being possibly of an Egyptian root 'msw', meaning 'born of' or 'birth', hence 'son of'. I studied Ancient Egyptian history and language, and that is why I am interested in this particular story. However, I would never call myself an Egyptologist! I don't knwo that much. :) --ChokinBako (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am no Egytologist in any form but it is, indeed, intriguing. I agree entirely with Wetman that all history (as everything else) should be read critically. Historical record is of necessity selective: it is impossible to write down everything. Men choose to record certain things for a purpose; they are influenced by politics, faith, self-aggrandisement, greed. They make mistakes, misinterpret, record hearsay, or – sometimes – deliberately mislead. Only some of what they record survives. And it is not always recorded in the same manner. Some narrative is historicised; some history is told through narrative. Dry facts are listed in some documents, others use poetry to portray deep truths. I wonder if, in the future, some will debate the historicity of The Silmarillion, or suspect that the WWII movies are cultural fantastical inventions. What I wrote above was from a literary/cultural angle, in an effort to trace terms; it begins with the story-based pre-history narratives, and ends with easily-attested historical fact. Where the one merges into the other is the cause of much debate. But narrative (of any kind) is not to be ignored: historical truth is more than minutes of what occured, but also covers thoughts, ideas, morals, culture, theology, philosophy, folk-lore, sociology. But, I digress.

The problem with establishing the historicity of Exodus is that it is not written as a historical record, but rather a theological text. It fits within history but does not set out to record it. And there is little evidence to prove it. That said, a number of attempts have been made to place it in context, and there is nothing, either, to disprove it. Perhaps it happened just as recorded; perhaps it happened on a smaller scale, or in a slightly different manner, or perhaps the story represents something else. If you are interested in slotting the narrative into a historical period, then The Exodus covers a few theories, but as one commentary has it: "no case is any more convincing than the case for the later date most frequently proposed, at the beginning of the nineteenth dynasty of Egypt (with Seti I as the Pharaoh of the oppression, Raamses II as the Pharaoh of the exodus, and Merneptah as the Pharaoh of Israel’s early forays into Canaan)" Durham, J. I. 2002. Vol. 3: Word Biblical Commentary : Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary . Word, Incorporated: Dallas – Gwinva (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends whether you are asking this as a theological, or a historical perspective. If the former, then I can't help you, if the latter, then, in my opinion, nothing remotely resembling the story of Exodus ever happened. The Egyptian state never kept any quantity of Jewish slaves, the biblical Moses never existed, modern-day Israel was not settled by a migratory people from Egypt at any point in this period of history, and God certainly didn't give said people a set of ten commandments. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Build the Titanic magazine

Hey all, a magazine came out in 2001 called build the titanic. It was published by Hachette publications. At the time I was too young to build it properly, I was just wondering if anybody knew where I could get all of the issues from, that is numbers 1-100. Will the company be able to sell them to me? --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is almost no information on the net about ordering back issues. Strange. But someone is selling all 100 issues with "only the first few ... opened" on ebay, but you'd have to pick it up from the United Kingdom. link Additionally, this site gives the publishers contact details as email: Titanic@jacklinservice.com, tel: 0870 920 1138 D0762 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The OP lives in London, UK (not the one in Ontario), so picking the stuff up in Essex, UK (not the one in Massachusetts) may be OK :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Beware though, it's a premium number (0870) so it'll cost you 50p a minute. Best email him. --ChokinBako (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"From his cold dead hands"

The death of Charlton Heston (famous, among other things, for claiming that the government would need to pry his right to bear arms "from my cold, dead hands") has gotten me thinking about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and its real role in the 20th century, particularly in the interpretations about the right of the private individual to bear arms (and specifically not in reference to the question about having a well-regulated militia, etc.). I have been trying to think about ways in which the right to bear arms has really been beneficial in modern times. I admit to not being able to come up with anything plausible.

It does not seem to have guaranteed a government that respects its people. Indeed, the US government seems to have felt quite free over the last 100 years to spy on dissidents of all stripes, suspend basic concepts of justice when it saw fit, to rather explicitly undermine the intention and will of the electorate, and so forth. At one point it even saw fit to round up a large group of its people and send them to internment camps, the textbook fear of government intervention. The right to a possession of arms seems to have deterred it not one bit at any point. And even those sub-groups who did attempt to resist the government with force—here I think of the Black Panthers, the religious cultists, etc.—found nothing but more deadly force thrown at them from the other side. Whether these things were justified or not does not matter for my thinking on this, the point is that their being armed got them the opposite of leniency.

And what of crime? The US does quite poorly when it comes to crime rates, with a homicide rate some five times the level of other Western countries. Our gun possession seems not to have made criminals more wary, our streets any safer, our schools any safer. I won't bother trying to parse out whether they have made them more dangerous—there is a strong argument there—but even from the question of just making them safer, the guns don't seem to have helped. Yes, there is occasionally the story of some homeowner serving as judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to defending their property from the rare invader, but other than providing some sort of psychological benefit I don't see the free availability of arms as having much of an actual deterrent effect for crime. It seems telling to me that the areas known for high possession of weapons are also known for their high crime rates; even without getting into causality questions, I think it is clear that the presence of privately owned guns does not lower crime rates by itself, which is all I am trying to point to here.

(Of course, there is also hunting for sport and pleasure. I have nothing against it, but by itself it seems a feeble argument for free ownership of all manners of weapons.)

If not those two main things, the common arguments, then what can be said for it? I solicit your thoughts and opinions. I am not wedded to my views. And this is not meant to be a soapbox rant, and I am not trying to spark a "debate" per se. Let us proceed in the spirit of open inquiry, assuming good faith and all that—I have tried (albeit at length, I apologize) to take you through my reasoning, and I'm interested in your takes of it, whether you find it plausible. Even if you find it reprehensible, I am interested to hear specifically why. Thank you. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed soapboxing invitation to debate. See talk. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored question. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to tidy up some of the language/examples and cite more explicitly some of the things I was indicating, should anyone be confused of the sorts of things I am referring to. Hopefully this will make more clear that I am not trying to be specifically inflammatory. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's regretable, Captain, that your inquiry was removed, because I believe it raises important philosophical and moral issues, issues which can be adressed on an empirical basis. Anyway, that is how I intend to tackle the matter.

As a specialist in the political struggles of seventeenth century England, of Whigs and Tories and Revolution, I have always had a great respect for the American Constitution, particularly for the Bill of Rights, which seems to me to be a clear and rational summary of a hundred years of English thought and experience! Now, I know that the Constitution is malleable and that it has been amended from time to time; but there is, nevertheless, a tendency to treat the early parts almost as if they had been cast in tablets of stone on Mount Sinai itself. I would say that, in the context of the times, the Second Amendment, was absolutely necessary; an essential democratic right of citizens, many of whom lived, or came to live, on a dangerous frontier. But there is the rural and frontier America of the 1790s and the complex urban society of today; a society where the right to bear arms has, in many respects, turned in on itself, representing a danger to the peace, safety and well-being of most ordinary citizens.

More than that, there are issues about the kind of arms that people have a right to bear: the musket of the eighteenth century has given way to the automatic rifle; to weapons that cannot be justified for either self-defence or for hunting. It is a tragic fact that outrage after outrage has now become the weary corollary of a basic constitutional right. Is there an answer? I genuinely do not know. There are, however, powerful vested interests at work, which might very well serve to undermine the operation of democracy itself. I can offer no answers, merely lodge yet another question. Perhaps the time has come for new forms of moral authority, for a new style of leadership and direction, and-dare I say it-for a new Bill of Rights? Clio the Muse (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cold, dead hands"? It is outrageous to make a joke here about the death of an old man. I tried to remove this abominable trolling once, but some self-appointed guardian of whatever restored it. Let's hope that Mr. Heston's family and friends never see this. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As shown in the removal of this question, it is very difficult to find a question in the barrage of inflammatory opinions. I am left simply guessing that the "question" is "What is the purpose of the right to bear arms?" That isn't specifically asked. In fact, no question is specifically asked. So, I will answer that question...

The right to bear arms is not intended as a right to carry or own weapons of any particular kind. It is a right to self-defense. There are many examples, not only in history but in the modern world, where the public does not have the right to defend itself from the government. There are also many examples in which this right is given. In many cases, it is just as poorly worded as you can see in right to bear arms. -- kainaw™ 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, what I've read of the American Constitution it doesn't actually expressly permit the possession of handguns for everyone. It says that "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.". This seems to me (and admittedly I'm no Constitutional lawyer, I'm not even a US citizen) to essentially say "guns aren't going to be illegal, because the police, the National Guard and the army will need them". It never expressly says "anyone can own a gun". 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the Second Amendment is not clear, as our article explains. Some interpret the amendment to confer an individual right to bear arms; others believe that the right is only for members of a militia. While I think that the wording suggests the latter, in fact some courts in the United States have taken the former interpretation. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed a question, at the beginning of the questioner's last paragraph: "If not ... the common arguments, then what can be said for it?" It seems to me that very little can be said for it, except that it is a venerable tradition—perhaps a dysfunctional one, as the questioner and Clio suggest. It remains because it has become a matter of faith for its proponents, who believe that it is a safeguard against tyranny, though the questioner cites several cases that suggest otherwise. Contrary to Kainaw's suggestion, the amendment does not confer the right to defend oneself physically against the government. No such right exists, merely the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is not a defense against charges of assaulting agents of the government such as police officers. Such assaults typically bring greater penalties in the United States than other cases of assault. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite a lot can be said for the right to bear (reasonable) arms. I'm not going to make the case for automatic weapons, enormous hand-cannons or RPGs, but generally the government should accept the choices of the individual. It should be difficult to get guns, illegal guns should be very heavily punished and it should be compulsory to lock the guns up, seperately from the ammunition etc etc. But people should be responsible enough to not go round killing each other. It's a very difficult question because of the obvious correlation between gun ownership and homicide/gun crime in the USA. But AFAIK the Swiss have a large number of firearms per head and very low crime rates. So there is perhaps an underlying social problem or a dangerous attitute of carelessness to the ownership of incredibly deadly weapons. Possessing a gun to hunt for sport should be perfectly legal, and there are numerous shooting events at the Olympics which suggests that shooting can be a peaceful pasttime. As horribly cliched as it is; "guns don't kill people...". ut at the same time, it takes a person to kill someone with a gun. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question to the people who say the 2nd amendment only covers the nation guard and police. How can the constitution only grant that right to police and the national guard? you dont grant rights to part of the establishments. police and national guard aren't "the people". "The People" are ordinary citizens not groups authorized by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.108.39 (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an interesting essay here on claims that gun control (or religion) has killed 56 million people. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a much-debated topic as far as I'm aware. The definition of militia and the purposes for which the right to bear arms was written are contentious to say the least. But I take the view that as the police force in the modern sense didn't exist at the time and often local law enforcement may have been a town militia sort of thing, self-regulated and not really attached to the government, just set up to uphold the laws by "the People". The changes in law enforcement and the ability of a government to effectively police the population mean that perhaps the second Amendment should be interpreted more strictly. And Captain Ref Desk, I'm not denying that there were some major flaws in Bush's election to office, but he did win on the electoral college which is the system the Constituion provides for in order to represent the will of the people. Just a thought. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the 2nd had exactly zero impact upon gun control legislation in the 20th century. "No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds." (see the fourth paragraph of this section) According to the courts, and as far as the private individual was concerned, there was no right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution. Y'all really should wait until June to talk of repealing amendments (and in Clio's case presumably reinstating a monarchy and quartering redcoats in our homes, or some such.) Captain, that looks to be a somewhat rickety soapbox you're standing on, maybe you could rephrase?—eric 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

no matter the outcome of that case i have strong doubts that the 2nd amendment will be repealed

america loves guns theres no doubt about that. we have more guns than any other nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.108.39 (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As Mr Heston's self-reported case of Alzheimers progressed since 2002 to its conclusion , did he maintain "hands-on" control of his firearms collection until they pried the guns from "his cold dead hands?" Edison (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. after the American Revolution there were state militias but little or no national army. There was deep suspicion of the power of a tyrant to abuse the states and their citizens. The wording of the Second Amendment appears to be a statement of the rights of the states to maintain militias to prevent federal abuses, and in fact for the town to have a militia to limit abuses by the state government. That is literally what it says "a well regulated militia." This is a militia which has muster rolls and which drills. Edison (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Central powers and the March Revolution in Russia

How did they respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodeee (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The initial response was quite cautious, as there was no indication that the Russian army was ready to give up arms. Continuing operations by the Central Powers were also made difficult by the spring thaw. Towards the end of March the German High Command announced that they were discontinuing further large-scale campaigning for the time being. However, seemingly acting on his own initiative, Alexander von Linsingen, commanding German and Austrian troops on the Stokhod River, began an attack on the Russian bridgehead in early April. The success was immediate, the Russians driven back across the river, and some 10,000 prisoners taken.

The Battle of the Stokhod Bridgehead had interesting political consequences. The Germans, fearful that the fighting spirit of the Russian soldiers might be revived, issued what was in effect an apology via the neutral press! The Moscow Soviet blamed 'traitors in high places' for the unexpected and sudden reverse, while others drew attention to the relaxation of discipline within the army. Aware of these debates and divisions the Germans realised that propaganda and subversion were going to be the most effective weapons in the east. It was with this in mind that plague bacillus was injected into the heart of Russia. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Child law

Hello, I am a university student and have a piece of Child Law coursework to complete.

The question is; 'How has the concept of the child changed over time, and how has this been reflected in Child Law?'

I have read through the Child article on wikipedia, and one of the questions below concerning the changing concept of the child, but I'm still not sure how to approach the question.

So far I have looked at the work of Aries, and criticised his approach, but I am finding it particularly hard to find journal articles or books which are really of any use, nothing seems to be concise. I am also finding it difficult to find llterature relating to how we currently view children, which I presume is as the possesser of individual rights, as rational human beings capable of decision making.

Also for the second half of the question I have no idea what to focus upon. I was thinking about focusing on Parental responsibility, inline with the idea children are vulnerable and need looking after, but aside from that I would very much appreciate some guidance.

Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.1.128 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The link for the other ref desk exchange is[13] in case anyone's wondering. Hi 86.1.1, have you seen our article Convention on the Rights of the Child? Fwiw, the concept of the child changes as the concept of what is human changes afaik that's the background. Apart from altruism, there's group consolidation – reducing stress for children and protecting them from exploitation and hunger is likely to produce socially competent adults for any group that cares for the children among them. I guess that's the hoped-for outcome. The rise in the status of the child ideally prepares the group for a better quality of leadership and provides better functioning members, but I don't have material to point you to. I like your focus on adult responsibility to the child because even though children have rights (such as to shelter, nurture, food, clothing, education) it needs legislating for, given that laws are needed for people who wouldn't be nice to others, otherwise. I take it by the idea of "rational human beings capable of decision making", you mean "in the scope of childhood" which is still the immature, socially powerless human, preparing to be the adult who can drive, sign contracts, work for pay etc. Even though many rights are breached routinely, there is recourse when rights are enshrined in the laws and their development. As for children's competency, there's a distinction between capability and culpability and where final responsibility lies which is with the more powerful: parents, guardians or the government. The increasing regard of children as human individuals with choices rather than property or labour is tested all the time by wars, economic conditions and human nature, so Governments just have to agree to throw more resources into what children need, but politicians are not naturally long-term thinkers and require lots of lobbying or as in the case of the UN, peer pressure is applied. Apols if this is too much beside the point, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Make Money off your land

What are some ways someone could make their money on their land? I prefer things that don't involve the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend planting ash trees and later selling them to make masts for tall ships. --Wetman (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends entirely on what sort of land you have, how it is developed (if at all), and where it is located. Undeveloped land can obviously be planted in trees for timber, but you won't see any money for over 10 years while the trees grow to maturity. The same land could be planted in fruit or nut trees. Again, you'd see no money for several years while the trees matured, but then you'd enjoy an annual yield (after deducting costs for labor, fertilizer, irrigation, and taxes). You could also plant the land in annual crops (also deducting costs) and, assuming the land is well managed and the weather cooperates, see a yield this coming autumn. Alternatively, you could rent the land to a tenant farmer. If your land is developed, you can rent the property to a residential or commercial tenant, depending on the type of development and its location. Marco polo (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all of the above. Depends what type of land you have. If you don't like the internet, and it depends where you live, there's agistment, you could run chickens, grow veges or hay, store heavy machinery on it or simply lease it to other people who might want to. A leaflet or an ad in the local paper should do it. Some people sell off bits of their land (subdivision), others turn it into a waste centre depending how much land you have. If you're in a city, you can rent garages for cars on it. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You could get companies to rent space on the land, say $100 sq/yrd, and you will put a billboard/plaque on the ground facing the sky on that bit of space advertising the company. This would only be seen from the air, so would not disrupt the beauty of the countryside like standing billboards do. This is a novel idea, similar to the Million Dollar Homepage, and may attract a lot of attention, hence revenue. One more thing, I know you said that you don't want it to involve the internet, but if you did this I can guarantee you'd be all over Google Earth and Google Maps. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, you can be paid not to grow tobacco. I've always wondered how that worked. Corvus cornix_talk 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit convoluted but, in my understanding, farm subsidies are to help keep farms from going bankrupt when there's a surplus of product (as well as keep prices stable). For instance, let's say tobacco has been overproduced the last few years: there's simply too much on the market to sustain it at current prices. If we let the free market take over, farms will fail because they can't pay their bills, and suddenly there are far fewer farms producing it. That leads to a product shortage, as the few farms can't keep up with demand, and the old farms which shut down are unable to start up again due to their loss of money. New farms can step in, but it's a hefty investment. Eventually (luck willing) either new farms step in to help with the demand, or big farming companies usurp the failed farms to take over production. Production goes up… then the product gets overproduced again. And the entire market bounces around like a chihuahua on crack.

Instead, the government pays a few farms to not produce tobacco, which means there is less product on the market; but those farms now still have income, so they won't go out of business. Once the market stabilizes, the farms will be able to continue production, leading to a more stable market.

Of course, there are many, many problems with this model, but that's the basic gist. -- Kesh (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 7

Saints Lives

So, I know there are websites which collect texts, like the Internet Sacred Text Archive, Project Gutenberg, and Early Christian Writings. Is there anywhere where I could find something like these for Lives of Saints, or at least a list of Vitae and their authors? 138.192.86.254 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also; I know I mentioned Early Christian Writings, which has a few, but I'm looking for medieval saints, particularly the women. I have some names already, but I figure that I must be missing a lot. 138.192.86.254 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My first google hit (search for list vitae saints –curriculum) came up with this: Hagiography Database WikiJedits (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's only the 8th-10th centuries, though, and very few women. 138.192.86.254 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this Jimi Hendrix song

what ios the title of this song Play here [http://www.last.fm/music/Jimi+Hendrix/_/House+of+the+Rising+Sun ] i know it says its "House of the Rising Sun" but i cant find anything on wikipeda about jimi writing a song called "House of the Rising Sun" nor can i find any information on what album said song is from and if its not a Hendrix song who is the performer?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.108.39 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hendrix certainly didn't write the song; our article states that it's a traditional and oft-covered folk tune. According to LastFM, it's from an extraordinarily (and I suspect mediocre) Hendrix 2-disc compilation called A Musical Legacy. I searched for it on Amazon and a couple other places and found nothing. The most interesting thing I did find was an article discussing stating how much garbage there is floating around out there Hendrix's name on it:

"WARNING WARNING WARNING: There are lots of records with Jimi Hendrix listed on the cover that aren't Jimi Hendrix records at all. Some are recordings he played on as a sideman for Curtis Knight or Little Richard in 1964-1965, songs like "Sweet Thing," "Gloomy Monday." There are many, many songs included on these records that Hendrix doesn't appear on at all ("Odd Ball," "Whoa Ech," "Hang On Sloopy," "House Of The Rising Sun")."

I'm not sure that's the case with the recording you linked to, but you can read more about Hendrix's vast recorded oeuvre here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Try House of the Rising Sun. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus in the Bible

Whatpercentage, roughly, of the Bible is quotes of Jesus? Direct quotes of hima talking? Is there a site that has a list of verses that are Jesus rather than Paul's letters or somebody else or whatever? Do the others in the Bible ever contradict Jesus' words? Thanks a lot 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, by Bible, you mean the New Testament, right? Since he's not mentioned ever in the Old. Neal (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Depends on whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, as some denominations do. I'm guessing the questioner is just talking New Testament, though. 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, so it's clearly not what the authors of the Old Testament thought. But more of what the readers thought. Neal (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Or you can believe that it is what God thought... What does this have to do with the question? Wrad (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you can believe that's what the authors thought God thought. Nothing. Neal (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

OK, the New Testament. But I'd quite like the stats including the Old testament, too. Christians use that with as much authority, but surely the teaching of Jesus overrule what camebefore him. Is this how it's treated? How much of Christian thought is directly derived from quotes of Jesus? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say all of the quotes of Jesus attributes to Christian thought. Neal (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

There are fairly widely-distributed Bibles that have words directly quoted from Jesus printed in red; why not just flip through one of those editions, and see directly how much of the New Testament is printed in red? AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Even there it's not clear-cut. Many red-letter Bibles (as they're called) also print the words attributed to Jesus in Revalation in red letters. Very chancy, that. And I'm not going near the attempt of the Jesus Project to guess which recorded words were really his! -- BPMullins | Talk 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are 181,253 words in the NT. That's a start... Christ's teachings do overrule what came before, for most Christians. I really don't know how to answer that last question. Do you mean percentag-wise? If you believe in direct revelation from God to his prophets, then the words of the prophets are the same as the words of God himself, because they were given to the Prophets directly from God. This makes these calculations tricky. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand it's a difficult question. The percentage thing I only meant as a rough estimate of a figure, if anyone knows. If you assume that as Jesus was the last prophet, and was God Himself, then everything he said is really the final word. If someone who via direct revelation said something which Jesus later contradicts, Jesus is right every time. Taking this view, how consistent are Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy with the direct teachings of Christ? How much of Church law was decided later, conflicts with Jesus or is based on pre-Christ direct revelation? I hope that makes sense 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There are only four books telling specifically of Jesus' life - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - and I would say no more than a third of them are actually Jesus quotes (and I'm being generous there). There are sporadic quotes through the rest of the new testament, but not much. I would *guess* (note - guess!) that the number wold be of a 1% sort of magnitude. Steewi (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Jesus is a "prophet" is actually more Muslim terminology than Christian... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You could find one of those red letter Bibles, and just copy out the red bits. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an online version: http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/JBPRed.htm. I think you can skip the Book of Revelation.  --Lambiam 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a program to grab a red-letter Bible from here and count up all the red bits, and got the numbers below. --Sean 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NT                  Words             Characters
Total             190,791                965,223
Jesus              41,985 (22.0%)        210,678 (21.8%)

Mat                 Words             Characters
Total              25,073                126,317
Jesus              13,704 (54.7%)         69,605 (55.1%)

Mark                Words             Characters
Total              16,045                 80,323
Jesus               5,474 (34.1%)         27,591 (34.4%)

Luke                Words             Characters
Total              27,425                136,744
Jesus              12,482 (45.5%)         62,864 (46.0%)

John                Words             Characters
Total              20,180                 99,601
Jesus               8,121 (40.2%)         39,483 (39.6%)

Acts                Words             Characters
Total              25,732                131,598
Jesus                 489 ( 1.9%)          2,482 ( 1.9%)

Rev                 Words             Characters
Total              12,569                 62,683
Jesus               1,715 (13.6%)          8,653 (13.8%)

Here's the program in case anyone's interested. --Sean 19:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

use HTML::Parser ();
use strict;

sub commafy
{
    my $exp = shift;
    return scalar reverse join ',', grep /./, split /(...)/, reverse $exp;
}

my $in_jesus_talk;
my $in_verse;
my $prev_tag;
my $total_chars;
my $total_words;
my $jesus_chars = 0;
my $jesus_words = 0;

sub start
{
    my ($tag, $attr) = @_;
    if ($prev_tag = 'p' && $tag eq 'a' && $attr->{class}
        && $attr->{class} eq 'verse')
    {
        $in_verse = 1;
    }
    elsif ($in_verse && $tag eq 'font' && $attr->{color}
           && $attr->{color} eq 'red')
    {
        $in_jesus_talk = 1;
    }
    $prev_tag = $tag;
}

sub end
{
    my $tag = shift;
    if ($in_jesus_talk && $tag eq 'font')
    {
        $in_jesus_talk = 0;
    }
    elsif ($in_verse && $tag eq 'p')
    {
        $in_verse = 0;
    }
}

sub text
{
    my $text = shift;
    if ($in_verse)
    {
        $text =~ s/\s+/ /g;
        my $num_chars = length $text;
        my @num_words = split ' ', $text;
        my $num_words = @num_words;

        $total_chars += $num_chars;
        $total_words += $num_words;

        if ($in_jesus_talk)
        {
            $jesus_chars += $num_chars;
            $jesus_words += $num_words;
        }
    }
}

my $p = HTML::Parser->new( api_version => 3,
                           start_h => [\&start, "tagname, attr"],
                           end_h   => [\&end,   "tagname"],
                           text_h  => [\&text,  "text"]);
for (@ARGV)
{
    $p->parse_file($_);
}

exit unless $jesus_words;

printf "%-10s          Words             Characters\n"
     . "Total          %10s             %10s\n"
     . "Jesus          %10s (%4.1f%%)     %10s (%4.1f%%)\n\n",
     ucfirst($ENV{BOOK}), commafy($total_words), commafy($total_chars),
     commafy($jesus_words), 100 * $jesus_words/$total_words,
     commafy($jesus_chars), 100 * $jesus_chars/$total_chars;

Wow, Sean, thank you, that's incredible! If I knew anything about computer code I'd probably ask why you decided to do a specific thing but instead I'll just say thank you for your technowizardry! Nice one. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The red text in the Book of Revelation does not consist of words allegedly spoken by Jesus while on Earth. This is about what was revealed to the author in a vision: I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, ....  --Lambiam 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

US and free markets

The US is based on free-market principles and the overwhelming majority of politicians in America advocate free markets. How truthful is the American government to these stated economic beliefs? It seems to often advocate protectionist poices such as tariffs and obviously there's political funding from business. On a scale of 1 to 10, how free market is the US? 1 being China under Mao, and 10 being some insanely near-anarchistic libertarian skeleton government. Or even more extreme at each end, perhaps. Thanks in advance 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The United States is based on a Mixed economy, comprising both free-market and social policies, which would put it at about a 5 to a 7 on your scale. While it was more of a free-market in the beginning, obvious problems arose such as Standard Oil, Company towns and government corruption like the Tammany Hall ring under Boss Tweed. This led to more regulation of business and government, plus the desire for more social programs on the part of many citizens.

The short version is that a pure free-market economy begets corruption and abuse of workers, so the US came to implement some regulation and social programs to help compensate, while keeping industry as free as possible. There's still debate as to what the proper balance is but, overall, it seems to have stabilized for the most part. -- Kesh (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There have certainly been tariffs since the beginning of the United States. The Hamilton tariff was the second statute ever enacted. Tariffs were a major issue in early American politics, the Tariff of 1828, so-called "Tariff of Abominations" being perhaps the most famous. For more see Tariff in American history. I don't think it is accurate to say the US government is "based" on free-market principles. Pfly (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps not based on free-market principles, but it certainly has "freedom of enterprise". How far has the US historically taken this freedom? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy

What countries have a very high rate of using renewable energy as a percentage of their energy consumption? 220.244.104.213 (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy in Iceland provides for over 70% of their total usage. --Sean 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And according to this factsheet (which leaves off Iceland), Sweden, Finland, Austria and Portugal all top 10 per cent. It's EU data only. This page estimates 6 per cent of global energy use is renewables. WikiJedits (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brazil uses a lot of biofuel from sugarcane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of poor countries use wood, charcoal, animal dung, etc. as the main domestic fuel source, and not exclusively in rural areas. Of course, this does not mean that the forests are harvested sustainably, but they are in theory renewable. Draft animals still plough the fields in Romania, on the edge of the European Union. People (mostly women) still hoe the fields by hand in Kenya. If by "energy" you mean "electricity", that is a different question. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! 220.244.104.4 (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet and Palestine

Both regions have been occupied by an outside force, and their homelands have been deliberately flooded with foreigners in order to make them minorities in their own land... how come one of them is loved yet the other is hated? Why do the poor have to suffer for the rich?--Goon Noot (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Which one is loved and which one is hated? (Not everyone loves Tibet and not everyone hates Palestine, if that's what you mean.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some would say that any difference might be due to the fact that Tibetans don't make a habit of blowing up random Chinese women and children in suicide attacks in the streets and pizza parlors of Beijing and Shanghai... AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the main reason the Palestinians are loved while the Tibetan separatists are hated in China is because the Dalai Lama represents a feudal and religious system contrary to the Communist ideology - and his vision for a "Greater Tibet" would see one quarter of Chinese territory, including large portions of the historical Chinese heartland, divided from the rest of China and incorporated into an "autonomous" Greater Tibet.

By contrast, Palestine and China have given each other mutual support over the last 50 years, especially as both struggled to be recognised by the international community until China's admission to the UN in the 1970s.

Confused? It's all about perspective. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect many people (perhaps most) who cry "free Tibet" do not realizing they are supporting a feudal theocracy. I suppose it would be better than Chinese oppression, but it's still a little weird. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that the Tibetans themselves understand. Almost any form of feudalism may very well be a more attractive option than rule by those gangsters in Beijing! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying "Free Tibet" is not the same thing as saying "Restore conditions in Tibet to exactly those that existed in 1950". I don't think that most of the Tibetans living in exile dream of restoring theocracy and feudalism to their homeland. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think AnonMoos' point is fair: the Palestinians have never rallied around a Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Dalai Lama who had the patience and courage to win through non-violence. Of course, the Dalai Lama seems unlikely to win anytime soon, but that's where the patience comes in. The Palestinians are certainly in a much better position for non-violence to succeed than the Tibetans are, due to Israel's dependent relationship with the liberal democracies. --Sean 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an important point, I think. To many Westerners, Tibet is seen as a peaceful nation being oppressed by a larger, more war-like nation. Palestine, on the other hand, is seen as a war-hungry nation attacking an ally that wants to be left alone in peace. Note that neither assumption is truly correct with regards to the situation, but the popular perceptions fall along those lines. -- Kesh (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

China is not a force external to Tibet, Chinese dynasties have controlled Tibet on-and-off for centuries and only lost control during the 'century of shame' when European Imperialists challenged the sovereignty of the Chinese Empire on every front. And in regards to modern settlement, there is very little active encouragement on behalf of the Beijing government to bring Han Chinese into Tibet, you could hardly call it 'being flooded'. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isidor?

Who is the Isidor that Goebbels was forever harping on about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bernhard Weiss, the Jewish Berlin police chief (and not this Bernhard Weiss). Since most of the info on Google seems to come from the Institute for Historical Review and other such nonsense, I'll leave it to others to point you in a better direction! Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, thanks. But why did he call him Isidor if his name was Bernhard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further Googling, this book gives the reason ("Isidor" means "gift of Egypt" and the Jews came from Egypt, etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You only have to glance through the pages of Der Angriff to see just how relentless Joseph Goebbels' onslaught was on poor old Dr Weiss. And it was also highly effective, producing just the reaction that he wanted. The little Doctor, described by one of his own party comrades, as a 'poisonous dwarf', was the kind of man whose vile provocations were best ignored. But Weiss, a fairly typical example, in many ways, of the humourless Prussian bureaucrat, was forever taking him and Der Angriff to court over their merciless libels. In every case he was awarded damages and costs, just as the circulation of Der Angriff-and membership of the Berlin NSDAP-went up and up. On one occasion the paper published a cartoon by Hans Schweitzer-who went by the pen name of Mjölnir-in which Weiss is depicted as a donkey. Once again Goebbels was summoned to court, and once again found liable. The following day Der Angriff appeared with banner headlines-"JUDGE AGREES-ISIDOR DOES LOOK LIKE A DONKEY!." Indeed, a man best ignored. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax Question (claiming a student)

Can I claim a half time student on my taxes?

How many hours must a student have to become deductible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatdrums (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't give legal advice... and you never told us what jurisdiction you were in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the questioner is requesting clarification of tax rules rather than legal advice. It's likely that the questioner is in the United States, as the annual deadline for U.S. income tax forms is a week away, and his question is consistent with the language used in U.S. tax forms. The instructions for Form 1040 state that a student must have been full-time during some part of at least 5 calendar months during 2007 and must meet other qualifications to be claimed as a dependent on the basis of student status. However, if this person was a relative with a gross income of less than $3,400 and you provided most of the support for this person, then you may be able to claim the person as a dependent relative, provided that other qualifications are met. Have a look at the instructions and work through the various tests that it provides. Marco polo (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

..."What is the law" is legal advice... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. "What is the law on X" is a factual question about law. "Can I do X?" or "Can I get away with doing Y?" or "Should I do Z?" are asking for legal advice. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaucer and Boccacccio

What impact, if any, did Boccaccio have on Chaucer? Alisoun of Bath (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From his visit to Italy in 1378 Chaucer brought back copies of Boccaccio's two great poems, Filostrato and Tesida, which he subsequently translated and paraphrased. Looking over the whole body of Chaucer's work it is possible to see just how profound Boccaccio's influence was. The themes used in Tesida appear in Anelida and Arcite, the Parlement of Foules, Troilus and Criseyde and The Knight's Tale. Filostrato also provides material for Troilus. The structure of the Canterbury Tales itself would seem to indicate that Boccaccio’s own Decameron cycle was also known to Chaucer. I would suggest, Alisoun, that if you have any more inquiries along these lines that you may care to consult The Life of Chaucer by Derek Pearsall (Blackwell, 1992). It's very good, if perhaps a little speculative at points. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels

How much did Magda Goebbels know about the crimes of the Nazi regime? Did she kill herself for fear of retribution? It seems a strange thing for her to have done considering that none of the other senior Nazi wives did so. Did she ever explain why she and Goebbels decided to kill their children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels was far more than the wife of Joseph Goebbels. For some years she was the Fist Lady of the Third Reich and was styled to be seen as an icon of Germanic woman- and motherhood. She and her family, in numerous news reels of the time, were depicted as Aryan demi-gods.

It seems that she was totally convinced of the superiority of the ideals of the era, of the "superhuman" heroic status of the Fuehrer and could not imagine a life for herself and her children after the collapse of Nazi-Germany. Strangely enough, Magda Goebbels was described as an emancipated, headstrong and intelligent woman.

Possibly, it is best compared to the self-sacrifice of deluded sect members who have lost all perception of an external reality. There is a fitting German term, "Kadavergehorsam", which has no semantic equivalent in English. Maybe this explains her decisions, maybe it does not. Like much of the Third Reich, this, too, will remain a mystery to me. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, Cookatoo, why you should find it 'strange' that Magda was described as 'headstrong and intelligent'. You may not approve of her, but she was headstrong and intelligent, notwithstanding. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I should air the thought that Goebbels and the Hitlers were the only ones present in the Führerbunker - apart from the other staff. No other "senior Nazi wives" were present. Also, to note that several of those in the bunker had committed suicide, according to information from the russians. The bunker, and its atmosphere, are therefore not factors to be ignored. Without meaning to delve into a bizarre and unencyclopedic post-mortem psychoanalysis, it isn't unlikely that the confinement felt by each inhabitant played a role. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In many ways Magda Goebbels was the most intriguing woman who came to prominence during the Third Reich, with an odd amalgam of qualities; at once intimate and remote, knowable and unknown. You will find her at her most revealing in her correspondence with Ello Quandt, her one time sister-in-law and close friend. She certainly had knowledge of what was happening to the Jews because she continued be her husband’s most intimate confident. On one occasion she wrote to Ello, "It's terrible all the things he's telling me now. I simply can't bear it any more...You can't imagine the awful things he's tormenting me with...I'm not supposed to talk to anyone...He unloads everything on to me because it's getting too much for him." She later told Ello of the decision she and her husband had taken to kill themselves and all of their children. When the horrified Ello objected that she was guilty of no crime, Magda wrote back;

I was there, I believed in Hitler and Joseph Goebbels for long enough. I am part of the Third Reich that is now being destroyed. You don't understand my situation...what am I to do? If I stay alive, I will be arrested immediately and interrogated about Joseph. If I were to tell the truth, I would have to portray him as he was...I would have to describe what went on behind the scenes. Then any respectable person would turn from me in revulsion. Everyone would think that, since my husband was dead or in prison, I was now most terribly traducing the father of my six children. As far as the outside world is concerned I have lived by his side amidst brilliance and luxury, I have enjoyed all his power. As his wife I have stayed with him to the bitter end. No one would believe me if I said I had really stopped loving him, and...perhaps I still do love him, against my reason, in the face of all my experience with him. Regardless of what is behind me, Joseph is my husband, and I owe him loyalty, real loyalty...and comradeship beyond death. For that reason I could never say anything against him. After all this, after this plunge into the abyss, I could not do that!

When Ello asked about the children, Magda said that she would take them with her, 'because they are too beautiful and good for the world that's coming'. She also took comfort in notions of rebirth-"They won't die, none of us will die...we just go through an apparently dark portal into the next life." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cookatoo, would "blind obedience" cover it? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but German does have blinder Gehorsam for blind obedience, while Kadavergehorsam adds the notion of complete self-abnegation and passivity. Glossary of German military terms defines it as "absolute duty and blind obedience till death." The term seems to have possibly originated in a misconception of the Latin translation of Ignacio de Loyola's Constitutions. In original Spanish, he compared the passive obedience to that of a cuerpo muerto, which can also mean an inanimate object, like an old man's staff which Ignacius even added as an example. The Latin translation "perinde ac si cadaver essent" led to the corpse-interpretation. Even WP's article has "well-disciplined like a corpse" as Ignatius put it" too.

The following is reported of Francis of Assisi:

One day he was sitting with his companions, when he began to groan and say: "There is hardly a monk upon earth who perfectly obeys his superior." His companions, much astonished, said: "Explain to us, father, what is perfect and supreme obedience." Then, comparing him who obeys to a corpse, he replied: "Take a dead body, and put it where you will, it will make no resistance; when it is in one place it will not murmur, when you take it away - 261 - from there it will not object; put it in a pulpit, it will not look up but down; wrap it in purple, it will only be doubly pale." (Paul Sabatier and Louise Seymour Houghton, Life of St. Francis of Assisi). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So, not just obedience to the death, but obedience of the dead sort of thing. Being like a dead subject is quite an idea. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

James Watt’s date of death

Hello, historians. We have a conundrum about when exactly James Watt died. Some sources say 19 August 1819, others say 25 August 1819. Is there any material out there that will settle this? I don’t want yet another highly reputable source that simply gives one or other date without explaining why it’s accurate. I want, for example, a report of his death that was published before 25 August 1819 – this, if it exists, would prove he couldn’t have died on 25 August and would be very strong evidence that 19 August is correct. Or whatever incontrovertible evidence there is for either date. Over to you. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the ODNB has the date of death 25 August. His will was proved 13 October. The dates will be a matter of record, so you might contact the Public Record Office to find out how to get a copy of the death record. That'll be evidence enough for most people. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The book "James Watt: An Oration Delivered in the University of Glasgow on the..." by William Thomson Kelvin(1901) says (p3) "19th August, 1819." It is not quite the contemporary source you sought, but not one to be quickly dismissed. From 1819, there is "The Annals of Philosophy" by Richard Phillips, [14] which says August 25. It quotes the Birmingham Gazette of August 30, 1819. "The Gentleman's Magazine (p275) from 1819 says August 25. It is always possible that one erroneous report could have been parroted by succeeding magazines. Edison (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh indeed, Edison. Obviously, whichever date is the correct one, the other one got in there through some error, and it's been repeated ad nauseam. This was much more possible in the pre-internet era when there wasn't a capacity to quickly check facts like this. Those relying on secondary sources would have to assume that if the limited number of sources they had happened to be in agreement, they'd all corroborate each other. They'd never even know if they were all wrong, which is a shame. Still, it's fascinating to find cases like this, where there seem two schools of thought who seem oblivious of the existence of the other. Surely, the interested parties on James Watt's WP talk page can't be the first people to have ever noticed this discrepancy between sources - it's not as if James Watt is exactly a minor footnote of history - and it's odd that some industrious soul has not only established the true date but also explicitly debunked the other date by explaining how it entered the record. Maybe it's out there somewhere, but I haven't tracked it down yet. Thanks for the replies so far; they're interesting but they don't prove either date correct. If anything, they seem to perpetuate the discrepancy. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the Times Digital Archive and I have his obit which states 25 August. I'll post a snippet to the talk page. Jooler (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jooler, I've responded at Talk:James Watt#Date of death. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All the sources I have seen, including some contemporary obituries, give 25 August as the date of his death, which I think is fairly conclusive. I can only guess where the other date came from, perhaps some confusion with his birth date (19 January)? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And 1819. Online sources that have 19 August include BBC.co.uk and MSN Encarta.  --Lambiam 09:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The magazines of 1819 said Aug 25 and cited the Birmingham Gazette of August 30, 1819. If he had died on the 19th, why would the Birmingham Gazette have waited until the 30th to write it up? Was it a weekly? When did the 19th first appear as a claimed date of death? It's not as if they found his remains in an isolated cabin and had to infer the date of death. Edison (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess communications in those days were a little slower than they are these days. Eleven days may not have been unusual between death and obituary, for a non-metropolitan journal. Even these days, papers often publish obits of people who died weeks or even months ago. Watt may have been out of the public limelight for some years prior to his death - just speculating here. I have no idea when 19 August first appeared in the literature but, as you discovered, it was at least as far back as 1901. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Late thought. I've been wondering if it's possible that he really did die on the 19th and was buried on the 25th, and the original obit writer mixed up the date. How would we check that out? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, Jack, here below is the opening paragraph of an obituary headed The Late Mr Watt, and published by The Scotsman, the main Scottish daily, on page five of the edition for 4 September 1819:

Death is still busy in our high places:-And it is with great pain that we find ourselves called upon so soon after the death of Mr Playfair, to record the decease of another of our illustrious countrymen,-and one to whom mankind has been still more largely indebted. Mr James Watt, the great improver of the steam-engine, died on the 25 ult.[ultimo], at his seat of Heathfield, near Birmingham, in the 84th year of his age.

You can call the page up on The Scotsman's digital archive, though at a price, I'm sorry to say!

This date is repeated in Watt's entry in The Scottish Nation, a three volume biographical dictionary published in 1868, where it says on page 199;

Mr Watt died at his residence, on his estate at Heathfield, near Soho, August 25 1819, at the age of eighty-three years and seven months, and was interred in the chancel of the adjoining parish church of Handsworth...

James Watt: Craftsman and Engineer, a scholarly monograph by H. W. Dickinson, published in 1936, likewise gives the date of death as 25 August with burial following on 2 September at Handsworth. The earliest I have been able to trace the erroneous 19 August date-and it is erroneous- is to James Watt by William Jacks, a rather light-weight work, published in Glasgow in 1901.

I'll post all of this also on the James Watt talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks greatly, Clio. I've updated the article with the correct date. It had been wrong ever since its inception on (you guessed it) 25 August 2006. I'm rather surprised it took till less than 2 years ago to create an article on this important scientific and eponymous figure, but there you go. Do we have a list of world-famous people for whom we don't yet have articles? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethical food?

A kind person on this desk recently pointed me towards an article in the Economist which made very interesting reading. It attempted to debunk three commonly held truisms of the environmental/eco-friendly movement, all relating to food: organic, fairtrade and local. I would be very interested to know what arguments the environmental movement might put forward to counter the following points made in the article (I'm paraphrasing):

• Organic farming methods are less environmentally friendly than conventional intensive methods. Farming is inherently bad for the environment, since cultivation leads to deforestation. Organic methods require a far greater area of land to be cultivated, hence are more damaging to the rainforest.

• Fairtrade food lowers, rather than raises, the income of poor farmers. Because Fairtrade commodities are sold at an artificially high price, farmers are encouraged to produce more of them. In turn, this depresses the price.

• Food produced close to the point of sale is heavier on carbon emissions than food produced far away from the point of sale. It is more energy efficient to move food around the place in big lorries than it is for consumers to buy their food locally, since the sum total of the lorries' energy consumption is less than that of consumers in driving to the shops. The difference in energy consumption is even greater if one takes the energy used in producing the food into account as well. Producing lamb in New Zealand and shipping it to Britain, for example, uses less energy overall than producing lamb in Britain.

Many thanks, Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The tricky thing about these arguments is their vague and generalising language. In the first, there've been some experiments in Victoria (Aust) to combine farming and re-forestation that claim to be working; "a far greater area of land" so it's a matter of commitment to change – does it necessarily impinge on/damage rainforest specifically? unless the said rainforest is in direct competition/under threat, to me it sounds a bit like rhetoric. The second brings up the Fair trade debate where it's argued that the ones suffering are the non-fair trade farmers which makes sense. Eg, the non-ft farmers remain poor since they are excluded from certain markets, options and practices. In the third, the people driving to market are going to be driving somewhere they might as well drive to one (produce market) as to the other (shops) though it could hurt the trucking industry. And the option of producing lamb in Britain – is that as well as lamb in NZ? or is it just putting the burden of production at a distance. Since the amount would be about the same, does it matter where it is carried out? unless it hurts the freight industry. It's almost a centralisation (monopoly) versus diversity (choice) debate – that was fun, Julia Rossi (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like buying locally-produced meat because I've seen the critters running around and feel confident that they've had a decent life which does not utterly ignore their natural instincts. The certainly-more-efficient centralized factory farm is an affront to the conscience. I don't really care where my veggies come from. --Sean 13:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, the three arguments you present take three questionable aspects of organic farming, and ignore all others; hardly a useful way to go forwards.

• Your rainforest argument applies only where there are rainforests, and hence does not apply to all other places that are settled agricultural production areas. The argument that organic method produce less produce per unit area can always be made; in general, efficiency is good and organic will tend to be less efficient per unit area. However there are a substantial set of arguments for organic which as yet arr not factored into this, such as land exhaustion, fertiliser runoff, chemical residue in end product, &c.
• The fairtrade argument illustrates a risk associated with intervening in markets: markets have a way of acting against the intervention. However it ignores a range of factors, and makes other possibly unwarranted assumptions. Examples: it may take some time - years - for the price to come down as a result of new entrants to the market, during which time the premium is enjoyed. It may not be that the price comes down at all, since in the time that producers have moved from non-organic to organic, demand may have risen, or the substitution effect may just be too small to influence pricing.
• The way in which you have phrased the third point, at best, confuses two issues. The first half of your paragraph implies that it is more efficient for one lorry to travel from A to B, than for 200 cars to travel from B to A. Which might indeed be the case, but is besides the point ... we are not about to drive to NZ to get out lambs. The second half is more familiar, though I doubt it applies to lambs, which in the UK get scant energy input other than through sunlight & grass. A better example might be produce in hothouses in the UK versus flying in produce from a hot country, where you are looking at the difference between the heating cost and the transport cost. Clearly there will be examples on both sides.

In sum, the arguments fall short of a demolition of the organic / fairtrade movement. They illustrate areas where the impact of organics / fairtrade may not be positive, but as they fall short of a complete impact assessment, they represent no more than cherry-picking. They may be used, but only dishonestly - to make a bigger case against organics & fairtrade. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See Sophism. Edison (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairtrade food has always been a personal concern of mine. The way it conducts business is, while not necessarily unfair, at least a little off. It encourages farmers to grow products which have low profit margins and a vast number of growers, thus, as you said, driving the price down even lower. Although they pay more, they simply charge more to cover this shortfall and the profit made by companies in the process is near-identical with non-Fairtrade food. Fairtrade is, realistically speaking, a luxury that Westerners are able to afford and enjoy becuase it makes it feel like they are helping, when in fact the investment in the low-returns agricultural sector hampers economic development. And then, in the UK at least, there's the issue of local farmers whose prices are driven down by huge supermarkets but who do not have a Fairtrade organisation to protect theor prices. The Fairtrade movement is similar to protectionism, in my opinion, and in reality it sustains an economic unfreedom by hindering the advancement of freer markets. All of these arguments end up being highly political. I support the moral cause of Fairtrade, but I think it is a poor piece of short-term thinking.

Organic food is another of my gripes, simply because it is produced in order to con people into the idea that they are tasting "real" food. Often organic farmers suffer heavy losses due to their inability to use pesticisdes and occasionally even medicine on their crops and animals. But if people want to pay a heavy premium for almost identical food then go ahead.

I really think that most environmentalist causes (notice most) in the West these days are simply the result of a desire to be seen 'helping the earth' or 'giving back'. Many of the causes groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth endorse they appearto have little actual knowledge of. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[15] This is the article if anyone wants to read it, although you'll need a subscription to the Economist to read the whole thing. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Economist's three claims summarised above are, quite frankly, absolute nonsense. They bear little relation to objective journalism or a desire to engage with the subject. Rather, it reeks of propoganda: a simple message repeated frequently enough until people believe it. "I read somewhere that organics and fairtrade is wrong..." etc. Of course, the RD is not somewhere to engage in debate, but it is somewhere to investigate facts and consider resources. Of necessity, the answers are brief, but I hope indicate the issues are not simple.

1. The argument against organics gets emotive by bringing up the "rainforest" argument. This ignores two factors: first, deforestation alone is a poor measure of environmental effect. We need to consider the use of pesticides, fertilisers, intensive farming methods, routine administration of antibiotics, growth enhancers, battery farming and so forth. Secondly, it presupposes that farmers approach agriculture from a "I need to grow two hundred cabbages" standpoint, and will clear the land they need for that. In fact, they look at their land and decide what they can do with it. Intensive farmers want to maximise stocking/planting, and will clear "unproductive" land. Organic (and other ethical/traditional) farmers want sustainable farming; they re-introduce hedgerows, meadows, forestation to improve natural pest control, reduce fertiliser use, and for erosion management. Organic farming may take up more space, yes, but has less overall impact. For example, organic cotton growers in India now grow legumes between cotton plants: the cotton yield is down, but they now have a secondary harvest, and there is no longer the massive pesticide run-off into local waterways (which was casuing poisoning of both people and land). The argument that produce must be maximised from minimum land to feed the starving world is nonsense, as I shall discuss below.
2. Fair trade is not about artificially inflating prices, but preventing artificial depression of prices. In effect, it is applying the concept of a "minimum wage", which is present in most Western countries. If tea costs X to produce when we pay tea-pickers a decent salary, then that is what we as consumers should pay. If we want clothes, we should not be subjecting workers to slave-like conditions in sweatshops, but paying workers a decent wage. To argue that it encourages everyone to grow lots of coffee is rubbish. Check out, for example, www.fairtrade.org.uk ; the aim is that all products, all foods are certified. In other words, whatever we buy should be bought at a fair price. Fair trade debate is worth reading as is the Fairtrade Foundation's FAQs. The system might not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than what we've got otherwise: a wage and subsidy protected western world, with a free-for-all in the third world.
3. There is a case to be made for flying in sun-grown tomatoes in preference to buying hot-house tomatoes in Norway, but once again energy-use cannot be the sole criteria for considering trade impacts. Buying locally is a responsible act. We can ensure food is grown or raised to our moral/philosophical criteria, and we support our local economy. There is little comfort in importing onions if our local ex-onion growers and pickers are now sitting at home claiming the unemployment benefit. The Economist writer needed to get out and investigate his own little world (the UK). What environmental or ethical or financial kudos is there in buying cheap imported meat when local farmers are shooting male calves at birth because they're not worth rearing, or market gardeners are having their entire year's (contracted) harvest returned (unpaid for) by the supermarket chain because it's surplus to requirements? That is not empty rhetoric; been there, seen both. Fields are lying fallow in Britain, farmers are forced to "diversify" (ie run a second, non-agricultural, business), and the EU are growing beet sugar and dumping it in the third world, while importing the depressed-price better-quality cane sugar. Buying locally introduces accountability. Gwinva (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to address your point about the environmental impact because I don't know enough to comment. Fairtrade IS artifically inflating prices. Sort of. People are freely willing to pay the extra here to 'help out', but this is based on poor assumptions that Fairtrade will actually help. It certainly does not establish a minimum wage in the farms that grow it as there is no guaranteed price for the farmers, just a fair one. But this means that people who farm the 4 main products Fairtrade applies to (bananas, cocoa, coffee and tea) will all switch to Fairtrade, thus making the higher prices unsustainable as Fairtrade-certified brands start to compete with each other. Incentivising farmers into growing high export crops for a pittance when there may be developing industrial jobs in a city or something with more potenial for economic development than banana farming. There are already huge established world 'centres' of all these crops. The location is often part of the sale. Economically they need major industrial and educational development, for which they will only have the money if their economies develop.

You may disagreee with some of my conclusions as it is all theoretical. As I said, I support the overall 'helping' agenda of Fairtrade, I just think that Fairtrade is a short-sighted way to avoid the issue and it will at best not help. Your final point about the support of local business is purely sentimental and is, ironically, economically terrible for the farmers 'supported' by Fairtrade. The point of a global market is that it makes it possible for people to trade around the world, freely spreading human wealth, as has happebed slowly but steadily throughout the past century or two. Buying local produce is commendable in that you are indeed helping a local business ut at the same time, if that business needs'pity-help' then perhaps it is uncompetitive and not worth helping? I don't really care too much about local produce, to be honest. It's good when it's cheap but there's a tendency for it to be really expensive now as it's become trendy (that's the market at work for you!). Oh and, to be controversial, here's an article I found about why sweatshops are good, or at least better than the alternative [16]. I've read a few studies that claim the same thing, but I still think if there's labour anywhere, especially if regulated by an enormous global corporation, it should be safe and (relative to local income) well-paid. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then let's all pat ourselves on the back for our kindness in inventing sweatshops. And, while we're at it, whack everyone across the head, since that's better than shooting them. Sweatshops are better than starving in a ditch, yes, but not as good as a good wage in a good business. Forcing sweatshops to close is not the answer; providing better workplaces is. I'm not going to get into a debate, but let's not hide the truth. Companies don't run sweatshops for the good of their employees, but for their own profit. Buy what you want, but don't kid yourself you're doing it to make someone else's life better. If you believe in survival of the fittest, then say that, and don't try and clothe it in pseudo-ethical niceness. I'd have more respect for that view (or any other) if it was intellectually and philosophically rigorous, rather than weaselly clap-trap or emotive rhetoric. (That's a generic "you" not you specifically, 81.96; this was inspired by that link, not your thoughts) Gwinva (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I (and i've just read that small bit and decided to add "or the Economist") wrote endorsed sweatshops. I just found the article an illuminating way of illustrating a point. Even though we may not like it, bad working conditions and poor pay ARE the first steps towards true economic development. The main key is to ensure philantropic/governmental distrubusion of commercial wealth as soon as possible, building schools and hospitals and ways of ensuring the region will develop and continue to compete. Your argument is far more emotive: "poor conditions are bad because they're demeaning". This much is true, and as I said, "I still think if there's labour anywhere...it should be safe and (relative to local income) well-paid", as this ensures global development. However, the fact is that low wages represent the real market value of labour in the "Third world", as local demand for the jobs is huge. The amounts of money paid, while pittances, are not as bad as 50p and hour would be here, and will eventually be redistributed in the local economy, building service industries and infrastructure. I respect your point, but there are published papers that suggest that sweatshops overseas are better than keeping the labour in the West. Of course sweatshops aren't run for the good of their employees, they're run for the good of the consumer. Obviously as the human rights of the consumer are rarely violated and the employee's are at serious risk, and we are at least indirectly responsible for these sweatshops, we wish to get rid of them. But the low wages are, unfortunately, fair, and will lead to economic development, especially in the case of overseas investment. We forget that working conditions in the West were once at the very least as appalling, and that it is perhaps a natural stage in industrialisation and thus social and economic development. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

John Locke's Theories of Government

John Locke's political theories now have a wide base of support, both on the left and the right. But he was at one time a highly controversial figure. His theories on the sovereignty of the people and representative government must have been a cause of concern to the English political establishment, especially at the time of the French Revolution. I assume there must have been some published rebuttals to his work, and would be interested to know what they are? Does Edmund Burke, for example, have anything to say about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.0.62 (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the extreme pro-slavery defenders in the American South in the 1850's, such as George Fitzhugh, were anti-Lockeans... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right to suggest, 81.156, that Locke's political theories began to alarm the English political establishment at the time of the French Revolution, and prior to this in the American Revolution, though for a good bit of the eighteenth century he had, so to say, been 'tamed' and 'domesticated.' But as radical times demand radical ideas, so Locke was rescued from a wooly consensus and revivified as a champion of liberty. In a debate in the House of Commons in 1776, John Wilkes recited from Two Treatises of Government, demanding 'fair and equal representation.' In the 1790s Thomas Erskine, a radical Scottish lawyer, drew on the Second Treatise in his arguments for universal manhood suffrage. Locke also underpinned some of the great political testaments of the day, including Joseph Priestly's Essay on the First Principles of Government and Richard Price's On the Nature of Civil Liberty. His thought was also reinterpreted in a crypto-socialist light, in such works as The Real Rights of Man by Thomas Spence and the Complaint of the Poor People of England by George Dyer.

Given all this it comes as no surprise that there was a conservative back-lash, which grew steadily in intensity. It really begins with Josiah Tucker's The Notions of Mr Locke and his Followers, extended and republished in the 1780s as the Treatise Concerning Civil Government. Like a dog in pursuit of a bone, dear old Josiah simply refused to let go, later publishing The Evil Consequences Arising from the Propagation of Mr Locke's Democratic Principles. Phew!

And so it went on. Edmund Burke himself makes no mention of Locke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, though others made good his omission. Writing in 1798 William Jones described Locke as '...the oracle of those who began and conducted the American Revolution, which led to the French Revolution; which will lead (unless God and his mercy interfere) to the total overthrow of religion and government in this kingdom, perhaps the whole Christian world.'

As the Counter-Enlightenment progressed Locke's portrait was taken down from the hall of his old college, Christ Church in Oxford, from whence he had been expelled by order of Charles II in 1684. The Monthly Repository, a dissenting journal, lamented that this was 'Locke's second expulsion from Oxford.' Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Mannes in Theresienstadt

I have been looking here for an article on the work of Philip Mannes in Theresienstadt, but there does not seem to be anything. Can someone please help me with some more detail on his life and death. Sincere thanks. David Nelken (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

German Wikipedia has an article. Philipp Manes, born in Elberfeld in 1875, was a Jewish fur trader in Berlin. After his four children had managed to escape Nazi persecution and leave Germany in time, he started keeping a diary in 1939, describing his life in Berlin under Nazi oppression. In 1941, he was forced to labour as a drill operator in a factory; he mentioned, not without satisfaction, that as a 67-year old he still was able to fulfil the required daily units of piecework. On 21 July 1942 Manes and his wife were forced to clear their apartment in the Potsdamer Straße 27. They were transported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where Manes continued to write his diary.

Manes organized the Orientierungsdienst ("orientation service") in Theresienstadt, looking for confused or deranged (usually elderly) inmates and returning them to their assigned "Ubikation" (a k.u.k. word for barracks). Manes also wrote about how he tried to maintain a rich cultural program under the most adverse conditions; 500 organized events including a dramatic reading of Goethe's Faust, a performance of Mendelssohn's Elias, and a lecture by Leo Baeck. Manes's Theresienstadt diary ends in mid-sentence. The so-called final train leaving Theresienstadt brought the couple to Auschwitz where they were murdered sometime around late October 1944.

The manuscript of Manes's diary was kept hidden by Lies Klernich, an inmate in Theresienstadt, and made its way to his daughter in England, who tried to get it published, for a long time without success. The manuscript can now be found in the Wiener Library in London. Ullstein-Verlag brought out an edited version, including a long introductory chapter, numerous comments, and a comprehensive biographical appendix including data on many inmates, some of them famous. (Als ob's ein Leben wär - Tatsachenbericht Theresienstadt 1942-1944 Klaus Leist, Ben Barkow (editors), ISBN 9783550076107) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As part of his cultural programme, Manes organised a poetry competition in the autumn of 1942, which attracted some two hundred entries, including-fascinatingly enough-work by Georg Kafka, a distant cousin of Franz Kafka, and Otto Brod, the brother of Max Brod, Franz Kafka's friend and biographer. Manes described Georg Kafka as 'the hope for the future.' He died in 1944 aged twenty-three. The Orientation Service itself was finally closed down in February 1944. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Schapelle

Are there any other Schapelles in the world than Schapelle Crow (excuse me, I said "Crow" instead of "Corby" because those words are synonyms)? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be a unique name. A Google search for "Schapelle -corby -drug -smuggling" turns up a rugby union player. [17] AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I strongly suspect that Schapelle and Chewbacca are not their actual legal names, but latter-day nicknames. I really can't imagine any Australian males, particularly footy players, being called "Schapelle". It sounds ... well, too girly. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FBI Archives on the Communist Party USA

Where can I find FBI Archives on the Communist Party USA? --Gary123 (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here? WikiJedits (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

what language did the builders of Stonehenge speak?

With Stonehenge in the news lately, I've been wondering what language its builders would have spoken. The time periods are (1) 3100-3000 BC for the banks and timber structures (2) 2600-1900 BC for the various stone circles (I think it is too early to be Celtic?) Been searching around our articles on proto language and I must be missing what I'm looking for. Much appreciate pointers and help. Feel free to move this to language desk if appropriate – I wasn't sure where to put it. WikiJedits (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was non-Indo-European, then we simply don't know anything at all about it. See Windmill Hill culture for the general term... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, before the Celts were in Britain, the Picts were there. There is some evidence that Pictish was a Semitic language, or at least of North African origin, but evidence of their language is extremely scant, so it is not certain. Better asking on the Language HelpDesk about this. --ChokinBako (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the nature of the Pictish language is extremely disputed, it's not much help to attempt to illuminate other even-less-known languages by comparing them to Pictish -- and it's a large speculative leap (almost pure guesswork) to assume that there was any definite relationship between a language spoken in the north of Scotland after 500 A.D. and whatever languages were spoken in the south of England before 2000 B.C... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So far as I understand the conventional paleolinguistics take on things, they'd have Celtic languages arrive in Britain and Ireland 1st millennium BC. The intro to Celtic languages is representative. But just like the spread of Indo-European languages, not everyone agrees. Venceslas Kruta, hardly a controversialist, says:

The origins of the Celtic peopling of Ireland, the origins of which have often been sought in continental Halstattian or La Tène migrations, must today be pushed back to a significantly earlier date, probably around the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BC ... [Kruta, Les Celtes, p. 685]

Fair enough, that's well after Stonehenge, but not unthinkably long when the figures on offer are of the order of 2700 to 4500 years ago. This kind of thing should be distinguished from nuttiness such as Basque- or Semitic-speaking Picts (or Germanic-speaking Orcadians, always room for more bizarreness). Wikipedia's coverage of these things seems to be one-sided, representing the views of [most] paleolinguists plus a passing mention of all the crankiness. "Migrating pottery" &c: the one place where we can be fairly sure a Celtic language was ubiquitous, Ireland, is lacking evidence of La Tène "culture".

Who can say? Paleolinguistics is of doubtful reliability, archaeology says nothing about the languages people spoke, and genetic research will not help. Anyone who says they know what language, or even whether it was Indo-European or something else, it was that the builders of Stonehenge spoke is kidding you or, rather more likely, kidding themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Angus McLellan is of course quite right that we don't know what language the builders of Stonehenge spoke. While the builders of the earliest precursor of the megalithic structures that still stand were associated with the Windmill Hill culture, the famous megaliths were most likely put in place by the Beaker people. Again, we do not know their language. Some speculate that they spoke an early precursor of the Celtic languages. This source makes an interesting argument that the Beaker people preceded the Celts in Britain and other parts of northern Europe and that the Beaker people may have spoken another, no longer extant, Indo-European language group. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the info, comments, links and help! 207.134.250.140 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If they dropped one of the stones on their foot the language would be unprintable!--Artjo (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for History and or Pictures of Covered Bridge at Frogtown Road on the Pequea Creek

Ever since purchasing my home in 1994, I have been facinated , and curious about the prior owners and the covered bridge that once stood only a few feet from my home. This area is steeped in historical events and structures. I recently received from one of my neighbors, a book, which contains all the previous owners of my home, dating back to when William Penn was given the property. I was checking out information regarding the previous owners of my historical home located on Pequea Creek and Frogtown Road, Pequea, Pa. 17565. I noticed the listing of all the Covered Bridges and the way they were numbered. In the book, it mentions that there once stood a covered bridge, where now stands a steel/concrete bridge. I have visited the local Historical Societies, and asked many of the neighbors if maybe one of their older relatives had photos of knowledge of this bridge. This has not been successful.

I am a amateuer artist and would like to paint my house and this covered bridge historically correct. To do this, I would ultimately like pictures, or the knowledge of what type of bridge that may now exist that I could visit and take my own photos. I was told that this covered bridge existed up to 1938, when a flood took this downstream about 1.5 miles downstream below Loop Road on a farm owned by the Hess family. I was told that Mr. Hess asked if the township wanted it back, the township replied,no they would replace this with a steel bridge. Rumor has it that the rememants were used to built a chicken house. Hopefully there maybe someone that may have pictures by there parents or grandparents that could shed some light as to what this once looked like. My location is very picturesque, it would be very hard to believe that someone doesn't have a photo of this pre-1938.

I am also looking for articles to do with the Aston(Ben & Walter) family that lived in my home. There are articles written court trial,and outcome about the Murder of Alfred Hallman (Feb 6,1909).

Thank you for any assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobrah (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You say that you have visited historical societies, but have you fully searched the collection of the Lancaster County Historical Society? They apparently have over 10,000 photographs. Perhaps one documents the bridge. They also have archives of county newspapers. Finally, for information about the family that inhabited your house, you might explore the census records detailing names and occupations of family members. These records are kept by the National Archives. Marco polo (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone at the Lancaster County Engineer's office may be able to help you find more information on the bridge. Ask to speak with the guy who's interested in old covered bridges—I'd be surprised if no one in the office answers to that description. —Kevin Myers 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fami;y Law Act

This message is for Albertans only. Can anyone tell me is there a bad side to the Family Law Act in this province?Jwking (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Albertans only? -- Kesh (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Constructing the nation

It's generally held that nationalism and the nation state date no further back than the late eighteenth century, to the period of the French Revolution. Is this really true? Can a phenomenon as complex as nationalism make an appearance literally overnight? There must surely be some antecedents? Your help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilyn Struthers (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone like Clio can offer a better explanation, but in my layman's understanding: Nationalism means taking one's country as an important aspect of their person or belief system. Up until the late 1700's, most folks were primarily concerned with smaller regions that had a direct impact on themselves. One's kingdom or colony was about as far as their concern went. Nearing the end of the 18th century, communications and travel made the actions and impact of foreign nations much more broadly felt to the individual, making inter-nation conflict something the average citizen could relate to in a more immediate manner. See Nationalism#Origins for a bit more detail on the theories behind this. -- Kesh (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there is no one like Clio. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aww, shucks, folks! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've always considered it slightly strange, Marilyn, that the nation state, nationalism itself, seems to have arisen with such historical suddenness, a little like Pallas Athena from the head of Zeus, with no roots or genealogy; a bastard creation, it might be said, of the Industrial and the French Revolutions. But the First French Republic, the prototype of the modern nation state, had to draw into the past for its own sources of inspiration; to the republican communes of Medieval Europe, and back through them to the forms of patriotism, solidarity and civic pride found in Republican Rome and the ancient Greek polis.

There is also a second tradition, no less important, of the seventeenth-century Protestant commonwealths; of England, of Scotland, of the Netherlands and of the Swiss city states, whose people, like new Israelites, were considered to be united by God's Covenant. It was this sense of uniqueness, of being the chosen and the elect, which gave rise to the desire for ever closer forms of unity and identity, the very earliest forms of religious and cultural nationalism. It was these revolutionary principles, of civic identity and religious ideology, which helped overturn the established hierarchies of trans-national empires, of the church and of the state.

So it was that by the late sixteenth and the early seventeenth century that the nation was already taking shape; a community united by a common language, demarcated territories, a dominant set of religious beliefs, a centralised bureaucracy and a uniform legal code. This was the framework that gave rise to nationalism; in covenants, in civic-republics and in new forms of popular sovereignty. As far as I am concerned the first evidence of nationalism as a shared sentiment in the modern sense comes with the Dutch Revolt against the Spanish Empire: a war of the 'elect'; a war of shared loyalties and a common identity; a war against a foreign oppressor. The primary focus of loyalty was no longer a kings, princes or lords in the medieval sense, but much more abstract concepts, focused on a unique sense of national and religious mission. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans burning people at the stake

In the 1992 film version of The Last of the Mohicans, a Huron tribe is depicted burning a British redcoat at the stake. Is this pure fancy, or is there any record of Native Americans performing this sort of execution? Thanks — Vranak (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Execution_by_burning#Historical_usage says yes. Friday (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Friday, I did go through that article but must have skimmed right past it. Vranak (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brebeuf was tied to a stake and killed by Iriquois. Fire was part of it. See here. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No real documentation, by I suspect that the first person was executed by burning not long after the use of fire for heat, light and cooking was adopted by humans, when some tribe captured a hated enemy or when some member of the tribe really pissed the others off. It offerd novelty compared to hitting with rocks or poking with sharp sticks. Edison (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thanks Edison. And Brainy + Kevin. Vranak (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, burning at the stake was practiced by the Iroquois and other Eastern Woodland groups. The film gives just a mild glimpse of the horror. Exceeding perhaps even an English hanging, drawing, and quartering, the process was part of a ritual of excruciating torture that could last for hours and sometimes days. The victim was not usually directly in the flames: a fire was built near the stake, and the person slowly roasted while being otherwise tortured by the people who came to watch. The process was not used on criminals but rather on prisoners of war, who were expected to act a certain role. George Washington's friend William Crawford was burnt at the stake by Delaware and Wyandot Indians in 1782 near the end of the American Revolutionary War, although the practice had nearly died out by then. —Kevin Myers 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sawmill

If I started a sawmill business where would I by the logs from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Napier ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably from their owners. Your IP address suggests that you are in Michigan. You might explore the website of the Michigan Forest Association. Marco polo (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you also have a market for selling the lumber, which you can only expect to do if it has been professionally graded.[18]  --Lambiam 10:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Annullment in Canada

I'm new to this so please forgive any trangessions. My question is: If a spouse ommitted to inform the other of having a serious mental (but hidable) condition of schitzophrenia before the marriage, is there grounds for an annullment, and what is the time frame from knowledge of said fact, until annullment is not considered for parting? --Dunner9991 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Aaron.

Sorry, but none of us is qualified to offer legal advice. In Canada, the precise law is likely to vary from one province to another. You should consult with a lawyer in your province. Marco polo (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal advice would be in response to the question "Can I annul my marriage?" The OP did not ask this. Questions about the law are "What are the grounds for annulment of marriage in Canada?" or "How has case law treated applications for annulment based on mental health claims?" Those are purely factual. I think the OP is asking a factual question, entirely within the refdesk remit. Whether it is within our expertise is another matter. I hope someone can help. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually "what is the law" and "application of the law to the facts" are both questions of law - working backwards, anything that you should only trust a lawyer with is "legal advice". And whether one can annul a marriage is, I would think, something that you should only trust a lawyer with. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April 8

"Freest" society ever

Throughout human history, what civilizations/societies have had the least government? Not counting communes unless they lasted for at least 10 years and had over 100 people, but including nomadic/tribal societies. On a side note, when did systems of government first start to emerge in humanity? What sort of heirarchy did a nomadic band of humans have 10,000 years ago? Thanks 81.96.161.104 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to point out that a lack of government is not necessarily freedom. As Hobbes pointed out, to be exposed to the tyranny of nature—of other men, of predatory beasts, of the whims of weather—is not freedom in any true Enlightenment sense of being able to do as one pleases, to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, etc. The mere presence of government does not mean tyranny; the mere absence does not mean freedom. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I didn't mean to imply it was. That's why I put the quote marks up there. I'm of the opinion that a definite degree of government is required for there to be truly guaranteed freedom. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Lord of the Flies illustrates that point well. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Primitive Communism supposedly demonstrated by Hunter-gatherer communities, I suppose. Can this be defined as civilization? Probably not; for civilization entails hierarchy and the division of labour; both entail government, and government entails curtailment of freedom, to greater or lesser degrees. Government is thus as old as civilization. Alas, even the most perfect freedom entailed a watchful form of government! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My sense is that sometimes in the wake of major culture shock governmental structures have often broken down for relatively long periods of time. It is often said of Native Americans that they had a very free form of government, and that seems to have been generally true. But it would be a mistake, I think, to assume their societies were always the way they appeared to the newcomers. Pfly (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also dubious that their societies were anything like what you and I would consider "freedom". It wasn't like a member of a Native American tribe could (or would even think to) say, "Gosh, I really disagree with how things are run around here, and I'm going to make a bid for a massive change in how we do things. Heck, while I'm at it, I think I'm going to dress differently, marry whomever I want, and spend my time however I want." The notion that "primitive" societies were free and open-minded is a Rousseau-derived fantasy. There is no more socially conservative place in the world than a small band of people (barely) living off of the land, even if they don't have much by means of a formalized government. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the freest society ever would probably be the Spartans: they oppressed the Helots to do their work at home, so they could concentrate on war. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AndonicO, the Helots were part of Spartan society; they cannot be abstracted out, like androids! By your measure the ante bellum South must also have been high among the 'free' societies of the world, freer for some than even ancient Sparta. Does servitude make people invisible? I suppose, by some measures, it must, in a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I probably confused them for the Messenians, who (unless I'm wrong again :P) were "enslaved" (though more like "enserfed") by the Spartans. · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot speak of a 'freest society ever' because society is not a homogenous entity, it is a word to lump together all sorts of different people. There's always going to be kings and noblemen at the top of the social hierarchy and peons and peasants at the bottom. Furthemore I wouldn't be too sure that the rich and famous are more 'free' than the poor and desperate. Under close scrutiny the whole notion of freedom dissappears entirely. Everyone is always bound to do what is in their best interest. Defining 'best interest' then becomes the problem, and so on and so forth... Vranak (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers so far guys. If we can safely say that the degree of social freedom allowed by primitive society was incomparable to that of a modern democracy, then I may well have to ask "What has been society that has existed with the least government interference/coercion in private life?". I know that words like freedom make objectivity hard, but surely we can arrive at the least governed/most self-regulated societies that have existed since the Enlightenment. I'm not using freest in a necessarily positive way here, it just is the word that best expresses the concept of a governmentless society. Thanks for any suggestions 81.96.161.104 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading on the Samizdat blog a few years ago the comment that Britain was probably at its most freest in around 1870. I'm also reminded by A. J. P. Taylor's famous first words to his English History: "Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service."--Johnbull (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960

are the civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960 concerned black voting rights?202.70.124.98 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Civil Rights Act of 1960? Corvus cornix_talk 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Les Misérables Quotation

I stumbled upon this quotation while reading the abridged version of Les Misérables and found it very interesting...I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not...and now that I think about it, I'm not even completely sure what it means. So basically I was wondering what the quotation really means so I can better judge whether I agree with it or not.

But from my basic understanding of the quote's meaning, I started to disagree, but when I tried to think of a real life example where it wasn't true I was hard pressed to find one. The quote is: "There are certain natures that cannot have love on one side without hatred on the other (p. 156)."

Thanks for all of your insight and help. --71.98.14.106 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the context? Wrad (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know that too. I would say, though, the statement is probably true of a great many natures. Hatred is not the antithesis of love; indifference is. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the context from the book. It's actually page 106 in this version of the text though. But Clio, if hate isn't the antithesis of love, what is the antithesis of hate? --71.98.14.106 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that the particular context the quote has in the book doesn't really matter to me; I'm wondering basically how that quotation can apply to life in general. --71.98.14.106 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is also indifference. Hate and love will always walk hand-in-hand. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a context I didn't expect, Mrs. Thenardier. I can see what he's saying, though. the Thenardiers are described later in the book to be immoral and uneducated. Immoral because uneducated. They are simple, selfish, minds used to fighting on the streets for every last penny. It seems pretty easy to see how someone with that background could gain the assumption that giving love to someone means you have to take it from someone else. Wrad (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Visualize the continuum as a circle instead of a line and it is easier to see indifference being farther from love and hate than each other. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's not about love and hate as such but describes a manipulative, even calculating nature; a personality at war with itself even – a type the author is trying to make a point about. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the operative words in this quote are "certain natures," i.e. bad people. Hugo wasn't indicting humanity as a whole, just the Thernadier mother who is a pretty despicable character. She contrasts with Valjean who loves Cosette without reservation yet doesn't seem to hate anyone, even Javert who he arguably has good reason to hate. --D. Monack | talk 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

London borough coat-of-arms

Borough of Paddington roundel - 1900

Can anyone help with the history of the coat-of-arms of the Metropolitan Borough of Paddington in London, UK? The image at right, of a roundel marker on a bridge over the Grand Union Canal, shows a form of the coat-of-arms (granted in 1902), but the date given here is 1900 (the date the metropolitan borough was founded). Would the coat-of-arms of 1902 have been in use earlier, or is the 1900 date here referring to something else (the building of the bridge? building of the canal? incorporation of the borough?). Is it possible the roundel was placed here later, even much later, than 1900? Those are the main questions, but another question is whether (as I said in the photo caption in the article) the VR bit refers to Queen Victoria's reign (which ended in 1901)? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The date "discrepancy" is actually not too worrisome -- a lot of civic coats of arms have been used before any formal grant was received from the College of Arms (sometimes centuries before). AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Our Metropolitan Borough of Paddington article says that the crossed swords come from the arms of the Diocese of London, by way of the "vestry seal" - that is, the seal of the Church vestry of Paddington. The 'vestry' was an element of the Church of England which for hundreds of years carried out some local government functions before the elected bodies came along everywhere. The mural crown is very common in civic heraldry, combining the ideas of authority and city walls, so is a natural choice as an extra device. I see the arms in the middle of the roundel you show us aren't identical to those granted a few years later - our Metropolitan Borough of Paddington article says something about where the wolves' heads may have come from. As AnonMoos says, there were informal heraldic devices around in Victorian times, just as there are now. See, for example, Derby School. Xn4 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

equity share in standerd medicals and pharmasuticals ltd (question moved from help desk)

i have 240 shares in the above mentioned co.the compny was delisted from NSC/BSC .i have came to know that this company is trading in hydrabad stock exchange .i live in kolkata .what can i do to sell out thease equity share —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.203.101 (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the firm but try contacting them (http://www.medinovaindia.com/feedback.htm) asking about the above. ny156uk (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fransisco de Miranda in France

I read on your page on Fransisco de Miranda, the South American patriot, that he had some involvement with the French Revolution, and that he was arrested several times during the Terror. What was he accused of and how did he manage to escape the guillotine? TheLostPrince (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Francisco de Miranda was first arrested in April 1793 on the orders of Antoine Quentin Fouquier-Tinville, Chief Prosecutor of the Revolution, and accused of conspiring against the republic with Charles François Dumouriez, the renegade general. Though indicted before the Revolutionary Tribunal-and under attack in Jean-Paul Marat's L'Ami du peuple-he conducted his defence with such calm eloquence that he was declared innocent. Even so, the campaign of Marat and rest of the Jacobins against him did not weaken. He was arrested again in July 1793, when he was incarcerated in La Force prison, effectively one of the ante-chambers of death during the prevailing Reign of Terror. Appearing again before the tribunal, and mustering all his soldierly courage, he accused the Committee of Public Safety of tyranny, in disregarding his previous acquittal.

Miranda seems to have survived by a combination of good luck and political expediency: the revolutionary government simply could not agree what to do with him. He remained in La Force even after the fall of Robespierre in July 1794, and was not finally released until the January of the following year. Now convinced that the whole direction taken by the Revolution had been wrong, he started to conspire with the moderate royalists against the Directory, and was even named as the possible leader of a military coup. He was arrested and ordered out of the country, only to escape and go into hiding.

He reappeared after being given permission to remain in France, though that did not stop his involvement in yet another monarchist plot in September 1797. The police were ordered to arrest the 'Peruvian general', as the said general submerged himself yet again in the underground. With no more illusions about France, or the Revolution, he left for England in Danish boat, arriving in Dover in January 1798. A remarkable man and a remarkable career. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And that's now in his article. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suleiman the clot?

Following up the FA on main page, it seemed Suleiman was off to a good start and middle, but the way he handled palace plots seemed very below par[19], especially the way he treated Mustafa who was a model of his younger self (not to mention treatment of his old best friend the Pasha), until the least likely Selim the Sot landed the best job. Was this ineptitude S the M's weakness for a powerful wife, or was he mentally losing the plot by the time the lads were heir-apparent? It seems such a contrast yet nothing mentions a mental decline. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, all political careers end in failure, and the magnificence of noon invariably gives way to the disappointment of twilight, does it not?! The important thing to understand here, Julia, is that while every royal court had a share of political intrigue, there were those in the Topkapi Palace, concubines and eunuchs, who existed for nothing but intrigue. There is, however, no reason why Suleiman would see any great virtue in Sehzade Mustafa, or any great weakness in Selim, who incidentally did not turn into 'the Sot' until after he gained the throne. Roxelana almost certainly intrigued against Mustafa, all too aware of the consequences to her own sons if he succeeded. While this cannot be proved conclusively, it seems likely that she persuaded Suleiman that Mustafa intended to force him from power, drawing on the precedent set by Selim I, the Sultan's father, in the deposition of Bayezid II, his grandfather. Indeed, this was not beyond all possibility, and Suleiman would have been mindful that, following the death of Prince Mehmet some years before, the army had considered demanding his retirement. But, in essence, it made no difference to Suleiman, in a typically callous Ottoman way, if Mustafa lived or died, because there were plenty of others to take his place.

Yes, it is true that Suleiman was getting old at the time of Mustafa's execution, and, yes, Roxelana had always been a powerful influence; but there is nothing to prove that she worked specifically on behalf of Selim. Indeed, it seems certain that she would have preferred Prince Bayezid, her favourite son, to succeed to the throne on the death of his father. As it was, her death in 1558 ended all moderating influence on the ambitions of Bayezid and Selim, allowing them to descend into fratricidal conflict. In the end Bayezid lost out by singular lack of judgement, particularly in calling on the support of the partisans of Mustafa and in attempting to draw Safavid Iran into the conflict. It was because of this that Suleiman threw all of his weight behind Selim. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Complicated then (with kismet too), thanks Clio. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Julia. I see people on the Miscellaneous Desk are exercising themselves over his headgear! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As they are. I wonder when someone will notice his obvious hat fetish, unleashing more speculation on the royal bod.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A Wise King?

Building on the tremendous answers I have had to the various questions I have posed here on Scottish history I would like to hazard another, this time, arguably, of a slightly controversial nature. James IV (r. 1488-1513) is often portrayed as one of the best, most enlightened, of the Scottish kings, but is this an accurate assessment? Hamish MacLean (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all POV really at the end of the day. Its certainly fair to say he was an enlightened king and talented scholar. I dont know whether you are familiar with his works but he was the author of Daemonologie (1596) and Basilikon Doron (1599). More about him can be found at his page...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The question seems to have been about IV, not "the wisest fool in Christendom"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! It was James VI, the great-grandson of James IV, who was the said author of those books, Cameron. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I always enjoy your questions, Hamish. As to whether James IV of Scotland is the most enlightened king well, as Cameron says above, these things are always subjective. Historians and laymen alike have their favourites and defend them quite strenuously. Certainly, we know that James was well-educated, intelligent, interested in both the arts and developing technologies. He was also hopelessly romantic, and rather headstrong (witness the disaster at Flodden Field). The article about James linked above is very brief and does not do justice to this interesting period. Perhaps you could encourage your students to research him and improve the article? It would certainly be a rewarding class project.

James was obviously a strong individual; he inherited the throne at 15 and assumed the rule without any talk of a regent, bringing the country to order quite successfully and winning the support of most nobles. He was noted for his clemency towards those who had rebelled against his father (and later rebels), and walked a fairly steady line in his relations with England, negotiating the Treaty of Perpetual Peace (1502) and marrying henry VII's daughter Margaret Tudor, who was some years his junior, despite his interest in prettier women. The romance of the French queen's invitation to support the Auld Alliance proved too much, of course, and he invaded England, risking the Pope's disapproval, and was soundly trounced at Flodden.

The king was renowned for his knowledge of languages (and was the last Scots king to speak Gaelic), the Bible and history, and was a patron of the arts. He provided a pension for poet William Dunbar, funded the first printing press in Scotland, and instituted an act to make education compulsory for all boys of barons and gentlemen (possibly the first act of its kind). He was fascinated by dentistry and surgery (performing some dental operations himself) and founded King's College, Aberdeen (which taught medicine along with other subjects), and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. Interested in ships, cannon and other developing technologies, he oversaw the rise of the Scottish navy under Andrew Wood of Largo. He banned football (but apparently played it himself) and loved the tournament and other hastiludes, held to a chivalric ideal, admired bravery (he even rewarded the defeated English naval captain after a naval battle near Dunbar), and was enthusiastic to go on crusade. He also enjoyed fine clothes, music and other courtly pursuits.

And of course, his love of the fine gesture, and his obsession with those French pikes brought his reign to a rather abrupt end. But his legacy lived on; as we discussed some weeks ago, James's overhaul of the government and general straightening of the country's affairs meant it survived and recovered from the Flodden disaster. So, that is a brief summary; there is more that might be said, and perhaps another (such as Clio) will do so. Gwinva (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No point repeating what Gwinva said. His reputation is good. In Lynch's Oxford Companion to Scottish History we read: "James IV ... is widely regarded today as the most successful of the nine Stewart rulers of Scotland. This was also the view of his own contemporaries" One of the those contemporaries, Pedro de Ayala, Spanish ambassador to England, described him in 1498 as follows: "He is twenty-five years and some months old. He is of noble stature, neither tall nor short, and as handsome in complexion and shape as a man can be." But was he wise? Well, he was much more than conventionally devout, well educated, brave, had a good conceit of himself, cut a regal figure, had a reputation for justice and good rule, but that's not wisdom.

Sir David Lyndsay's Testament and Complaint of Our Soverane Lordis Papingo has a somewhat different view. Lyndsay says that James IV's death was "Nocht be the vertew of Inglis ordinance Bot be his awin wilfull mysgovernance. Alace! that day had he been counsolabill [had he taken advice], He had obtenit laud, glore, and victorie". That doesn't sound very wise at all. Norman Macdougall's book on James is well worth a read. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... he was certainly enlightened, yes, but was he one of the best of the Scottish kings? Well, in general terms, it would have to be said that his reign stands up well when contrasted with that of his predecessor and that of his successor. However, standing aside from this, and assessing the matter objectively, James seems to me to be singularly lacking not just in judgement but in imagination. So, Hamish, let me be controversial in return; if James is to be considered as one of the 'best' of the Scottish monarchs it is really only because they were generally a fairly pedestrian bunch!

So, am I being too hard on James? Let's consider the facts. His father, for all his faults, had been open to the view that the old conflict between England and Scotland had run its course; that nothing further was to be gained by perpetuating ancient quarrels, and everything to be lost by incurring English anger. But no sooner had he taken the throne than James prepared to travel down that old weary road. The Auld Alliance with France-which by this time more often worked against Scottish interests-was renewed in 1491 and almost immediately drew Scotland into a conflict in which it had no interest whatsoever-the dispute between England and France over Brittany. No sooner had James ratified the defensive alliance than Charles VIII made peace with Henry VII at the Treaty of Etaples, not troubling to consult his ally. A wiser man would have taken note of this duplicity. James did not.

James enjoyed, it has to be said, one great advantage that most of his predecessors did not. Henry VII was a practical man for whom war was bad business. Despite all James' provocations Henry wanted peace in the north; not just a temporary arrangement but a permanent or perpetual peace, a term he first used in the diplomatic exchanges of 1494. Two years later he made the proposal even more attractive by offering his eldest daughter, Margaret, as a bride for the Scottish king, which meant that any children they had would be brought directly into the English succession, an attractive prospect, by any reasonable measure. But James demurred, instead offering comfort and support to Perkin Warbeck, the clownish Yorkist pretender, even embarking on a pointless and destructive chevauchee in northern England on his behalf. This might so very easily have ended in complete disaster, for Henry, angered by this breach of good-faith, abandoned his usual caution, calling for full-scale mobilisation against Scotland, a campaign that was only frustrated by the West-Country rising against Henry in 1497. It was the men of Devon and Cornwall who saved James from the consequences of his pointless war.

He did finally have the good sense to make his 'Perpetual Peace', but it was only as perpetual for as long as Henry was alive. The succession in 1509 of the dangerously ambitious Henry VIII, a young king in a hurry, was a time for ever greater stability and calm reflection. Henry was provocative, yes, but James should have the good sense to avoid his provocations, especially as his ambitions were directed not at Scotland but at France. James had a simple choice before him: a Perpetual Peace or an Old Alliance. He chose the latter, with disastrous consequences for him and for his country. I simply cannot bring myself to admire James, a poor politician and an even poorer general. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. Thank you all. I hope, Clio, your view is not conditioned by some residual anti-Scottish sentiment! Hamish MacLean (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course...not! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy questions

What is the precise relationship between Henri Bergson's vitalism, Edmund Husserl's development of time-consciousness and Martin Heidegger's Dasein? Thank you.F Hebert (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just how precise? --Wetman (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any answer here is potentially one of prodigious complexity. So, let's try to keep matters simple, if anything connected with Martin Heidegger can ever be made simple!

The starting point is the publication of Henry Bergson's seminal Time and Free Will, in which he distinguishes scientific knowledge of ourselves from our own experience of ourselves. The division here is between time as a spatial concept, a succession of separate and distinct events, and time as a living experience, a flow or a stream, uniting the present with the past and the future. According to Bergson, this flow resists any kind of measurement. The notion of 'time experience' was to be highly influential, used by Marcel Proust, among others in À la recherché du temps perdu.

In his work on phenomenology, Edmund Husserl deepened Bergson's work by analysing exactly how time appeared in consciousness. Under the influence of both Bergson and Husserl, in 1927 Martin Heidegger advanced the notion that Dasein-subjective existence-has its being in all three temporalities; its past, its present and its possible futures. You will find all of this and more, F Hebert, in Being and Time, the Everest of philosophical tracts! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio. I cannot say just how impressed I am. It is understandable to me now, and with such economy of words. You have a stunning lucidity. Can you please tell me if you think Heidegger's work truly offers support for Sartre's views on existential humanism? F Hebert (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you see, for Sartre Existentialism is a Humanism, as he makes clear in his publication of 1946. That is to say, the existential human subject becomes philosophically central, part of an ongoing quest for meaning and freedom. Heidegger had no interest in this human-centered subjectivity. He is first and foremost an ontologist, not an existentialist. Being and Time, Heidegger insisted, does not advance an anthropocentric philosophy. The central concern is with being, not human subjectivity. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Islamic Influences In The Design of Sleeping Beauty Castle

I was just wondering,does anybody know of possible islamic influences in the design of Disneyland`s sleeping beauty castle,I know it sounds stupid if you ask Me it sort of looks like The Taj Mahal,and the Moghuls were Muslims right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.147.235 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Sleeping Beauty Castle, which is littered with citation-needed tags, but it mentions that the design is based on Neuschwanstein Castle. To my eye, the Disney concoction looks nothing like the Taj Mahal, but that's just one man's opinion. --LarryMac | Talk 14:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) You mean with those pointy towers and all ? Hey look - I've found the same thing in the Russia and Scotland and France and Germany and a really pointy one in Australia. It's a goddamn international architectural consipracy, I tell you ! (Actually, I think they are all phallic symbols). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean general pointed arches or onion domes (which are not really exclusive to Islamic architecture), or something more specific? AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This site shows a black-and-white sketch of Herb Ryman's castle design in 1953, and a black-and-white photograph of Neuschwanstein in the 1950s. The likeness is hard to miss. When viewed in color, the Sleeping Beauty Castle maybe appears more Russian or Asian because of its vivid use of gold, turquoise and other colors. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has to be added, for those who are not aware of it, that Neuschwanstein itself is a faux castle, commissioned by Ludwig II and planned by a theatrical stage designer. As such, it is about as authentic as the Mickey Mouse version. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But then, Ludwig II was not only a bit Goofy, one may even say he had a Gearloose. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

...and more pointy towers appear in Greece, Mexico, Ireland, Canada, Japan ... the pointy-tower architects are taking over and resistance is futile. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall being told that an architect from Disney visited Carcassonne and took some drawings/inspiration from there. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

According to a Disney fan site, "Herbert Ryman began with a charcoal sketch, which he developed into a painting. He used several French castles for his inspiration, among them Chambord, Usse, and Chenonceau. Inspiration also came from the classic Walt Disney animated feature Cinderella." Another site states "Inspiration for the castle, designed by Herb Ryman, came from a few influences. Neuschwanstein (New Swan Stone) castle in southern Germany and France's château d'Chambord,and château d'Chenonceau." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaundersW (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When did "Nice to meet you" replace "Glad to know you" as the preferred introductory reply?

Recently, I've been immersing myself in a lot of old media. Specifically, TV shows from 1950-1970 and written works from 1850-1980. I've noticed that you rarely -if ever- see "Nice to meet you" used. By far, the most common phrase I see is: "Glad to know you". I know the latter isn't really that different; but honestly, I've never heard it used in real life. So, I'm assuming at some point in our history, there was a shift. I'd like to know when. Bonus points if you also know why. My guess was "nice to meet you" being somewhat less intimate just appeals more to today's less-trusting society. Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if a single data point is of any use at all, but my parent's were pretty careful about teaching us proper behavior. "Pleased to meet you" is the response I was taught in the 60s. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This all seems to be specific to the US? I can't think many people would teach children to use either of those expressions here in the UK. When I was a little boy, I was supposed to say "How do you do?" But I'd only say it now to be ceremonious. Xn4 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

These clichés are more accurate as class indicators rather than period indicators. --Wetman (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As for period indicators, see our article on jam rag. Appropriately, it is a red link. And I hope this is all sufficiently cryptic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is specific to the US. I've seen equivalent phrases in French, British-English and even Brazilian-Portuguese literature (not the exact phrase, rather, similar degrees of formality/intimacy). Good catch by BPmullins, i.e. "Pleased to meet you" being the formal counterpart to "Nice.." I guess to simplify, I could narrow it down to US TV shows. Pre-1980, you hear "Glad..." Post-1980, it's "Nice/Pleased". Just wondering if anyone had any insight into the shift. After all, I realize it's a completely trivial question :) Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching I Love Lucy. The characters in the mid-1950s show invariably say, "How do you do." It always sound strange to me (I'm in my early 30s). --Nricardo (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, I was watching Lucy yesterday and heard "Glad to know you". You're right, though. I did hear "How.." a few times as well. Lucy says that, and sounds quite proper in doing so. Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of National Lampoon's Animal House where playboy Eric Stratton's line was "Damn glad to meet you!". Then there was "Belles on their Toes" (1952) set in 1924 by the Gilbreths (of "Cheaper by the Dozen" where Ernestine's line was "Meased to pleat you." Edison (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sartre's drug induced crisis

I came across a brief reference to the fact that Jean-Paul Sartre had some kind of drug induced crisis after his return from Germany in 1934, but can find nothing further, no reference to this in his published work. Any leads here would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.81 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In February of 1935, Sartre, interested in dreams and anomalies of perception, was injected with mescaline at a hospital. At the time he was also suffering a bout of depression. Reporting on the experience to Simone de Beauvoir by telephone, he reported battling with several "devil fish". Over the next few months he began to suffer hallucinations, at first a he believed a single giant lobster was following him, and later more and more of the creatures. A doctor prescribed belladonna, which only made Sartre's problems worse, but by then end of summer he declared that, as far as lobsters were concerned, he had "sent them packing." Fullbrook, K., & Fullbrook, E. (1994). Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: the remaking of a twentieth-century legend. New York, N.Y.: BasicBooks. pp. 86-7. OCLC 29028752. The authors cite Beauvoir's The Prime of Life.—eric 00:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find all of the details in Simone de Beauvoir's memoir, The Prime of Life. Sartre's experience reminds me somewhat of that of Thomas de Quincy in his Confessions of an English Opium Eater. Both men ended being pursued by demons, though Sartre's took a particularly disturbing form. The effects of the mescaline, he told de Beauvoir, were like being trapped in a surrealist text. He wasn't just pursued by the giant lobster mentioned by eric. Huge devil-fish swarmed over his body; de Beauvoir’s shoes turned into beetles; an umbrella became a vulture. These hallucinations lasted for four months, during which time Sartre was convinced he was going mad-"I'm on the edge of a chronic hallucinatory psychosis." Ah, well; just fancy: being pursued down the streets of Paris by a lobster! Makes a change, I suppose, from the usual Lotharios! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the lobster following him had some association with Gerard de Nerval, another writer who lived in Paris, and had experiences with mental illness, and probably with hallucinogenic substances. SaundersW (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Chirac on Iraq

The article about the former president of France briefly mentions his anti-war stance. I am, however, looking for any article which in more depth reveals Chirac's stance, in particular post-war (most of which is on Google is either very old, or very much in French). Among other things that interest me, is that France's stand against the invasion of Iraq seems based on some degree of (hard-earned (for them and others)) experience (Algerie, dealings in Africa, so forth). Tony Blair, I remember, would recite the president as having predicted the shiite-sunni problems, and that'd strike me as a rather brutally clever notion for a country's leader to have. Finishing off what is increasingly looking like praise of mr Chirac, I am hoping you can help me to either a Wikipedia article that deals more thoroughly with the subject, or perhaps something external. My search is coming up empty, anyway. Thank you. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what I found. In a documentary made for the BBC by Michael Cockerell, Sir Stephen Wall - one of Blair's former policy advisers - has described a meeting between Blair and Chirac in October 2002 during which Chirac made three points about a possible invasion: (1) war is generally not a good thing, as Chirac experienced when he fought as a conscript in Algeria, (2) the US and the UK should not count on being welcomed with flowers, and (3) having the Shia majority take over the country is not the same thing as "democracy". Sources: [20], [21] DAVID ŠENEK 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the OP. Thank you, but this is not the information I seek. The program in question does not interest me, it merely went ahead and mentioned Chirac's advice, something I thought I'd briefly mention in my own post. Primarily of interest to me are the opinions that Chirac currently has on what should be done in the Iraq war, possibly before Sarkozy became president. 213.161.190.228 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavarian Flask from Bavaria with grasshopper holding a hat trademark

I am wondering if you can find any information about a flask from Bavaria. I have contacted many flask dealers on the internet and none of them have seen this flask before. It is in the shape of a little girl and is about 5 3/4 inches tall and the cork is also the back of her had. On the back there is a grasshoper holding a hat molded into the porcelain and the letters and numbers " K.L. 806" at the bottom of the back. There is also a little butterfly looking emblem stamped into it just before "K.L.". The front is painted, blond hair, blue eyes, pink cheeks, red lips, brown eyebrows, red hat with 3 white flowers, blue scallops on a white dress and pink shoes. She's holding a bouquet of flowers, 3 purple, 1 white, green leaves, yellow centers in the flowers. On the bottom it says "Made in Bavaria" in a circle and the initials "dv" are off to the side. I can send pictures upon request. I appreciate any information you can give me on this flask. Thanks, Martha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary1942 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ma'alaya

Does anybody know what is ma'alaya mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would nice to have some approximate context to go on (perhaps the spelling of the word in its original form, if it comes from a language which does not use the Latin alphabet)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this relevant – Sri Lankan language film, "Ma Alaya Kala Tharuniya (The Girl I Loved,) director, Sirisena Wimalaweera, February 20, 1959" from our article List of Sinhala-language films. You could ask at the language refdesk for specifics. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We had this before in January; maybe Don is the same user? It might mean "highness" as in "your highness." Adam Bishop (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Signet Rings

(Another) Random Question: why are signet rings traditionally worn on one's pinkie finger in the UK/US? The article says that its primarily a tradition, but doesn't go into further detail. I have speculated that it might be as signet rings are family heirlooms (thus very old), and when they rings were first cast the initial wearer had thinner fingers due to nutrition. As such, the ring no longer fit on the ring finger, and had to be moved on to the pinkie etc. etc. This is pure speculation however, and I would appreciate an answer in greater detail. As always, thank you. :) Zidel333 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use a signet ring for its proper purpose - to create an imprint in soft sealing wax before it solidifies- the little finger is the only practical locus. If you were to wear it on any other finger you would get the hot sticky stuff all over your digits and get blisters on your fingers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just take the ring off, and use it by holding the circlet between two fingers? That way there will be zero chance of blisters. In light of this usage of signet rings (and I have actually seen a person use it thus, whether or not it is the "proper form"), you answer is only partway satisfactory. Zidel333 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But why take the ring off, and run the risk of losing it, when a quick twist of the hand suffices? And there is certainly nothing to suggest that mens' hands were thinner in the past. The classes who owned and used signet rings were better known for over-indulgence than for poor nutrition. Rings were frequently worn all fingers, not just the "ring finger". And what is that, but another tradition? Gwinva (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of a Hindu God

I was ruminating about names of Indian, Hindu Gods, and have been unable to come up with the name of a Hindu God that starts with the letter F. I have asked a number of people and researched as much as I could but unable to unearth a name. Its probably so obvious that it escapes me, or there is something more linguistically inherent in the letter F and its translation from Sanskrit or other Indian languages. Of course I could be blowing a lot of smoke here. Anyway, for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.103.226 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably it's because Sanskrit doesn't have an F sound in it. 69.156.126.7 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The closest to "f" is the फ or "ph". -- Q Chris (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

High school band bus crash

Shouldn't there be any updates on the victims who are still hospitalized following that crash which claimed one life on April 5, 2008?72.229.136.18 (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a news item, not an encyclopedia entry. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

left-handed calligraphers

are there any left-handed calligrapehrs? any famous ones at least? thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.30.122 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are, though a quick scan yielded none with a Wikipedia article of its own. Rick Muffler, for example, "the only left-handed calligrapher at the White House". Perhaps there are more famous ones in right-to-left writing systems: I found the 18th century Ottoman calligraphist Mehmed Esad Yesari who "was born paralysed down the right hand side of his body, which gave rise to the nickname "Yesari" (left-handed)". Here is a sample of Yesari's art: "Let man pay heed to the reason for his creation." ---Sluzzelin talk 01:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In your white house link, if I wanted to write in the same script as Rick Muffler, where could I start? I mean his "font" the way he writes his letters. Where can I find letterings in general? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.13.205 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For fonts there's dafont.com. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How to serve warm beer?

I was told in school (way back when--I'm well above legal) that beer was served warm in the Colonial period. People would stick a hot poke into their jug and drink the warmed up beer. Is there any truth to that and how may I imitate it? Imagine Reason (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I should've googled (the beer page doesn't have much).[22] Imagine Reason (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The beer page needs you!

April 9

Death and the VC

I just read the main page article about the Victoria Cross and I wondered: which war had the most VCs awarded per death? A sort of ratio of deaths to Victoria Crosses. Thanks a lot. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I´d say the Zuluwar wins. See the pretty depressing Battle of Isandlwana#Aftermath. But wait for Clio. She knows better than I do.--Tresckow (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your meaning is not quite clear to me, 81.96, but the answer to your question is almost certainly the First World War, though I have not calculated just how many of the 634 Victoria Crosses awarded were given out posthumously, or the number of medals as a proportion of the total casualty list. Tresckow, the Zulu War saw the most medals awarded for a single action, the defence of Rorke's Drift, though I believe that all of the eleven recipients survived the battle. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Zulu war had high fatalities but few VCs. I've thrown a table together, and am hunting through WP to fill it in; feel free to add in. It might be worth looking at recent campaigns, such as Afghanistan: 2 VCs awarded, with fairly light losses in historical terms (don't know how many). Only 14 VCs have been awarded since WWII. Also check out List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign. nb. I've only considered Commonwealth/British Empire deaths, since VC are only awarded to these soldiers. Gwinva (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I've filled a few more in, but some fatality lists are hard to come by. It gives you an idea, anyway. WWI is far down the list of VCs to deaths. (I presume that was the ratio you wanted?) Gwinva (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

War	years	Military fatalities (British Empire /Commonwealth)	VCs awarded	VCs per death	total BE/cmwth servicemen	VCs per serviceman
Crimean War	1854–1856	4774 (+ 16323 of disease)	111	0.0233 (0.0053)	250,000	0.00044
Indian Mutiny	1857–1859		182
First Taranaki War	1860–1861	238 (casualties)	2	(0.0084 per casualty)	2000	0.001
Waikato-Hauhau Maori War	1863–1866		13
Anglo-Zulu War	1879	1727	23	0.0133	15000	0.00153
Second Afghan War	1878–1880		16
First Boer War	1880–1881	408	6	0.0147	1200	0.005
Second Boer War	1899–1902		78
World War I	1914-18	1,113,710	627	0.0006
World War II	1939-1945	580,000	181	0.0003
Korean War	1950–1953	1964	4	0.0020	109,006	0.00004
Vietnam War	1959–1975	557	4	0.0072
Falklands War	1982	258	2	0.0078
Operation Telic	2003-05	176	1	0.0057
Afghanistan	2001-present	177 [23]	2	0.0113
all others	1854-present		102

Gwinva, yeah that's exactly what I wanted. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Why were there many issued following the Crimean war then? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The medal was instituted during the Crimean War for "valour". There was no precendent, or tradition to regulate or temper its use. I suspect citations decreased over time as the medal became more prestigious: the "we can't hand it out to just anyone" idea. It would also be worth looking at when the other service medals were instituted. Now there are a number of "lesser" medal options, such as the DSO. Only 181 VCs were awarded in the whole of WWII; but how many other medals were issued? Gwinva (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting table. Anyone want to do the same for the US and the Medal of Honor? --Anon, 23:59 UTC, April9, 2008.

If I convert to Judaism and become a Jew, I'm still Asian and Thai American or not?

I don't want to convert to Judaism now. I'm Asian American, Thai American, and a Shia Muslim. If I convert to Judaism and become a Jew, I'm still Asian and Thai American or not? I know if I'm born Asian and Thai American, I will be Asian and Thai American forever in my life. Jet (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, did your last sentence not answer your question? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The important thing to consider is the difference between ethnic identification and religious identification. The two are a bit confused in Judaism and Jewishness. You can be Jewish, but not believe in Judaism, and I think you can convert to Judaism, but not become a Jew (certainly not ethnically - it doesn't change your DNA). You can also have multiple ethnic identities. In fact, you already do. You're Thai, Asian, American and the combinations of those. I don't think it would be strange to add another identification in there, if it's merited. You could certainly take up Jewish traditions, and identify culturally with Jewishness. Steewi (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You can categorize yourself however you want to. Other people will categorize you however they want to. In general, you will be categorized in three ways: Ethinicity, religion, and nationality. All three are arbitrary and capricious, and frequently a term such as "Jew" will conflate the categories. It is very easy to find people that self-identify in multiple races, multiple nationalities, and multiple religions. The best course ot to avoid these ridiculous labels entirely. -Arch dude (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Please correct me if I'm wrong) If you didn't know, to be an "ethnic Jew" your mother must be a Jew. To gain Isreali citizenship so that your a Isreali national (or your nationality is Jewish) one of your grandparents must have been Jewish. And to be religiously Jewish you must convert to Judaism (no idea what this involves other than a sharp knife) --Shniken1 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To be accepted as a Jew in the religious sense, either your mother must be a Jew (possibly a convert!), or you yourself must convert to Judaism. The ethnic notion of Jewishness is much vaguer, and has more to do how people identify themselves and how they are seen by others – who may use other criteria than matrilineal descent.  --Lambiam 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Who is a Jew?.  --Lambiam 12:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What's Thai American? I'd be way more concerned over my citizenship. Are you Thai or are you American? Beekone (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See Thai American. Kultida Woods and her son, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No I get the use, I don't get why it's accepted though. Were you born in America? Do you pay taxes to America? If Thailand went to war and instituted a draft, would you be eligible? Beekone (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord Norman Tebbit, maybe it tells them something useful about their cultural upbringing. It's not always sensible, but it's no need to come over all National Front. 130.88.140.107 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to hyphate your nationality to remember your heritage? I'm sorry, I can't believe anyone's that stupid. Why don't you make it a point not to prefix "American" to help you remember to be loyal, patriotic, proud, any number of virtues that have nothing to do with snubbing your heritage? I'm not a Dutch American, I'm an American with Dutch roots... and to be more topical, I would still be an American with Dutch roots even if I converted to Judaism. I also apologize if I'm coming across as "National Front" but I think it's no less a ridiculous addition to this thread as the initial question. Beekone (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have your way of refering to yourself, they have theirs. Neither makes any more intrinsic sense. For example, it is quicker and easier to say they are Thai American than American-with-Thai-roots, and nobody except you seems to interpret it as meaning anything different. And why on Earth would where you put the 'Thai' or the 'Dutch' affect whether you 'remember' to be 'loyal, patriotic, proud'? The initial question strikes me as someone a little confused about the meanings of words and the difference between various labels trying to get some feedback and think something through; not ridiculous. You came across as rude and unpleasant, looking for a fight. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

would it be possible to do an IPO with shares that are worth 0% of the company?

Could a company start selling shares in an IPO each of which are for 0% of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.13.205 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What you mean is issue something that will pay dividends but not give voting rights or share of assets. I think, by definition this is not a share - I believe in the UK it is known as a bond issue. As you have no say in the country the payments you get are (usually/always?) fixed in advance. I am going from memory from a course I took decades ago so I would appreciate someone confirming this. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible for a company to issue preference shares, in which investors give up some or all of their voting rights in exchange for preferred treatment in dividend distributions or greater protection in case of liquidation or takeover. However, these types of shares are normally only issued by private companies - it would be unusual to see them offered in an IPO. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article Share (finance) gives the following definition:

A share is one of a finite number of equal portions in the capital of a company, ....

I've underlined the word finite, since it implies that the portions cannot be 0%.  --Lambiam 12:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why its called a share! Shares, even preference shares have a percentage of equity. A company can issue a bond, however, which does not have am equity share. From the Article:

Bonds and stocks are both securities, but the major difference between the two is that stock-holders are the owners of the company (i.e., they have an equity stake), whereas bond-holders are lenders to the issuing company.

I think that issuing bonds is different from an IPO, but has the same result in raising capital. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Tuesday?

Why are so many of the elections in the United States held on a Tuesday? Is this done by The Man to minimise voter turnout? Surely you would get a higher turnout if they were held on a weekend when most people aren't at work.--Shniken1 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they are legally or constitutionally determined to be on Tuesdays. And you can be exempted from work to go vote. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion may be an issue with weekends. Jews and Seventh-day Adventists worship on Saturday. No one considers Tuesday a holy day. Wrad (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I worship the pancake and I do! hotclaws 05:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

see: Election Day (United States)#History.—eric 06:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

mmm, pancakes...81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the US Constitution about it being on a Tuesday; the only constitional requirement is that all the presidential electors vote on the same day, along with permission to Congress to regulate when the electors are chosen. It must be a legal exercise of this permission. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy

Is there any way of a man living with 2 or more woman without legal problems if the man doesn't marry but live together with the women for life by not-marrying-but-living-together in US and Europe? Is there any other problems if all the women and the man have no problems in that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.138.38 (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the legal marrying that's the problem, living plural isn't really anyone's concern afaik. Australian actor Jack Thompson's "unusual living arrangements" were well known. He lived with two sisters for 15 years[24] until having children with one of them, so it seems to work up to a point if everyone agrees. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fornication laws have been generally repealed in most legal jurisdictions in the developed countries, so the real legal problems would be if you attempt to formally legally marry two spouses (in which case you would be subject to bigamy laws), or if you want the formal legal rights which come with marriage to apply to both your spouses. AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

While I believe fairly rare, in some places such as Utah you could be charged with bigamy (check out the legal sitution section) even if you aren't actually legally married to both spouses if you are found to be in a common with multiple spouses. However even then, I believe this is still very rare (I think one of the only cases to actually be prosecuted was based on statements the person had made suggesting he was married to more then one person) and the trend is mostly to target things like welfare fraud, child abuse etc rather then people who are simply practicing polygamy. Having said that, particularly in places like Utah you may find many people would consider such an arrangement social unacceptably and so you may find you have other non-legal problems in your day to day interactions Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the above comments are, but the person clearly said "if the man doesn't marry." As far as living together, ever heard of roommates? Many people in the U.S. live in apartments where they have roommates. And they can be of opposite genders too. So I don't see a legality issue in it (and I'm no lawyer). Neal (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Neal: Many jurisdictions (Canada for one) has a legal definition where people living together 'as if they were married' are considered to be married, even if they haven't gone through the ceremony. This applies to various areas including divorce and welfare. Whether it could be applied to bigamy is a question I wouldn't want to answer, but it's certainly not inconceivable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: ''as if they were married' - that, right there, is the problem. How can we know if a bunch of college students sharing an apartment act or live as if they are married?If they act as if they were married but aren't, and a country like Canada considers them to be legally married, then is there any strong definition or standards of marriage? Of course, you make that claim, where I certainly doubt it, so I'd need faith in order to believe what you said was true. I obviously think a country like Canada has standards on their definition of marriage, but all you have to do is prove me wrong. *shrug* Neal (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Feel free to consult a lawyer if you don't believe me. Any divorce lawyer will give you the facts. And yes, it is often hard to know whether people are 'acting as if married'. The test is much more strict than "are they having sex", or "are they living in the same room", though, so most house-sharing students probably don't qualify. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I might do, just that. I have to meet up with my lawyer on something. Although, the original question was regarding the U.S. and Europe, and I can't answer for Europe, but I guess you meant Canada lawyer regarding Canada (which I don't have). But we seemingly threw in words like bigamy as a potential issue, but I don't see how a man living with 2 women could be charged with bigamy if neither 3 of them are married. That just makes no sense. *Sigh* ;\ Neal (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

See common-law marriage. --D. Monack | talk 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax definition

I am doing my US federal taxes (a few days early, go me!), and I have a 1099-MISC that says at the top of it that the money is a "non-qualified fellowship award". I've tried to figure out exactly what that means—I think it means it is taxable because it is not being used purely for tuition purposes, yes? Googling has only confused me because I know quite little about tax code definitions. (I'm not asking for tax advice. I'm doing it all in TurboTax anyway so there's not a lot of discretion on my behalf—I just enter the numbers in and pay whatever gobs of money they tell me to. I'm just curious.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Non-qualified" implies that the amount is taxable. See further here for how and where to report this.  --Lambiam 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! That's what I thought, but wanted to check. What a strange lexicon they use for these things—would kill them to just call it "taxable" or something. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rochester the puritan

Is it true,as some of his biographers have suggested, that John Wilmont the poet was a closet puritan?English Teen (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of a biography of Rochester which claims he was a closet puritan and reading his letters and poetry I find this hard to believe. But obviously it can't be ruled out. This shouldn't be confused with Rochester's becoming 'the greatest penitent' in 1679-1680 and finally almost evangelical in his burning of his obscene images and writings, and his persuading of his wife to rejoin the English church. (in fact at this stage of his illness he was probably mad) Lord Foppington (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to know which biographers, English Teen, because it is complete and utter tosh! John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, is about as far removed from Puritanism as it is possible to imagine. More than that, he represents, it might be said, the Restoration's antithesis to the heavy and joyless hand that that had ruled England for over ten years. Wilmot was an atheist and a hedonist-No glory's vain which does from pleasure spring. His poetry is a celebration of pleasure in its many forms, especially sexual pleasure. He did not just practice debauchery, he advocated debauchery!

Her father gave her dildos six;

Her mother made 'em up a score,

But she loves nought but living pricks

And swears by God she'll frig no more.

Now, ask yourself: could John Milton ever have penned those lines?! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I never knew they had dildos back then. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they did, Bibliomaniac, as you will discover if you ever read the poem whose title appears below! I'm just about to enlighten you still further on this delightful subject! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dildos date back to the Upper Paleolithic, according to our article. I have seen an ivory object from Siberia, unmistakable to my eyes, but labelled "a shaman's implement". Alas, there is no cabinet in the Pitt Rivers Museum equivalent in intent to the Secret Museum, Naples. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signior Dildo

Is there a latent political agenda to Rochester's bawdy poem? If so, what? I REALLY need help with this-SOON.English Teen (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. During the Parliamentary session of 1673 objections were raised to the proposed marriage of James, Duke of York, brother of the King and heir to the throne, to Mary of Modena, an Italian Catholic Princess. An address was presented to King Charles on 3 November, foreseeing the dangerous consequences of marriage to a Catholic, and urging him to put a stop to any planned wedding '...to the unspeakable Joy and Comfort of all Your loyal Subjects." Wilmot's response was Signior Dildo (You ladies all of merry England), a mock address anticipating the 'solid' advantages of a Catholic marriage, namely the wholesale importation of Italian dildos, to the unspeakable joy and comfort of all the ladies of England!

You ladies all of merry England

Who have been to kiss the Duchess's hand,

Pray, did you not lately observe in the show

A noble Italian called Signior Dildo?...

A rabble of pricks who were welcomed before,

Now finding the porter denied them the door,

Maliciously waited his coming below

And inhumanly fell on Signior Dildo...

And so on and so forth! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Female hysteria on the loose, methinks. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam god's Kingdom

What does Islam say about Christianity's God's Kingdom? Does it say in the Qur'an and is there a Friday sermon about this God's Kingdom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosque links to salah which is the practice of praying five times daily, but that article makes no mention of Jannah, which is the Islamic heaven. Jumu'ah is the communal Friday prayer, preceded by a Khutba, which seems to have as much freedom of scope for the preacher as any other religion. So I doubt they specifically address the Christian idea of heaven very often, they probably place more emphasis on follwing the five pillars of Islam in order to be rewarded with a place in Jannah. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that not all Christians equate 'The Kingdom of God' and 'heaven'. Many consider the Kingdom of God to be an earthly kingdom (as in Christendom) that transcends political boundaries. The realm of Islam may be analogous to this, but I'm not familiar enough with the Qur'an to be able to comment on that. Steewi (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

What does Islam say about the Evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

From objections to evolution "Islam accepts the natural evolution of plants and animals, but the origin of man is contested and no consensus has emerged". So it's not a huge topic in Islam like it is in American Evangelical Christianity. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Except in Turkey, which is the country with the highest percentage of people rejecting evolution. (2nd place is United States).--Goon Noot (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Armageddon

What does Islam say about Armageddon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See Islamic eschatology, it seems pretty similar to both Judaism and Christianity, which isn't that suprising as they are all Abrahamic religions. So basically they think there will be a judgement day when all sinners will be cast into Jahannam and all devout souls will be rewarded with admittance to Jannah and the presence of Allah. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Princepality of Hut River passport holder

Dear Friends! I am a responsible person from the Principality of Hutt River. I want to ask you a few questions: 1. If PRH is the part of Australia, why PRH is exempted from the taxes levied on the Australian Nationals? 2. If PRH is the part of Australia, why HRH Prince Leonard is not convicted for issuing the currency and passports? 3. If PRH is the part of Australia, why we are receiving letters with the stamps of PRH? Is there any other state or province of Australia that is using its own postal stamps? 4. If PRH is not taken seriously in the world why and how we are traveling on the passports of PRH? I would like to upload the image of the letters (with stamps) sent by PRH to Spain to show to all of my friends. If permitted, I would also show the visas issued on my passport. I'll be thankful if anyone helps me uploading the images, please. I would be happy to see a healthy critic about our Principality. If we have not moved fast, it is not because of our legality, it is because of our lack of resources. But we are sure that we'll get the recognition in this decade. Thanks to all.

Move here by Cameron on behalf of anon.

Perhaps viewing the article Principality of Sealand would answer some of your questions? --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And then there is also the Principality of Hutt River. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He/she was already seen that one...he/she originally posted this comment on that talk page but I moved it here as I thought the questions were rather more likely to be answered here = )...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And the answer to the actual questions are;

1, It isn't. [25]

2, Because there are no laws in Australia against making your own coins or passports.

3, Because you got lucky - it's not unusual for letters to be delivered despite not having legitimate postage, especially internationally.

4, Because you're not traveling "on the passport", you're travelling on the visa that's inside it.

FiggyBee (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But what government would issue a visa when presented with an unrecognised passport? --Kvasir (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Visas are issued based on a whole range of identity documents and personal information, so you're right, no-one's going to get a visa based on a HR passport alone. A passport is merely an identity document, it doesn't provide any right to entry or travel in its own right. FiggyBee (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hutt River Province is ambiguous in its relationship to Australia. Its denizens (including Prince Leonard) do not consider it to be part of Australia, and therefore do not trouble themselves with taxes, etc. I suspect the Australian government is not worried about the status of HRP and prefers to lose some taxes rather than create a controversy over HRP's secession from the Commonwealth of Australia. Steewi (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Murdoch and Canetti

Your page on Iris Murdoch says nothing about her relationship with Elias Canetti. I would like to know why he turned against her towards the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codliveroil (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A Google search turns up a number of reviews of Party in the Blitz.—eric 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find much of the detail in Iris Murdoch: A Life by P. J. Conrad (Harper Collins, 2001). Elias Canetti lived in England for nearly forty years, seemingly hating the experience. In his resentment he turned on Iris Murdoch, with whom he had had an affair, seeing in her all of the perceived faults of the country. She was, in his eyes, a 'complete Oxford parasite'. She dressed badly, her figure was wrong, she was promiscuous, bisexual and religious. She was a person who had enjoyed 'vulgar' success, in novels that were far too Oxonian, with characters who were merely caricatures of her friends and pupils. She was, unlike him, an illegitimate Poet or Master of Transformation. And so his memoir continues in this sour and silly tone. At one point he uses literally hundreds of words to criticise a revealing blouse she wore to attract Sir Aymer Maxwell, who, though homosexual, was grandson to a Duke of Cumberland.

It all reveals so much about Canetti's character. It also, perhaps, reveals some lack of judgement on Murdoch's part in ever entering into a relationship with such a shallow egoist. As far as I am concerned his writings, both his fiction and his non-fiction, are amongst the most grossly overrated of the last century. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

resemblance

erm, i was reading Innocent today, and i strongly feel that there is a resemblance. 82.43.201.36 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be the straight guy. (I was going to say, "I'll bite", but feared someone would draw an unwarranted conclusion from that expression about my attitude to this "newcomer.) So, "resemblance" to what? And what is your question? ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody needs to suitly emphazi. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We can all merely guess, but in case you are referring to Innocent X, more specifically to Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X, then the model himself agreed and noticed the resemblance too; he purportedly said his portrait was "troppo vero" (too truthful). Or did you mean the resemblance between Bacon's Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X and its model? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

resembling

The above question made me think of one too: which things most resemble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.13.205 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(I feel more like I do now than I did before I read that question.) Edison (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The things that have most in common? From Resemblance there's analogy (this stands for that) and similarity is some degree of symmetry... in ... resemblance between two or more concepts or objects. You get to pick which objects and notice which qualities they share that brings them close to each other. There's also difference, sameness and equality. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Orley Farm

in what way does Anthony Trollope use his novel Orley Farm to examine the debates surrounding the emancipation of women in victorian society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.236 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as our guidelines dictate: 'Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first.' The best place to start is reading the book first and then our articles on Orley Farm, Anthony Trollope and Women in the Victorian era. If you're still stuck, come back to us... Lord Foppington (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Orley Farm, Trollope's first serialised novel, was published in the early 1860s, a time when the question of women's rights was becoming ever more topical. Four years before he started writing a woman had been refused permission to sit the examination for the University of London's medical, diploma. The debates issues like this engendered are reflected in the novel by the likes of Lady Stavely and Mrs Furnival, who take a conservative view. According to Mrs Furnival 'women ought not to have any spheres', an opinion attacked by her daughter and by Lucius Mason, who argues that the mind of a woman 'is equal to that of a man', and that 'they ought to make themselves careers as brilliant.' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Master Slave Dialectic

Could you please explain Hegel's master slave dialectic to me? I'm completely lost. P. S. Your article does not help.Caroline Finkel (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Master-slave dialectic is one of the central arguments of The Phenomenology of Spirit. Yes, I know it's not easy, Caroline, but it might help if you substitute 'individuals' for Hegel's somewhat perplexing usage of 'self-consciousnesses'. Looking at it from this perspective, then the idea to hold on to is that each individual requires another to establish full self-awareness. What is required from the other is acknowledgement or recognition. The integrity of my self-consciousness (not, I stress, to be mistaken with embarrassment in strict English usage) is threatened by the existence of another who refuses to acknowledge me as a person.

It is this mutual relationship that is complicated in the relationship between master and slave, a relationship of domination and dependence; it is the division, in other words, between the ruler and the ruled. In this relationship the master would seem to have everything: he has both the subservience of the slave and the fruits of his labour. But what of his need for acknowledgement? The master acknowledges the slave, true, but it is the acknowledgement only of a 'thing', not an independent consciousness. In this unequal relationship the master has failed to achieve the acknowledgement he requires. The slave, too, lacks adequate acknowledgment; but he transforms and shapes the external world by his labour. He achieves permanence in labour, not the merely temporary gratification of the master. In this process he becomes aware of his own consciousness; for he has created before him something meaningful and objective. In this he discovers the nature of his own mind.

I'm all too well aware that this might still sound horribly complicated, but it's almost impossible to make it any simpler. There are some good basic guides to Hegel I could recommend, if you wish to take the matter further. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Hegel is trying to set up the labouring class as a slight variant of the noble savage, ennobled by his toil. Such a philosophical stance would certainly suit the interests of the nobleman, who can go on enjoying his elevated social status while holding the ludicrous idea that their peons are the lucky ones. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too? Vranak (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels II

Hey, Clio, thanks for your very full response to mt last Magda question. Can you tell me at what point in the war when she stopped believing in a German victory and confessed as much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first intimation that she knew what was coming was probably Christmas 1944, when she said to her secretary 'Next year there will definitely be peace.' The secretary later reported having a premonition that Magda was telling her that she would not be alive by the time Christmas came again. The most open confession that it was all coming to an end was made on a visit to her friend Ello in February 1945. Ello, full of concerns for the future, sought reassurance from Magda, who filled her with the usual comforting assurances about 'miracle weapons'. However, later that day a care-worm Magda asked Ello to sit down beside her, saying;

I have to tell you something. I lied to you this afternoon, I told you about the miracle weapons that will be coming soon...it's all nonsense, just some fraudulent rubbish that Joseph has cooked up. We have nothing left, Ello...total defeat is barely a matter of weeks away.-We're all going to die, Ello...but by our own hands, not by the force of others. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Youngest age of legal marriage -- how real was this

What is the youngest age that individuals can or could marry? I will restrict this by saying: now, or in the latter half of the twentieth century, and not within Islamic marital jurisprudence. For example, I believe that before the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976, the minimum age for matrimony in Quebec was very low (can anyone confirm that it was 12 for girls?), and one of the planks of the PQ's election was to reform all sorts of old laws relating to women's rights. (And, incidentally, our article says they were the first in North America to enact sexual orientation equality legislation.)

Secondly, a question for statisticians: taking any of these low-minimum-jurisdictions (once our legal historian friends come up with some), how many people actually got married that young? Was it one in a hundred or one in ten thousand marriages? How many years older was the other spouse on average? And is there any way of telling how many of these child-brides were pregnant? (ie how long between marriage certificate and birth certificate). I assume this is available in government records almost anywhere in the world -- this info will be on the various certificates. Whether it has ever been collated I have no idea. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Value added tax

I'm in the UK. If I buy a book from a bookseller in the UK I pay 17.5% VAT to HM Treasury. Well actually I pay the bookseller and the bookseller pays the treasury.

However, if I buy the same book from the USA I pay no UK VAT. But does the bookseller still have to pay VAT to the US Treasury? (and therefore is it included in the price I pay?)

• If yes is this a different rate?
• If not doesn't this mean that the US can undercut UK prices, and vice-versa?

what's the point in that? I am not a dog (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the UK books are zero-rated for VAT (ie VAT=0%). In the US, sales tax is applicable on a range of goods, with varying rates between states. Taxes such as this can often be claimed back on exports. For example, UK airports will provide desks to claim back VAT paid on goods being taken out of the country, but some of these might then be liable for customs import duties at the destination port. The average individual is rarely bothered by such taxes when buying goods around the world, figuring that what they lose on the swings they gain on the roundabouts, but businesses employ tax accountants to work out the most cost-effective way to manage taxes on imports and exports. Some retail companies are set up to make the most of tax undercutting, such as www.amazon.co.uk which sells and distributes DVDs from Amazon Jersey. Gwinva (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In Canada, where VAT is called GST, you pay it on things you import into the country as well as on things you buy. I don't like mail-ordering stuff, but I have had it happen that I bought something from a US source, and the shipment was sent to a customs broker who notified me of the duty (if any), the GST, and a service charge (about $10) for collecting it. I made my payment and the package was delivered to me. If the UK does not have similar arrangements I would be surprised -- but this is not to say that every package on which tax could have been collected actually has it happen. --Anonymous, 00:14 UTC (edited 00:19), April 10, 2008.

US-based online retailers generally do not assess state sales taxes. Almost certainly, they don't assess VAT for the UK. It so happens that in my state (Massachusetts) buyers are legally liable for the state sales tax and are supposed to keep a record of online purchases and pay the cumulative tax at the end of the year. I would think that if the UK does not collect customs duties or VAT on imports from online retailers, it may require purchasers to pay such duties on their own. You might check with a tax accountant. Marco polo (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The tax on out-of-state purchases that Marco refers to is called a use tax and is commonly on the books of states that have sales taxes. However, in practice, it's completely unenforceable as far as individuals are concerned, and few people report their use tax to their states. Online retailers are increasingly collecting sales taxes under voluntary agreements with states. As mentioned above, countries typically allow tourists to reclaim their VAT/GST when they leave the country under certain conditions; however, your home country may charge duty on the items you buy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire Ridings

What exactly is the meaning of a riding and why was it applied to these historic areas? Simply south (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For starters see Riding (division). --Anonymous, 00:16 UTC, April 10, 2008.

April 10

Stories within stories

I remember once reading several stories in which the characters tell each other stories. They were all by the same author. Does anyone know who I might be thinking of? Thanks ahead of time. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Canterbury Tales? Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall them being about pilgrims. If I remember right, I think that one of them was about merchants on a desert trade route. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

However, I may also be wrong and they may not all be attributed to the same author, but just grouped together. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Thousand and One Nights? That's not really by one author though. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My first thought (stopped by quadruple edit conflict) was The Decameron which includes at least one tale of the desert as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1001 Nights does include plenty of stories about merchants, and many nights involve someone telling a story about someone telling someone a story. They're all portrayed as being the stories of one woman, too. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It definitely was not the 1001 Nights. I know this because there were several books in that collection. The stories I read were in one book. While the ones from 1001 nights were in an entirely different one. Also, non of the stories had 100 stories within stories in them. 99.226.39.245 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

99.226, on a point of information The Canterbury Tales are told by pilgrims; they are not about pilgrims. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So they're real pilgrims, and not pilgrims in the story? Or is it that they're fake pilgrims in the story who are telling stories to other fictional pilgrims for the sake of connecting the stories? But I suppose it doesn't matter. Because it's not the canterbury tales. XD 99.226.39.245 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And if we haven't yet delivered what you seek, see also the articles on frame story and story within a story for more literary examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As proof of the obscure nature of this story these stories, I haven't been able to locate in the articles.99.226.26.154 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To briefly explain the Canterbury tales, it's the story of a band of pilgrims who tell each other stories along the way. These stories are narrated by one of the characters, but have characters all of their own, and Chaucer interjects quite often to make points about the tale-telling characters. It might be worth looking at story within a story to see if the one you're looking for is in there. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, the story is not to be found in the articles. Thanks for the suggestion, though. 99.226.26.154 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple which haven't been mentioned, and aren't in those articles are the Heptameron and Melmoth the Wanderer (which takes story within a story within a story ... to ridiculous lengths; a favorite of Wilde and Balzac, though probably not what you're looking for)John Z (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dual county seats

Most counties in the United States have one county seat, including all the counties in at least 45 states. Arkansas is the big exception: it's got (I'd estimate) at least a dozen counties with two seats. Any ideas on why this is? Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline Prices

I was wondering the other day if all major oil companies in the U.S. have some sort of agreement to keep their gasoline prices within a certain amount of each other. I have never seen gas stations compete by attempting to charge lower prices, and this does not make a great deal of sense to me as almost no one i have known personally prefers a brand of gasoline over any other and everyone is mostly looking for the cheapest available. Wouldn't selling gas 30 cents cheaper than all the surrounding stations easily create such a high demand for your gasoline that the 30 cents could be easily offset? Thank you for your time, i greatly appreciate it. 24.88.103.234 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Timmy

In most parts of the United States you will find gas stations that sell gas for 30 cents more than the lowest price in their area. These are typically service stations that aim to make money on repairs and the like rather than gas sales. Then there is a large group of stations with prices all within maybe 5 cents of each other. The reason why they are all within that range is that they are charging a price close to their cost. The lowest-priced stations may be charging 1 cent or less above the cost of providing the gas. They are hoping to make money on volume and on sales from their convenience stores. It would be impossible to charge 30 cents less than the lowest-priced gas stations without losing money on every fill-up. The cost of gas in a given area is virtually the same from one oil company to another. This is so because the wholesale price of gas is essentially set on a global market. The cost of delivering gas to a given metropolitan area is virtually the same for every company. Then, there are uniform gas taxes charged in any given state. Marco polo (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] No firm source for my thought, but I think I've read somewhere that gas stations make almost no profit (like 1¢ or 2¢ on the gallon) on the gasoline itself anymore. My father has spoken of fierce price wars before the 1973 oil crisis, so I'd guess you, like I, am simply too young to remember such a thing. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen gas wars in the U.S. years ago where competing stations across the street from each other were lowering the price reactively to stay cheaper than the competition, clearly selling below cost, with cars lined up to take advantage. It sometimes dropped to half the regular price. Edison (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting stuff! 24.88.103.234 (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Timmy

J.J.J Tissot

I found a painting by J.J.J Tissot the title: A Spring Afternoon. My question is, was one of his series of paintings in reference to this one A Spring Afternoon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by April Correll (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just had to clarify for myself by clicking off that caps lock. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on James Jospeh Jacques Tissot. Unfortunately, I do not understand what your question is about. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tissot painted two works titled Spring: an oil on canvas in 1865 and an oil on panel ca 1878. The prints and posters titled A Spring Afternoon which are sold online and elsewhere are copies of Tissot's A Widow from 1868 (oil on canvas, private collection). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

William Essex (author)

I am trying to find information of William Essex. I have managed to find out some of the books he's written, but I need information on his life. Essex has written the book I'm doing a report on: The Pack. It was published in 1987. The only article I could find out about a William Essex was about a man who lived in the 16^th Century. If somebody knows of a site or article I can look at with information on the Essex I'm researching, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.133.228 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You could try a search on "John Tigges", which seems to be his real name, but I could not find a biography under that either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Iconic photograph

There's an iconic photograph that I've seen, but have absolutely no idea what it is of (in terms of specifics), or what it stands for; and it's kind of hard to search for, being a photograph. Anyway, it's of a man standing in front of 3 tanks preventing them from passing. Anyone who can point me in the right direction? Ta! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article about it: Tank Man.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From most countries, if you search Google Images for "tiananmen square", versions of this photo are the top results. However, I am told that this is not the result obtained within the Great Firewall of China. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

statehood within the United States and ambassadors

Have U.S. states ever sent ambassadors (by whatever title) between themselves? Is or was there, for example, a Maine ambassador to North Carolina? Were there ever permanent legations or embassies between the states, at a subnational level? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Help: What are the lyrics (in English) for the song "ARENA CALIENTE" by Torazinas?

Moved to entertainment desk.