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 23

durability of book coverings

Hi, I'm asking what appears to be a miscellaneous question here because humanities people, I suspect, buy the most books, and hence would have the best idea about how to preserve them.

Recently I bought some adhesive book covering, called "bookguard 80" (matt), and I would like to know if anyone has used it over a long time, and if so, how durable is it? I used to use some cheap and nasty stuff, and whilst reading a long novel (Middlemarch) it developed a long crease on the front cover, and and air bubble started forming under it. I'm curious to know if the same thing is going to happen to my new one. If not, it gives the best finish, and I'd recommend it (in Australia, you can get it from Raeco - sorry if that looks like advertising, but it's just a recommendation if it turns out to be durable). The other one I have is called "Cover it" by Nylex, which produces a less desirable finish, but in case the bookguard 80 turns out to be flimsy, can anyone tell me of their experience with Coverit?

Please also feel free to share any other tips on book preservation here. Regards, 203.221.126.94 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have books that you love, don't cover them with anything adhesive! The solvent in the adhesive will gradually dry out , leaving either a powdery residue, or stains on your book cover, or both. The best thing I have found is a thin sheet of mylar, which is transparent and will fold around the book and protect it, which I fasten only to itself with adhesive tape. No tape on the book! Plain old-fashioned acid-free brown paper is also good, but does not look so nice. Another tip on book preservation: do not take paperbacks into a sauna. If it is hot enough, it will melt the glue in the spine. SaundersW (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently read of a great way to cover books, apparently wallpaper is good because it's more appealing to look at, and it's designed to be tough. Also most stores will give you the old wallpaper sample books free when they're done with them. Those have to be better looking than brown paper. SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I used this for schoolbooks and it was remarkably durably and you could see which book was which at a glance.hotclaws 07:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At one time I used magazine pages to protect history texts from heavy use. Wrapping patriarchal documents in pop images that carried their own time stamp suits my sense of quirk. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Animated map of the progression of human societies

Please direct me to where I can find either an animated map showing the societies of the world come into existence, expand and end. Any help toward this end would be obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnye (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will find such a thing. Historically, most human "societies" were not precisely defined or delineated, either temporally or geographically, and there is also a lot of intermingling going on. You might like to find a copy of the Times Atlas of World History or something similar, which provides a very good visual history of the way humanity spread and developed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to draw one, but never got around to it. Sorry for being so lazy. HS7 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you. Edit: I actually found just such a program when looking through searches and such for "Atlas of World History". For those others who are interested: http://www.atlasofworldhistory.com/. —69.229.127.149 (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A more modern European version can be found here: [1]. The images are free to view, but higher resolution pictures would have to be purchased. Steewi (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

can somebody help me find this piece of music

Here is another question that people might think belongs elsewhere, and I nearly decided to put it on the entertainment desk, but it's really about classical music, and I think the knowledge base for that is here.

I was watching the West Wing (a rental copy, thanks to StuRat for the advice) and in season 1, there is an episode called "Take this Sabbath Day." In one scene, Toby Ziegler is in the "temple," which I assume means synagogue, and someone is singing a piece of classical music. Does anyone know what the name of this piece is? I'd really like to track it down, since it was rather beautiful. I've tried googling, but to no avail. Also on a side note, is "temple" just another word for synagogue, or have I got something wrong here? thanks in advance. 203.221.126.88 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Synagogues" are a specific subset of the category "temples". All synagogues are temples, not all temples are synagogues. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, captain. But does this apply specifically in Judaism? Is a synagogue the only type of Jewish temple? As for the music, it's called Hashkiveinu. A bit more googling was all it took. silly me. It goes to show, google is always your second best friend on the net, after wikipedia.:) 203.221.126.88 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Not all synagogues are "temples." Only Reform Jews call their synagogues "temples." Conservative and Orthodox Jews in America are more likely to use the word shul as a synonym for "synagogue." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "someone" a tenor? A good guess would be Kol Nidrei. --Wetman (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a Jew say "in/at temple", "go to temple" etc., rather than "in the temple", "go to the temple"? I think the word is used differently (akin to "school") when referring to synagogues, as opposed to temples in general. Deiz talk 08:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database, repository of unbelieveable quantities of movie and TV trivia, lists "Hashkiveinu, Arranged by Max Helfman" on the soundtrack for this episode [2]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also like this site. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what the Captain means above is that a temple is a generic word for a place of worship, hence all synagogues are temples. However, as Mwalcoff points out, the word synagogue is much more common in Judaism, so if a Jewish person refers to a temple you may be pretty sure that they are part of US Reform Judaism. Daniel (‽) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's right. AIUI, for most Orthodox and Conservative Jews, the word temple can refer only to the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem. Many would find the use of temple to refer to the synagogue distasteful. -- BPMullins | Talk 05:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

hallo people, why the sudden change of topic? or should i say context? the poor fellow ended up not knowing the name of the song!! captain i guess you were out of line when you shifted the discussion from music to synagogues.41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)davis

'Cause he asked about synagogues? Read the last part of his question. Plus he found the answer to his own question through Google. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Could someone better explain this sentence from the Vietnam War article:

"This flew in the face of the long historical antipathy between the two nations, of which the U.S. seems to have been completely ignorant."

I've never really understood the phrase "flew in the face of..." So, could someone explain what is meant here? And possibly make it clearer in the article if you think that's necessary as well. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To "fly in the face of" something means to defy or contradict something, especially a fact, belief, or state of affairs. In this case, the notion of Vietnamese subservience to China would seem to contradict the longstanding enmity between the two countries, and thereby fly in the face of historical wisdom. 129.174.176.3 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Something can fly in the face of historical wisdom, but it can't fly in the face of a state of affairs. I call this a clumsy use of the idiom, at best, and I'm going to give that article my best massage right now. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! Dismas|^(talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lenin and Marx

Why did Lenin take such a radical departure from the other main currents of Marxist thought in Europe before the First World War? I am thinking here of the development of Marxist theory rather than the political struggles between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party itself. Thank you. Yermelov (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It begins, Yermelov, in the 1890s, by which time it was obvious that history was not going to follow the lines predicted by Karl Marx. Capitalism was not impoverishing the working-class; just the reverse. The proletariat was growing richer, not poorer, and thus had much more to lose than 'their chains.' In Germany, home of the the largest Marxist party in the world, there were those like Eduard Bernstein who drew the obvious conclusions: that further economic progress would bring socialism of its own accord, without any need for revolution. Capitalism, in other words, was socialising itself. Socialism would thus be attained by evolution, not revolution.

These ideas were taken up in Russia by the likes of S. Prokopovich and E. Kuskova, who put them forward in a pamphlet, which Lenin's sister, Anna, described as the Credo. In this it was argued that the political struggle was a distraction, and the Russian Social Democrat and Labour Party should thus place its greatest emphasis on the economic struggle; the struggle, that is, with employers for the improvement in pay and conditions.

For Lenin these Economists were proposing the worst form of heresy. He insisted on the primacy of the political struggle. But, in support of this position, he looked not to western Marxism but rather into the Russian past, to the likes of Mikhail Bakunin, who argued that people were tyrannised in the first place not by economic systems but by the state and the church. He was effectively turning classical Marxism on its head: for economics, in the Leninist scheme, no longer had primacy. More than that, he began to focus ever more on the corollary of this argument, another reversal of Marxism: that the emancipation of the workers would never be accomplished by the workers themselves. He was now on the high road to Bolshevism, a doctrine that was to owe virtually nothing to Marx, and much to the traditional forms of Russian conspiratorial and nihilist politics. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My most sincere thanks, Clio. Please have this. Yermelov (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Order of Lenin! For me? How wonderful! What next-the Stalin Prize? Thank you, Yermelov! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yao De-Fen worlds tallest woman

Looking for updates on this lady!! Did she have the operation scheduled for 2007 and how is she now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.229.172 (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, but I have tagged the Yao Defen article for update.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Impossible question documentary art world society infiltrator scam artist SOLVED by Pharos

I just remembered that I once had seen an old documentary about some guy who was a society poser - I think he might have known Picasso and other artists in the 50s or 60s or 70s. Pretending to be wealthy. Maybe becoming wealthy. I remember there were unbuttoned shirts and gold chains in the film perhaps dating it, and also that the locations seemed to be e.g. Crete or Greece or Ibiza etc. Gosh, that's all I remember. I feel like he scamed a bunch of wealthy people. Like something on "City Confidential" on A&E but older and more arty in a sleezy kind of way. Any ideas? Saudade7 08:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Elmyr de Hory in F for Fake?--Pharos (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long! You are astonishing Pharos !!! Saudade7 08:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it didn't hurt that this particular documentary was directed by Orson Welles! Also, by coincidence, that film has rather been on my mind for the last week or so (I really do think it was pretty excellent).--Pharos (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Forms of address in 16th century Venice

It's 1582. How does one venetian nobleman address another, or a lady? - what are the polite and casual terms one may use? Also, while I'm here, can anyone point me to a list of the servants that would have been employed in a venetian villa or palace at that time?

Thanks - hope these aren't impudent questions Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Only if you were Baldrick.) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, hope they're not lazy questions - I've got into the habit of asking you guys before doing the hard work of research. Maybe someone could point me to helpful literature on the subject? Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last time I was talking to a Venetian nobleman in Venice, I made a joke, which amused him, of saying sciavo vostro, instead of its shortened, modern, generally used form ciao. According to the article, probably neither would have been out of place back then, though the long form was doubtless more polite.John Z (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in looking at Florio's Worlde of Wordes, an Italian-English dictionary from near that time - searchable online somewhere. The Venetian dialect would be slightly different, but not greatly. Steewi (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great, both of you - the Worlde of Wordes is an excellent resource too. Actually, what I meant by terms of address was what they call each other - Senor? Sirrah? Master? Lord? - that kinda thing. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair discrimination

If I discriminate a person (who e.g. smells), am I infringing his right (of choosing his personality) or do I have a similar right (of having a personality that discriminates people like him)? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're free to dislike people who smell, or have another quality you find distasteful privately, but if they are not "breaking the rules" and your preference negatively impacts their ability to work or enjoy other rights and freedoms, then you are discriminating against them. "Smell" and "personality" (I don't necessarily agree the former is a subset of the latter) are quite hard ones to quantify, but consider your example with a dislike for those of another ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Go nuts in private, but good luck trying it on in the workplace. The more subjective the issue, the harder to argue a case for or against, hence the reason lawyers live in mansions and we live in apartments. Deiz talk 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But it is important to mention some people can't help it. There are disorders like Trimethylaminuria that cause people to smell, no matter what they do. And some people are sensitive or even allergic to thescented products that most of us rely on to smell "nice." SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Smell can be dependable of personality. Anyway, it is just an example. I want to know where to draw the line between discrimination against other races on one hand, and disliking people who are fat, are ugly or don't take a bath is legit on the other. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What about if they smell to you because they eat a food that is widely eaten in their culture but not in yours? 79.66.99.37 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dislike is an emotion - discrimination is a behaviour (although the latter word was not always used the way it is now). You're free to dislike anyone you want, including fat/thin/smelly/black/white/yellow/lazy/stupid/smug/gay/straight or any other kind of people, although you may miss out on some rewarding friendships and enjoyable experiences by dismissing people in such a cursory way. And they are free to dislike you for any one of those reasons, or many others. Depending where you live, however, the law may prevent you discriminating against people you don't like on particular grounds, such as race, sexual preference or disability. This means you cannot, for example, abuse or harass them, or refuse them goods, services or employment, simply because you have decided to dislike them.

There's no legality involved in liking; no "right" to like or be liked, and no penalty for not doing so. But bear in mind that just as you are assessing them, they are assessing you; and some people find judgementalism profoundly unlikeable. Being on the receiving end of discrimination can be a bewildering and hurtful experience. Unless people are prepared to accept it themselves, why dish it out to others? Karenjc 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The other side of the coin is that if a person's odour is very offensive to others, and particularly if they're not aware of it, then you might have almost a duty to let them know. I don't see the anti-discrimination laws requiring anyone to have to put up with nauseating smells in their workplace. It becomes an occupational health and safety issue in that context. If it's not a workplace, there's still the social dimension to consider. And maybe they're suffering from some condition they don't know they have, so it could be a medical issue. It's always hard to raise such matters with the person concerned, but in such circumstances someone may have to bite the bullet. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox Hunting Toffs

I see from the above that Major Bonkers and Clio both favour fox hunting (Tony Blair, 19 April). Is this view widespread among the English, or is it only among the toffs/upper class? Sassoon II (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The links and references in Fox hunting that pertain to the UK should help you. Broadly speaking, MPs from the right representing areas where the upper classes traditionally engage in fox hunting voted against the ban, while left-leaning MPs from urban areas voted for. However, that's a pretty crass simplification. Actual public opinion on something like this is pretty damn hard to quantify without a full scale referendum. Blair supported a compromise that would have allowed hunting with dogs in a limited, licensed form, but the full ban was pushed through despite being rejected by the House of Lords. Deiz talk 11:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In my neck of the woods, hunting - or, at least, large groups of toffs riding out in neat attire - is also popular with the plebs. But it's a fairly feudal part of the country populated by people with limited horizons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't tend to get polled that often these days, but reading old articles that feature poll results give an interesting view. For example this article from 2000 showing how opinion varied but was generally negative about things remaining as they were. Fox hunting was banned because the majority wanted it banned. As suggested by Deiz, it's not quite an upper/lower thing, although there is certainly a class element (think of how long bear baiting and cock fighting have been banned and compare). There is also a country/town element, to some extent. But none of it is straight forward. In the most general terms though, yes it's a view mostly held by those who either took part or liked to think they might take part some day, and that tends to be the upper classes and those who think they could get into them. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The country/town element is probably more important than 79.66.99.37 suggests. There is a perception in rural communities that they are under threat from the towns, with shops, pubs, post offices and schools disappearing from villages for economic reasons, and public transport sparse and expensive. Changes in farming have cut employment opportunities in the countryside, and house prices and the increase in the ownership of second homes mean younger people are unable to afford a home locally and must move away. All this has led to a siege mentality in some rural areas, and pro-hunting campaigners linked their cause with that of rural communities in general, to form the Countryside Alliance. Hunting and its associated activities, it is argued, provide economic activity in areas which are struggling and under-resourced, and is part of a "country" way of life for all rural people. It's true that hunting is not a "toffs-only" activity: several of my childhood friends hunted regularly, as did the local great and good, but hunt supporters also included the local postman and the old guy who cut the grass in the churchyard each week. Keeping hunting horses is an expensive proposition, though, and the whole social thing surrounding hunting is definitely for the upwardly-mobile or those who've already arrived..

To give you an example, the 2002 Countryside March [3] was billed as a march for "Liberty and Livelihood" in the coutryside in general, but grew out of the pro-hunting campaign. And the slogan adopted by the campaigners: "Fight Prejudice - Fight the Ban" [4] suggests bigoted town-dwellers passing judgement on matters of which they know nothing. I can't offer you references, just anecdotal evidence, but I do recall seeing 2002 marchers interviewed who stated that they personally did not support hunting, but were marching over other threats to rural life. The various rural causes, including the case for hunting, have been so thoroughly entwined that it is difficult to consider them in isolation. Karenjc 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I first rode to hounds when I was twelve-years-old and I have absolutely adored the experience over the years! I've met all sorts of lovely people, but I particularly like the feudal types, those with the narrowest of horizons. I'm in complete agreement with Mrs Miniver: there is nothing as delightful as a crusty old English colonel! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say you "rode to hounds" you mean you hunted foxes. Yes, I know "riding to hounds" is the term used, but it is essentially a pompous euphemism. And I'm sure it was of great comfort to the fox, as it was torn limb from limb by a pack of baying dogs, that a twelve-year-old girl "absolutely adored the experience." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Plutarch noted Bion's aphrorism: little boys throw stones at frogs for sport, but the frogs die in earnest" - Nunh-huh 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And the ban has not worked in the slightest.And a lot of working class people depend upon local hunts for their living.hotclaws 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

130.88.140.123 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And how can anyone like 'feudal types, those with the narrowest of horizons'? Maybe it is funny to meet one of these once, but regularly?217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Their horizons may be narrow, but they do not lack depth. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Were you 'blooded' on your first hunt, Clio?Sassoon II (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was. However, for fear of upsetting more sensitive souls I think it time for me to move on. After all; there are other quarries to chase! Tally-ho! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm completely insensitive, though. I think that the answer to your question is that fox-hunting is not, nowadays, a past-time defined particularly by class but by a rural identification or state of mind. Before the war, when the pattern of landowning was based on great estates with tenant farmers, the landlord could require his tenants to allow the hunt access. That pattern has now (more-or-less) changed; the 'great estates' being owned by the National Trust or farming companies, such as the Co-op; ironically, both these organisations require their tenants not to allow hunting over their land.

Nowadays, a hunt could not survive without the active acquiescence, at least, of the farmers over whose land it hunts; they could simply refuse access to their land, which in turn might make surrounding land untenable to hunt over. As an aside, I remember when I took myself off stag-hunting over Dartmoor, and I was surprised to see a whole load of people on scrambler motorcycles following the hunt; they, of course, didn't bother with the formalities of bowler hat, ratcatcher coat, and butcher boots, but I daresay that they had just as much fun as those who had gone to the additional expense of outfitting themselves 'properly'. Incidentally, hunting down in that part of the world is almost universally popular, across all classes of people - it's almost a religion.

Regarding the specifics of the hunt ban in England and Wales, it was, firstly, a rather spiteful measure, at odds with the English political tradition of tolerance and, secondly, the issue was raised, having long been resisted by Tony Blair, as a diversion when his Iraq policy was coming under attack from within his own party. There's a good newspaper article on the subject: The death of the hunt will be Blair's memorial. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Abdication Crisis of 1936

Hello. Did Baldwin ever give serious thought to the possibility of a morganatic marriage between Edward and Wallis Simpson? What were the arguments against such an arrangement?217.42.101.16 (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did, according to both our articles on Wallis Simpson and the Edward VIII abdication crisis. Our articles aren't clear on the reasons against, however, only suggesting that there was no precedent in British history. The BBC says [Baldwin] would have had to [create new legislation] to make a morganatic marriage happen, but not why he, his cabinet and the governments of the dominions refused to do so. It seems it was considered a moral question, not just one of simple legal possibilities. WikiJedits (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Members of the royal family cannot enter a legally valid marriage without the monarch's consent, but Edward VIII, being the monarch, could have given himself consent to marry whomseover he pleased. What stopped him being bloody-minded about it and just marrying Wallis, and to hell with what Baldwin thought about it? That would have been a legal marriage, and the entire question of morganacity (?) would have been avoided. Was it just public opinion that stopped him from doing this? If so, why didn't what the public would probably have thought of an abdication stop him from abdicating? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Morganatic marriage#The United Kingdom contains a reference to a book by AJP Taylor which may shed some light on why the idea was rejected. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

He couldn't. If he'd married Wallis, Baldwin would've resigned, causing a constitutional crisis. Baldwin consulted with the Leader of the Opposition who agreed not to form a government if Baldwin resigned. Furthermore, the dominions (the countries of the Commonwealth, as they were then called) sent back unanimous objection to any marriage. The pressure on the monarch and indeed the monarchy from the government and dominions made it impossible for him to say "to hell with them". PeterSymonds | talk 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the objections, by both the UK and the Dominions. However they were not objections about the legality of any such marriage. What if Edward had said "You're bluffing and I'm going to call your bluff by marrying Wallis as soon as it can possibly be arranged"? Would the UK really have been left politically rudderless for any significant period? That would have painted the politicians as even more bloody-minded than Edward. Surely someone would have put their hand up and said to the king "Sire, since Baldwin and the Leader of the Opposition have refused to form a government, I am your man". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin, 217, was a very cautious man, taking advice at almost every stage as the 'King's Great Matter' progressed. He came to rely, in particular, on Sir Donald Somervell, the Attorney-General, as well as Sir John Simon, the Home Secretary and a former Attorney-General. Somervell took the view that it would be unconstitutional for the monarch to marry contrary to the advice of his ministers. It would effectively turn the English constitution backwards, to the situation prevailing prior to the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which placed firm limits on the prerogative powers of the monarchy.

On the possible morganatic solution Edward initially treated this with distaste, though finally agreeing that it be worth trying as a way of keeping him on the throne, with his wife without the position of Queen but with a title, such as the Duchess of Cornwall. When the proposal was put to Baldwin he was non-committal, but agreed to refer it to the Cabinet. But he remained unconvinced. Somervell confirmed that the whole thing was quite hopeless, telling the Prime Minister what he already knew, that 'the wife of the King is Queen’, and that it would require an Act of Parliament to prevent such a result. It would, Somervell said, be an odd Act, which, if honest, would have to start;

Whereas the wife of the King is Queen and whereas the present King desires to marry a woman unfit to be Queen, Be it hereby enacted etc. etc.

The matter was placed before the Cabinet, as Baldwin promised, but was greeted without enthusiasm, most feeling, as Neville Chamberlain noted in his Diary, that it would simply be the prelude to making Wallis Queen. In the end Edward was told that the proposal was impossible.

I simply cannot conceive of any situation in which Edward would have married unilaterally. Even he, limited as his intellect was, would have been aware that the constitutional crisis that would have followed may have come close to destroying the monarchy itself, or at least forcing on him the same fate as that of James II. Yes, there probably would have been those who would have supported the King in all circumstances, not a political outcome, I think, that would have settled well with most British people. If he wanted to marry Wallis he had to abdicate; there was no other way. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is really fascinating, Clio. So this gives us the rather odd situation that members of the Royal Family need only the monarch's permission to marry, but when the monarch him/herself wants to marry, he/she needs the unanimous permission of the Prime Ministers of 16 separate realms. It would take only one objection, eg. the PM of Zambia, to put an end to such plans. How interesting. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I merely lay out the facts, Jack, as presented by history. I will say, though, that there may be many members of the royal family; there is only one head of state. However, I cannot imagine the political or personal circumstances in which such a case would ever arise again. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Medusa comes to mind but I don't know which body it rightly belongs to.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Who'd be King? Poor buggers. 130.88.140.123 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Last Riding Master

I'm trying to remember the name of the German author who wrote the above collection of stories? He also wrote tales set in the Baltic area, if that is any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.242.98 (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Werner Bergengruen His book is called Der letzte Rittmeister. The last cavalry captain.--Tresckow (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In the original German Bergengruen's book is called Der Letzte Rittmeister, which appeared in its first English translation in 1953 as The Last Captain of Horse: A Portrait of Chivalry. You will find other stories of his Baltic childhood, 86.151, in Der Tod von Reval. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch-language book

An acquaintance of mine (who does not speak Dutch) has a Dutch-language book entitled Schetsen, apparently written by someone named J. van Maurik. There doesn't appear to be any publication information in the volume, but the book is several decades old: this acquaintance, who is near retirement age, said that the book was given to his grandfather as a young man. Is anyone familiar with this book? And if so, what is it about? Nyttend (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Schetsen" is Dutch for "sketches". The author, Justus van Maurik jr., (1846-1904) was a Dutch author and cigar maker, who wrote comedies and a lot of short stories. He was also one of the founders of De Amsterdammer, the precursor of De Groene Amsterdammer. Looking him up in the database of the public library in Amsterdam I find several books with the word "schetsen" in the subtitle, most of them collections of short stories about the people of Amsterdam. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you could scan a sample I'll translate a bit. User:Krator (t c) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman executions of rulers

Why did Rome kill rulers after it conquered an area? Did Rome see them as being criminals or as having no place or as a threat to the Roman State? For instance when America "conquered" Japan it did not kill of any of its [non-military] rulers although some German rulers were killed on the grounds of war crimes. 71.100.7.78 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some Japanese leaders were executed, including Prime Minister Tojo. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As to "rulers" I was thinking more of the Emperor of Japan than military leaders, although one can certainly argue that a general who is serving in the role of prime minister is not technically a military leader. Rome seemed to include, however, anyone and everyone, civilian, military, and even visitors from foreign "states". 71.100.7.78 (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Military occupation 2,000 years ago was a much more difficult affair than it was after WWII. After the Romans had conquered someone, the economy and populace of the conquered area was still largely intact (although there were a few exceptions, like Carthage). Usually, the only thing there to pacify the population was an army that would be considered small by today's standards. Given the fact that a surviving ruler was an excellent focal point for a revolt, killing the ruler or ruling class was a great way to subdue the conquered area, and to convince them that they had truly been defeated. After WWII, there was little threat of a pro-Tojo or Nazi revolt in the defeated countries, as most of the cities had been destroyed and the countries were under occupation by a huge number of troops. There really wasn't a need to go around wiping out anyone who had had any political authority. (Although, of course some were killed, but mostly for war crimes violations, etc.) As to the question of allowing Hirohito to not just remain alive, but in power, the article on him gives some good answers, such as the wish to have a traditional figurehead to add stability to the new government. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That clarifies the reason for Roman's actions but raises a question about the Japanese in regard to an incident which occurred (in my presence) at the Library of Congress where a Japanese student was studying and seemed very irritated by the presence of Americans as if only he had a right to be there studying. I'm wondering now if the statement by Bix that, "MacArthur's truly extraordinary measures to save Hirohito from trial as a war criminal had a lasting and profoundly distorting impact on Japanese understanding of the lost war." provides the reason behind this student's irritation. 71.100.7.78 (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Returning to your Roman question, 71.100, it is simply not true that native rulers were always killed following conquest. Quite often the Empire was prepared to work with and through local elites; certainly in the more civilised east and even in the 'barbarous' west. Even fairly major enemies, like Caractacus, who headed the resistance to the Roman conquest of Britain, and Zenobia, who tried to lead the Palmyrene Empire to independence, were allowed to live out their lives in comfort after being taken captive to Rome. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio's right (as usual), I shouldn't have given strength to the idea of Romans running around everywhere lopping off heads and crucifying everyone. I was thinking of Vercingetorix, the Jewish revolt, and Carthage, but Rome could also be very accomodating to the conquered peoples, as Clio said, and this pragmatism was one of their strengths as a power. To the Hirohito thing, I don't really understand the "profoundly distorting impact" comment. Was the writer saying that the Japanese saw this as a sort of American concession to Japan? AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only that one event at the LOC to go by. Otherwise as far as I know the Japanese seem quit happy to pursue scientific endeavors and studies like Hirohito who had a deep interest in marine biology. My presence at the library was temporary and only to take a few notes and look up several references so the event may not have repeated had my stay been longer but I can never know. While the Japanese seem to be into mechanisms and autonomy of robots my interest was in simulating human thought so unless someone sensed me as competition there should have been no basis for conflict. I will never know. As for MacAuthor's actions being interpreted as a concession, yes, I think they could have said to the Japanese people that they were blameless for the war, had no choice but to support the war effort and that all blame was on Tojo. On the other hand most Japanese seemed to openly adopt the artifacts of American culture like baseball after the war which suggests the opposite and that they did in fact see themselves as a conquered but saved people. With all the American troops there and lots of restrictions who really knows but the Japanese? 71.100.7.78 (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The conquest of Gaul was accompanied by so much wholesale slaughter, freely admitted to by Caesar in his Gallic Wars, that we would certainly consider him a war criminal and probably a perpetrator of genocide; a bit like one of the great biblical heroes. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it depended on how much the Romans were pissed off by the ruler in question, and what political benefits the individual who defeated the ruler could gain from appearing either magnanimous or ruthless. Jugurtha is a case in point, and probably the classic case of a ruler "executed" by Rome for almost certainly trumped-up crimes - and actually because the crimes of the Senate in collaborating with Jugurtha could only be excised by executing the man.

About Caesar and his behaviour in Gaul, its important to remember that many even at the time considered it excessive; some of it was genuine repugnance at what was believed to be unnecessary brutality; some of it was jealousy that Caesar had benefited so much from the revenues accruing from the sale of of a large fraction of an entire people; some of it was concern for what the importation of vast numbers of slaves was doing to the basis of the Italian rural economy. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by following links beginning with Jugurtha it becomes somewhat clear that Rome operated on a case by case basis rather than having a general policy or rule other than a consensus that a conquered ruler was the friend or enemy of Rome. 71.100.7.78 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A French alternative to Sartre

Was there an existential alternative in France to Sartre's radical athieism? Steerforth (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was Gabriel Marcel! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Iris Murdoch

How did Iris Murdoch approach existential issues? Steerforth (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iris Murdoch's approach is clearly laid out in Sartre: the Romantic Rationalist and in the essays collected in Existentialists and Mystics. Beyond that you should also dip into her novels, many of which have existential themes. For instance in The Black Prince, written from the point of view of a man condemned to death, the author engages in a sustained dialogue with Albert Camus's The Outsider. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gordon riots

In his introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of A Tale of Two Cities, George Woodcock says, "[Dickens] preached that we must not allow society to take on the condition of frustrated anger in which men become mobs and the world is violently upturned. Once, during the Gordon riots, England had known such a peril." What were the Gordon riots? Corvus cornix_talk 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Riots. Dickens weaved much of Barnaby Rudge: A Tale of the Riots of 'Eighty around them - well worth the read. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have known we'd have an article. Thanks.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Bills/Issues in the German Parliament (Bundestag)

I need to know about recent issues in the German Bundestag since the past German election and if any bills were passed to deal with them. If any bills were passed I also would like to see which party voted for what. I cannot find any good sources of information for this. BlackDiamonds (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you looking for that isn't on their website http://www.bundestag.de/ (especially in the documents section that has speakers' notes, studies, votes, and such)? -- kainaw™ 22:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

more specifically here. this site mentions laws, parliamentary requests for information, reports, etc: [5]--Tresckow (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all in German though. I do have quite a bit of understanding of the German Language, however I would like to have something in English, just to make sure I understand it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackDiamonds (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

James, Viscount Severn's godparents

According to the James, Viscount Severn article, "James's five godparents were Denise Poulton, Jeanye Irwin, Alastair Bruce, Duncan Bullivant and Tom Hill". Who are these people? Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Duncan Bullivant - most likely the head of Henderson Risk, mercenaries in Iraq & suchlike. [6]. Ex-army, and possibly in 1998 a member of staff of the International High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Carlos Westendorp. Evidently media savvy [7] [8] --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Alistair Bruce, a Scots Guard Falklands veteran who taught Sophie to windsurf more than a decade ago and became a firm friend [9]
• Jeanye Irwin, Sophie's former flatmate, an American. [10]

Related question: how do you pronounce Jeanye? Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

like genie--Wetman (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

April 24

Pursuit of happiness OR happiness

Instead 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' wouldn't it be much more logical to say: 'Life, liberty and happiness'?217.168.3.246 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The passage deals with inalienable rights. Happiness is not a right that can be bestowed / preserved. Government can merely guarantee the right to pursue it. So, no, the original version is more logical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is life a right that can be bestowed/preserved?217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The original form, whatever its other merits, has a simple poetic resonance which your amended version does not. Yes, a constitution can guarantee that life will not be taken, other than by due process of law; it can even guarantee liberty, but it cannot guarantee happiness! How could it? Indeed, how could it even define happiness, which, by its very nature, differs from case to case? It can only permit the circumstances in which individual happiness becomes a realisable goal. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I believe an earlier version of the declaration read "life, liberty, and property." Wrad (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was John Locke who first used that phrase Wrad, but Jefferson changed it a bit so it was not so economic in its outlook. I must say I rather its poetic simplicity -- its more memorable and inspiring that way. Zidel333 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't an early draft use Locke's wording, though? Wrad (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This site looks legitimate enough, and discusses the topic of property vs. pursuit of happiness about a third of the way down the page. Our Wikipedia article on the D of I says that Franklin changed it, but there is a citation needed tag on it, so who knows. For what it's worth, Locke's wording appears in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, although in a somewhat different context. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have interpreted 'happiness' here as something like 'dignity' or a 'meaningful life' not just personally 'feeling happy'. In other declarations of rights this 'happiness' turns to be 'security of person', 'integrity', 'prosperity'. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In the film The pursuit of happyness (sic), it means even the pursuit of money. But this is not the point. Happiness was left undefined. Would it have been precisely defined, it would have infringed your right to liberty. As Clio pointed out above, happiness is a quite subjective concept. You can choose what makes you happy. Another difference is that the word pursuit implies that you (yes, you) have to actively strive for it, it is not something that you are entitle to. It contrasts with your right to life and freedom, both them inalienable, no matter how passive you are. SaltnVinegar (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Although inspired by Locke in a general way, Jefferson's immediate source for the phrase was George Mason's first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which read:

That all men are created equally free & independent, & have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot, by any Compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life & Liberty, with the Means of acquiring & possessing property, & pursuing & obtaining Happiness & Safety. [11]

Jefferson transformed Mason's verbosity into a more concise and memorable phrase, although the idea is perhaps clearer in Mason's longer version. By the way, Jefferson's original version of the passage, before his editors went to work on it, was probably this:

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

—Kevin Myers 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I find these to be exceptionally good answers. What bothers me is knowing that there are people who for want of them would change the wording to accommodate their own misunderstanding and lack of appreciation for the nuances, which centuries of legal cases have allowed the rest to appreciate. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First existentialist author

Or equivalent. Who was s/he? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Existentialism? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Moses, the legendary author of the Genesis, implies that Adam and Eve, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, were early practitioners of existentialism. Of course, the remainder of his magnum opus is less than existentialist, though the book of Job, probably by the same author, has a certain nihilistic flavour. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Indian Service

Was finishing off a stub on Henry John Carter, and came across the phrase "on Her Majesty's Indian Service". I tentatively piped a link to Honourable East India Company, but was wondering if this was correct? I wonder if an article on Bombay Establishment (search for the term on Google) would help? See William Cornwallis Harris for another example. I checked Honourable East India Company, and it says: "Following the 1857 insurrection, known to the British as the "Great Mutiny" but to Indians as the "First War of Independence", the Company was nationalised by the Government in London to which it lost all its administrative functions and all of its Indian possessions - including its armed forces - were taken over by the Crown." So it seems it was nationalised at that point. Anyone want to say more about what "Her Majesty's Indian Service" means? At what point did the East India Company become the British Raj? Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As the British Raj article states, 1858. I'd presume that Her Majesty's Indian Service is the 1858+ administration in India. Given the dates of Carter's publications, he was in India prior to the switchover from the company to the government. (sorry about the brevity of the response - not being dismissive of your question, just, er, should be working IRL). --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The term "Bombay Establishment" seems quite, um, established, and predated the switchover. Seems to be a combination of a military and company term. For example, from A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases: Hobson-Jobson, we have: "Every native of India on the Bombay Establishment, who can..." here. And "I was appointed a Writer on the Bombay Establishment in the Year 1789, and after that filled several subordinate Situations in the Revenue Line. I was afterwards Private Secretary to Mr. Duncan, when he was Governor of Bombay. After that I filled the Appointments successively of Commissioner in Malabar; Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay; Principal Collector of Malabar, for, I think, about Two Years; and, finally, a Member of the Government of Bombay, which I left in 1811; and since that I have not been in India." [12]. And, from the Transactions of the Medical and Physical Society of Calcutta (1829), we have a list of members and their locations/stations: "Bombay Establishment", "Bengal Establishment", "Assistant Surgeon, His Majesty's Service", "Madras Establishment", "H.M.S.", "His Majesty's <insert army regiment name>", or in some cases, just a city name, such as "Calcutta", "Bengal", and so on. [13] Most though, are "X Establishment", so I was wondering what people can say about all this? BTW, the first article, about "Lettuce Opium", is fascinating! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look also, Carcharoth, at the Government of India Act 1858. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. More specific question above. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found Pitt's India Act, which might be relevant to how the administration of the company worked. Another interesting link is here (1857, A Brief Political and Military Analysis, Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN - from the Defence Journal). And (slightly off topic, but copying here for future reference): [14] (The Royal Society and the Empire: The Colonial and Commonwealth Fellowship. Part 1. 1731-1847, R. W. Home, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 307-332). This question of "Establishments" may also be related to the "Presidencies" - see Presidencies of British India. Other colonial administrative units included Agencies of British India, and other subdivisions (see Category:Subdivisions of British India) were Cantonments, Districts, Divisions, Provinces and Residencies. Hardly surprising, as it was a large administration. Still not quite sure where the term "Establishment" comes from, and whether that was an official subdivision or whether it referred to the original establishments. Hopefully someone here will be able to add some more on this? Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Found this (from London Medical Gazette in June 1848) describing the medical set-up in India, with the medical personnel of the East India Company divided into three "establishments". A rather shocking tale of "Musselmen" and "savage natives" and more, in that link as well! Also, from here, we have "The East India Company (London establishment): an early domiciliary industrial medical service." Seems like "establishment" is a bit like "branch", as in different branches and divisions of a company. Definitely a formal type of subdivision, but still not quite precisely defined. Carcharoth (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Slightly more. From Honourable East India Company: "The major factories became the walled forts of Fort William in Bengal, Fort St George in Madras and the Bombay Castle." I'm satisfied that this point (from the 1600s) is what led to the later terms of "Bengal Establishment", "Madras Establishment" and "Bombay Establishment", though quite what the term meant to people in India and Britain at the time, I'm still not 100% clear. Honourable East India Company#Regulation of the company's affairs gives some idea of the succession of Acts passed. It seems by 1813, the company was effectively ended as an independent entity, though the formal dissolution did not come until as late as 1874 with the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act. Interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It also seems like "establishment" is geographical, so it's between a reservation and a city, between a compound and a district. I hate to do this, but it sounds a bit like Green Zone developed into a city-within-a-city and, at the same time, a commercial/financial distinction, like "Bombay office." Utgard Loki (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The EICo originally set up factories - not what we understand from the term today, but fortified trading "establishments". When these were expanded, each had an individual administration and set of services, both civil (the so-called "writers") and military. Over time, these came to be capitalised when they referred to those establishments that were the seats of Governors - Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta. (As opposed to, for example, Kidderpore or Barrackpore or Surat or Ahmednagar, which also had "establishments" which were not capitalised.) "On the X Establishment" thus meant that you were paid and took orders from X centre of power. This system persists today in the Indian military's set of Commands - the phrase "on the Western Establishment" is still sometimes heard. Following the centralisation of revenue, recruitment and payscales in the late nineteenth the phrase became less common. Bombay is a special case because being "On the Establishment" meant both being in service and answering to the Governor of Bombay, and also sometimes meant geographically close to the Fort. (Bombay's fort, unlike Calcutta and Madras', did not have a name, as it was founded by the Portuguese who presumably named it for a saint that the CofE didn't much like.) By the 19th c, its best to think of the Establishment as basically the administrative and military service attached to a particular Presidency. For various reasons of tradition and hypocrisy, it wasn't considered appropriate to call it a colonial government until the full panoply of the Raj was unveiled by Disraeli & co; the Company preferred to pretend always that it was holding land in obligation to nominal overlords - in Bengal, for example, it held the Diwani from the Mughals and paid them nominal tribute.

Carcharoth, feel free to copy the above to the relevant article talkpage if it helps. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. Copied to Talk:Henry John Carter. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticising Wittgenstein

In the Tractatus Wittgenstein said that he had offered a solution to all of the problems of philosophy. On the basis of the text what criticism can be offered of this assertion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wittgenstein returned to philosophy several years later that book was published -- which indicates he changed his mind on the matter. Compare Philosophical Invesitgations with the Tractatus for further details. -- llywrch (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to do this as much justice as I can, J.E, but my mind is a little fogged just at present, so please come back to me if you need any further explanation.

In the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Wittgenstein says that the limits of thought are determined by the limits of language. In other words, we cannot go beyond language; for to do so would be to go beyond the limits of logical possibility. Logical propositions, expressed in language, are, according to Wittgenstein, 'pictures of the world.' This means, in effect, that certain things simply cannot be said if they do not correspond to the reality of the world; this means that the Tractatus itself cannot be said; for the various propositions are not pictures of the world!

Wittgenstein, recognising this problem, tried to overcome it by saying that although certain things cannot be said to be true, they can be shown to be true, although he eventually slams the door behind him in his concluding proposition-‘Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.' Consider the example of God. Wittgenstein says He exists, but He falls into the category of things that cannot be thought about or spoken. So the Tractatus remains, though this is not always fully understood, a blend of logic and mysticism; yes, mysticism.

The objections to the Tractatus go even deeper than that. How do we know that the relation between language and reality is a 'logical form'? Wittgenstein offers no solution to this problem. More than that, the category of things we are not, by his methodology, supposed to talk about, we simply must talk about, if social existence, civilization itself, is to be possible. For instance, we are not supposed to talk about good and evil, or even more basic concepts of right and wrong. Art also falls into the category of the inexpressible, which means that all forms of aesthetic language are simply nonsense.

In the end the Tractatus might be said to be both brilliant...and arrogant. The author himself eventually exploded the boundaries he had imposed on thought and action. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tractators! Every time I see this thread I think this. Apologies for spewing my mind-vomit. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bishops called Bishop

Have there been any bishops called Bishop (they'd then be Bishop Bishop)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.187.136 (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost assuredly. Bishops aren't all that uncommon, nor is the name. You may also be interested in aptronyms, a closely-related phenomenon. — Lomn 15:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But have there been any Bishop Godfreys, say? (God-free=atheist.) Along the lines of the Dr Death and Dr Kill mentioned above. Or Bishop Randy Bender. Like Cardinal Sin. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what people called me in elementary school. (I guess that's what passed for humour for Catholic school kids!) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Clifford Leofric Purdy Bishop was the Church of England's suffragan Bishop of Malmesbury from 1962 to 1973. Wandering slightly off the point, there was also Dr Alphaeus Hamilton Zulu, Anglican Bishop of Zululand from 1966 to 1975. Xn4 08:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On a different though related note, read Catch 22 for a hilarious example. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Russell and Wittgenstein

What specific influence did Bertrand Russell have on Wittgenstein's thinking? Jet Eldridge (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Russell got him admitted into Cambridge, IIRC. -- llywrch (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Russell's, Our Knowledge of the External World, published in 1914, particularly Chapter Two, headed Logic as the Essence of Philosophy. Now compare it with the general scheme of the Tractatus. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn

I assume that Anne Boleyn must have been rehabilitated after Elizabeth I came to the throne. All your article says is that she was venerated as a martyr to the reformation. Nothing more?86.151.240.203 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

During Henry VIII's reign, Anne's name was silenced after her execution. During Mary I's reign, the silence was broken and her name blackened. During Elizabeth's reign, however, the tide turned in Anne's favour. Although there was little attempt at "rehabilitation" of Anne's reputation, Elizabeth adopted her mother's badge and appointed her mother's former chaplain, Matthew Parker, as her Archbishop of Canterbury. It was rumoured that Elizabeth never spoke of her mother (although this is probably untrue), but she was torn between her strong father (whom she deeply admired) and her nymphomaniac mother, whom she barely knew. It was Protestant apologists that took it upon themselves to concentrate on Anne's "godliness" and praise her contribution to the English Reformation. During the Victorian era, her reputation was looked upon unfavourably by those who concentrated on the strength of Henry VIII, and concluded that Anne's appeal was "to the less refined part of Henry's nature" (DNB, Anne Boleyn); her guilt was accepted because the scholars believed that a monarch like Henry must have had some reason to send her to the block. The first biography concentrating solely on Anne was by Paul Friedmann in 1844. Friedmann emphasised Anne's influence on early Tudor politics, a view which is generally upheld today. Furthermore, the legitimacy of her execution is generally considered to be weak-to-non-existent, and recently there was even an appeal to overturn the charge of guilty! (It was rejected because the case was too old.) Nevertheless, her death was described by the DNB as a result of "cynical realpolitik". PeterSymonds | talk 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So, Peter, I see Anne still stands condemned as a 'nymphomaniac', which makes the judgement of 1536 entirely correct; she was an adulteress and a traitor! How very interesting! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Legally, yes. In reality though, most historians cautiously dismiss rumours of adultery. One interpretation is Thomas Cromwell and Lady Rochford fabricating evidence. However, wherever or however they started, they're not generally given credence by historians. PeterSymonds | talk 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

86.151, not only did Elizabeth appoint Parker as Archbishop, but she also asked him to trace the papal dispensation for her parent's marriage, which he finally uncovered in 1572. In Parliament Elizabeth had Anne's legal title of Queen restored and her own as heir. The purpose was to vindicate her mother, whom she declared to be 'the most Englishwoman in the Kingdom.' She also had a ring made, which, when opened, revealed a miniature portrait of herself alongside her mother. She even declared that Sir Henry Norris, one of Anne’s co-accused, had 'died in a noble cause and in the justification of her mother's innocence. His son was created Lord Rycote. Anne's personal chaplain, one William Latimer, wrote an account of her death for the Queen, blaming it on her Catholic and Imperial enemies.

You will find all of this information, and more, in Anne Boleyn by Joanna Denny (2004). Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

diplomatic immunity

Does diplomatic immunity violates the rights of the person and is it unjustified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a matter of debate. Read Diplomatic immunity and see what you think. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This question was asked and answered last week, I think. If anyone knows how to search the Archives, a link might be useful here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP. -- Kesh (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

natural resources of Canada

What are natural resources of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See the article "Canada", especially Canada#Economy, also "Economy of Canada", especially Economy of Canada#Economic sectors. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

news article

Is there any news article related to microeconomics and macroeconomics that were published from November 2007 to present on Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell. I used a couple of different large archives and searched on either term in that date range. The Toronto Star has what looks like a good search thingie, by the way. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles you are looking for may not use the terms "micro" and "macro". They may describe, and you may be better off searching for, inflation, unemployment, interest rates, pay negotiations, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Execution of Marie Antionette

Obviously the execution of Louis XVI did not pass unnoticed but what about that of Marie Antionette? Was there any reaction? Anne Fairfax (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Very much so. I was just re-reading Linda Colley's Britons - it's an awfully good book - and it has rather an interesting discussion of reactions to the execution in Britain. Mary Wollstonecraft is quoted:

The sanctuary of repose, the asylum of care and fatigue, the chaste temple of a woman, I consider the Queen only as one, the apartment where she consigns her senses to the bosom of sleep, folder in it's arms forgetful of the world, was violated with murderous fury.

Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, wrote: "The impression of the Queen's death is constantly before my eyes". Horace Walpole: "The Queen of France is never for three minutes out of my head". Regarding the incest stories, Hannah More: "It is so diabolical, that if they had studied an invention on purpose to whitewash her from every charge, they could not have done it more effectively." Colley herself writes: "Massively and gruesomely publicised in British conservative propaganda, the fate of Marie-Antoinette and her family seems genuinely to have appalled many women, encouraging them to see war with France as a cause in which their own welfare and status were peculiarly involved." (Quotations from Colley, pp. 255–256) Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) [P.S. Clio will be along with a much better answer later on.]

I've nothing to add, Angus, other than to endorse your recommendation of Colley (besides, I've got a beastly cold!) Clio the Muse (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to add? What about Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France:

It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the Queen of France, then the Dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she just began to move in, — glittering like the morning star full of life and splendour and joy... Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, — in a nation of men of honour and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded.

The Reflections led directly to Thomas Paine's Rights of Man and Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Men. As the French revolution degenerated into The Terror and subsequent European war, Burke was proven correct in his analysis that the revolution was not simply a quiet reordering of the constitution. Sorry about the cold, Clio! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the most memorable passages, Major, from an important and memorable book. Remember, though, that it was published in 1790. Burke is in fact referring to the indignities that the Queen had suffered at the hands of the mob, particularly during March of the Women in October 1789. Her execution came in October 1793. I think if Burke was writing about that particular outrage his pen would have been a lot more acerbic: for if the age of chivalry was dead, the age of barbarism had been born. (Feeling a little better now, thanks!) Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a bit of nuance here: not everyone was so overwrought. That memorable Burke passage was endlessly parodied at the time, in fact. Peter Pindar wrote a rather vicious couple of poems that caught the note of hysteria perfectly. Conversely, not everyone in France or in revolutionary circles was pleased; some had considerable sympathy for the manner in which the Widow Capet had conducted herself, and Robespierre was furious when he was told of the incest accusation, calling it "brutish", and saying that Hébert was a "blockhead". The version of events at the trial, however - of Marie Antoinette the ceaseless adulterer - became largely the dominant image of her throughout the years that followed, whatever the reaction to her trial and execution. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of all the things one could say about Hébert, that foul-minded pornographer, 'blockhead' seems altogether too mild. He was the Julius Streicher of the French Revolution, just as Le Père Duchesne was its Der Stürmer. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Hébert, the first tabloid editor. He is actually being increasingly studied now; his views on public expression and the duty of the press, for example, were considerably in ahead of their time, as was his support of progressive income taxation and grain prices set by a central authority with a trading monopoly. Le Pere Duchesne was the main organ of anti-clericism above all, and if the public secularism of France is traced back to the Revolution, he personally bears a lot of the credit (or blame). Clio's Streicher comparison, Ms. Fairfax, is illustrative of the power of the Revolution to divide onlookers even today. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The name al-Tustari

I have seen both Jewish and Arabic personages from throughout history with this name. However, I cannot tell if this is indeed a surname or a title. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say its a title; "al" means "the", and jewish last names around that period would've been ben-whatever (literally son of...). Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "ben-X" where "X" is the father's name is better considered a patronymic rather than a surname at a time when the latter weren't in common use. Adam's suggestion (below & subsequently confirmed) is a good example of how a moniker indicating place of origin or perhaps profession became associated with an individual. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

...or the parents may have been Reform Jews or entirely secular, and given their son an unrelated Hebrew name or none at all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless he's from a place called "Tustar"... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Adam is right. I looked around on google books and found a book on Karaite Jewish history that explains this family of Jews were originally from Tustar in Persia. They eventually migrated to Egypt and became intertwined with Fatimid politics. In fact, they became so powerful that the leading members were assassinated. Abraham al-Tustari was actually the former owner of caliph Al Mustansir's mother, who was a black slave. He had originally gifted her to Caliph Ali az-Zahir. Abraham served as the mother's adviser until his murder.

I'm assuming the Arabs with the name came from the same region.--Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher of power

Is it correct to describe Michael Foucault as a philosopher of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steerforth (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has been said that Discipline and Punish brought Nietzsche to the aid of Marx-can you believe this?. I suppose I can. The argument is that as Marx had explored the relations of production, so Foucault explored the 'relations of power.' In focusing on the development of the penitentiary-and modern forms of punishment-he explores the evolution in techniques of power and control that may be made to serve more than one political and social interest. Putting another way, the techniques of power, the forms of coercion and supervision used, transcend the ideological complexion of any given regime. You will find the same practices in Democracy, in Fascism and in Communism. It is the seeming neutrality and political invisibility of the techniques of power is what makes them dangerous. So, yes, I suppose he is a 'philosopher of power', but he is so much more than that. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All of Foucault comes down to different types of power, if you look at it in a very reductionistic fashion. I don't think it's a horrible description of him and his interests. --140.247.10.41 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair or not, that term has been applied to him. It's a way of distinguishing New Historicism from cultural history and showing how his concerns differ markedly from those establishing culture for its own sake. It is, as the IP above said, very reductive, but all short hand epithets are. Utgard Loki (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

April 25

belly button

Hi i was just wondering, how come some people's navels r ticklish? im wondering this because some people claim it hurts when u poke them there.Jwking (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this fits under "humanities" but anyway... I would venture a SWAG that the belly button probably has quite a few nerves in the general vicinity due to the fact that the umbilical cord attaches there during gestation. With all those nerves, ticklishness and pain are no surprise. Dismas|^(talk) 04:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Humanities = "traits of human nature" (OED)? Anyway it seems to me there is a significant difference between tickling someone and poking them in the belly button. Trust and friendship normally precede such acts of intimacy, otherwise people who are happily ticklish with their loved ones may well experience discomfort on being poked by you.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it hurts, you're overdoing things. My guess is someone will likely deck you, so take notice when they're being polite and only saying that it hurts. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Study abroad scholarships

A while ago I heard about a monastery in Europe where scholars can apply to live for a year. If you get it you get room and board and can work on whatever you want in peace for a year (sort of like a Rhodes Scholarship or Fulbright I guess). Any idea where/what this program is?

Another similar but unconnected question: Are there any scholarships to live/study in Jerusalem (non religious scholarships that is)? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Until someone who knows arrives, and since the categories for monasteries, Greece, Spain, Belgium etc sub cats Cistercian, Benedictine etc are an infinity, I'd get in touch with leading music schools or go to an arts portal for the answers to musician in residence type leads. Fellowship gets better hits than scholarship as you've probably found since scholarship+monastery are a dyad of their own. Good luck, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This website might be of help. WikiJedits (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a religious establishment in Britain that does the same thing? Scholars had to sign up to relatively few rules, but one of them was not to write anything that would undermine the Church of England - -that counts out a lot of people! BrainyBabe (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Erasmus in Spain

was the work of the humanist Erasmus greeted with as much initial enthsiasim in Spain as it was in northern Europe? Was it perhaps seen as a challenge to Catholic orthodxy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.98.155 (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There were certainly some who welcomed the work of Erasmus but the general reception was muted. The clergy were particularly resentful of his attacks on the mendicant friars. Under pressure from the religious orders, the Grand Inquisitor, Alonso Manrique de Lara, held a debate in Valladolid in March 1527 to decide if Erasmus' writings were heretical or not. The conference was suspended without decision, which was taken for a victory for the Erasmians. The following December King Charles wrote to him, assuring him that his honour and reputation 'would always be held in great esteem'

It was not to be. In 1559, the year following the death of Charles, some sixteen of Erasmus' publications were placed on the first Spanish-produced Index of forbidden books, including the Enchiridion. By this time the Inquisition had a hold on most aspects of Spanish intellectual life. The reaction against Erasmus, and Humanism in general, was one of the features of the ideological crisis that beset Spain in the second half of the sixteenth century. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I read this as "Erasmus in Spam", wrote he was very unwelcome indeed , then saw my mistake,*facepalm* ..hotclaws 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Hat society?

What is the Red Hat society? What are their aims? What do they stand for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They are a sinister organisation attempting to infiltrate Western society in order to ensure its collapse by undermining it from within... No, wait, that's another sort of red... Here is the Red Hat Society's own web page. SaundersW (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

and the Wikipedia article: Red Hat Society WikiJedits (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused with The Red-Headed League. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought they were a political front for propagation of Red Hat Linux. Corvus cornix_talk 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Socializing across social classes

How do different social classes socialize? For example, in America different social classes meet through sport activities (like baseball) or a pub but perhaps go to different colleges and restaurants. I would like to learn more systematically how it works (especially in America and Europe). 217.168.1.182 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't say there's a system, people get to know each other all over the place, on trains, at work, goodness knows where. Supermarkets and libraries can be full of those moments of possibility. Xn4 22:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do believe there is some sort of system. Libraries are inherently public and open, so different people get to know each other there. Fine restaurants and first-class trains on the other hand are not open. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Returning to fox hunting, if I may, that is where I have met the greatest cross-section of people from different classes and backgrounds. In my experience not an awful lot of socialising goes on in libraries...or in supermarkets! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of classes do you find in fox hunting? I expected only to find upper-middle class ãnd upward. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. Please glance over the points made in the fox-hunting thread above. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

← Social class is such a fluid concept, I don't see how we can generalize in this way. People meet in all different ways, for different purposes. -- Kesh (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Partly because in the UK one of the things that goes into what class someone is is how they socialise. It is indeed a fluid concept. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For those who go to church, churches are often places to meet people from a wide range of backgrounds. If someone lives in an area with a good comprehensive schooling system and few desirable private schools, school can be a place for mixing across class barriers. The Post Office queue is another. If the young members of the higher middle classes take menial holiday jobs that can also be a time of mixing with difference classes, although not necessarily representative slices of the various classes.

If fox hunting is where Clio has met the greatest cross-section of people from different classes and backgrounds, I think that says more about Clio's life than about fox hunting itself. Seriously, if the impression she has given in her answers and user page is accurate, I would regard her comment above as accurate but not necessarily indicating that fox hunting attracts a wide range of classes and backgrounds. She went to a private boarding school, I doubt she's taken menial holiday jobs, and it sounds like her churchy experience is generally high Anglican to anglo-Catholic. Universities, particularly the sort of university I imagine Clio is at, tend not to carry the full range of classes in a representative manner (I was shocked when I started at the number of people I met who went to what I think of as 'weird schools'. Rarely do I meet a fellow product of a state comprehensive). Where else is Clio going to meet people who aren't like her? And thus we see the relevance of the original question.

I'm afraid I've just realised this has come across as a little personal and attack-y. I really don't mean it like that, but as a way of understanding what has been said in this thread and approaching an answer to the question (for the UK). But I'm tired, and so possibly not exercising good judgement. Feel free to delete anything about Clio from this post. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha! I certainly went to a weird school, that much is true! [15] We are the best, so screw the rest! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Answering your question: "Where else is Clio going to meet people who aren't like her?" In the Wikipedia Ref. Desk.? 217.168.1.161 (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well indeed. And if we all met up over drinks (or possibly tea and cake) to discuss what was up in our lives, I'm sure it would be fascinating. I'm not sure how well our current activities approximate socialising :) But in other ways we are all quite similar here on the desks, all sharing a love of learning for its own sake. But that isn't linked too strongly to social class. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour (Hodder and Stoughton, 2004) by social anthropologist Kate Fox. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Buying drugs, the classes really mix there.I'm being serious....hotclaws 11:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in South Ken, Hotclaws, not in my experience, anyway! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy

I am trying to establish which philospher ( Descartes ???) indicated that the mind is similar to a blank piece of paper and that all experiences are imprinted onto the mind. In other words, the mind obtains it's thoughts through the element of experience. I read the article some time ago and cannot recall who the philospher was---can anyone assist me? Thank you in advance.--96.245.70.110 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

According to tabula rasa (which may have been the article you read) it was Aristotle. SaundersW (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at John Locke. Deor (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently I and Lord Foppington edited at the same time. Read his comment below. Deor (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Great minds Deor... Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is sometimes (wrongly) attributed as a creation of John Locke. If the OP was think about modern philosophers like Descartes then perhaps it was he who was being thought of... tabula rasa is more central to Lockean empiricism and ideas of rights than it was to Aristole's philosophy. See An Essay Concerning Human Understanding for more on this, it's a great read too if you're inclined! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's blindness

Why was Stalin so reluctant to believe, in the face of all of the evidence, that Hitler was about to launch an attack on the Soviet Union in 1941? John Spencer (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalin himself was not reluctant to belive that Hitler would invade the USSR, for he only signed away a partioned Poland to give himself time to build up the Army. He was reluctant to belive however that the invasion was imminent since he was mistrustful of England and The USA. He also did not listen to his front lines when they were first attack and was said to have run around the Kremlin telling nobody to do anything. Stalin was paranoid and possibly schizophrenic, he and Hitler had two such differing ideologies that the conflict was inevitable but Stalin beleived he was always in control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

John, I should like to make it clear that the outset-though I suspect you are as aware of this as I am-that the suggestion that Stalin was 'possibly schizophrenic' is absolute rubbish. As a politician, and as a tactician, he took a highly rational view of events, subjecting everything to precise calculations. He assumed that Hitler took the same rational and calculating view; and therein was his greatest error.

You see, Hitler was, unlike Stalin, a dilettante dictator and a dreamer. But Stalin imbued in him all of his own calculating qualities. After all, a successful invasion of the Soviet Union, with its sprawling frontier and vast army, would require at least a two to one advantage for the attacker, which Hitler did not have. More than that, why would he embark on a two-front war, the very thing that had contributed to the destruction of Germany in the First World War? Why, moreover, would he begin an invasion in mid-summer, which gave him only a few weeks of combat weather? He simply could not entertain the idea that Hitler could undertake an assault against the grain of all military sense. He misjudged Hitler; it's as simple as that. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Stalin know about Hitler's astrologer? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a myth, Julia; Hitler did not have an astrologer. He was altogether contemptuous of the practice, and astrologers were among one of the many groups persecuted during the Third Reich. There were, however, some among the leadership prepared to take the practice seriously, either for political ends or out of simple superstition. Heinrich Himmler and Rudolf Hess were most notable amongst the latter. The man who came closest to being the 'court' astrologer was Karl Ernst Krafft, who was arrested in May 1941 following Hess's flight to Scotland, when Hitler, in his fury, ordered a fresh purge of occultists and astrologers of all kinds. Goebbels joked at this time that it was odd that not one amongst the group was able to predict what was about to happen to them! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was tongue-in-cheek for his "unpredictability" but also a bonus to have the facts on the myth. Thanks, Clio! Julia Rossi (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Julia; your irony escaped me. I thought it was a genuine question. I shall have to stop being so literal-minded! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Christianity and the dead in the middle ages

Hi. I expect some of you have been watching the fascinating series on BBC 4 on aspects of medieval thought and experience. I've become particularly interested in the impact of Christianity, especially in relation to death and the fear of death. I think it possible to say, on the basis of my limited understanding, that Christianity at this time was in many respects a cult of death? It was also based, it might be said, on an ever present struggle between good and evil? Is this a reasonable view? 86.153.161.63 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no.

In my paltry understanding, Christianity is and always has been a cult of both death and life. The Bible has many lessons on how to live well, but ultimately it is a book for those preparing to die. The central event in the Christian mythos is of course the death of Christ, who met his end, as Nietzsche says, in "exemplary" fashion. Despite the great shame and suffering in cruxifiction, he went to the cross unflinching, dignified, with (near) total acceptance of the proceedings. You may contrast this with a common criminal denying his actions, cursing his persecutors, and in general doing a lot of gnashing and wailing. Jesus may have met his end, but he did so with dignity and grace, which is the best I presume he could have managed back in 0 A.D. Vranak (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that pre-Industrial life was a more tenuous existence than today: everyone living in Medieval times, both the wealthy & powerful & the poor & humble, were well aware that Famine, War & Pestilence were always lurking just around the corner. Death was constantly in mind, & the culture of the time reflected this. (Consider the trope of "The Wheel of Fortune".) The emphasis of Christianity was hope not death -- despite the morbid obsessions of many martyrs' Vitae -- that despite material setback or loss there was a better existence for those who lived a moral life. (Which I admit oversimplifies the message.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A few words on hope:

Hope. Pandora brought the jar with the evils and opened it. It was the gods' gift to man, on the outside a beautiful, enticing gift, called the "lucky jar." Then all the evils, those lively, winged beings, flew out of it. Since that time, they roam around and do harm to men by day and night. One single evil had not yet slipped out of the jar. As Zeus had wished, Pandora slammed the top down and it remained inside. So now man has the lucky jar in his house forever and thinks the world of the treasure. It is at his service; he reaches for it when he fancies it. For he does not know that that jar which Pandora brought was the jar of evils, and he takes the remaining evil for the greatest worldly good--it is hope, for Zeus did not want man to throw his life away, no matter how much the other evils might torment him, but rather to go on letting himself be tormented anew. To that end, he gives man hope. In truth, it is the most evil of evils because it prolongs man's torment. — Nietzsche

Vranak (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC series is excellent! Anyway, death, as you must be aware, had a powerful immediacy in the Medieval consciousness, and contemporary Christianity reflected this in a manner of ways. Death was both a threat and, though it seems odd to say so, the dead a living presence. There is no better illustration of this than in one of the most common folk tales of the era-the Legend of the Three Living and the Three Dead. This tells of three men, wealthy and well-dressed; three men in the noon of life. Entering a forest they come across three rotting cadavers, who chide their living counter-parts for their vanity and complacency, saying:

Such as you are so were we

Such as we are so will you be.

This encounter was to be found on wall-paintings throughout Medieval Europe. Here is an example from Charlwood in Surrey - 5k. It's an allegory, yes, but it is firmly based on the belief that the dead did roam the land. William of Newburgh, the twelfth century English chronicler, found it difficult to keep up with the numerous stories of the walking dead: "One would not easily believe that corpses come out of their graves were there not so many cases supported by such ample testimony."

So, the boundaries between the two worlds, that of the living and that of the dead, were fluid and porous. They were constantly being crossed by hordes of spiritual beings-the angels on one side, the demons on the other, locked together in combat over the souls of the living; and this is where the Church was at its most important. It offered the only defence against the abyss, guiding the living through the uncertainties, all of the traps of life. As for the struggle between good and evil Orderic Vitalis, a monk writing about 1100, was to describe monasteries as castles built against Satan, one "where the cowled champions engage in ceaseless combat." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Other tropes are Memento mori and Danse Macabre. Another example is that people "celebrated" (in the sense of keeping in their memory) death dates, not birth dates. Psalters created for a particular person would include all the major feast days, but also dates on which family members had died. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What is MAOISM?

I have read the article, wishing to know what would make Maoism or Mao Zedong Thought a distinct form of communism. While I came away with the idea that perhaps Deng Xaiopingism might be said to be a pragmatic form communism, I still don't really know what makes Maoism special. I pray the Muses here might enlighten me. --Czmtzc (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a layman, it really seems to be a cult of personality (insert guitar riff here). While other communist nations are primarily based on Marxism and Leninism, the Chinese had their own cultural icon to influence their interpretation of communism. -- Kesh (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Czmtzc, I've attached below a slightly amended answer I give to a similar question last October. I think it covers all you are looking for. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The text you should look for, if you are looking for a text, is The Political Thought of Mao Tse-Tung by Stuart Schram. It was Mao's belief that there was a specifically Chinese road to socialism, though in pursuit of that road he effectively turned the classic doctrines of Marxist materialism inside out, with quite disastrous consequences for China and the Chinese people.

You see, in terms of economic development and industrial resources, China of the mid-twentieth century was about as far removed from that stage of advanced historical development that Karl Marx had believed to be the essential precursor of a successful revolution. Short of many natural resources it possessed one thing in abundance-people. And it was people who were to be the raw material in Mao's great experiment. Now, though Lenin had always stressed that there was a subjective element to the whole revolutionary process, that it was an act of political consciousness, Mao took this subjectivity to what might be described as an anti-materialist extreme. Distrustful of experts and obstacles, distrustful of bureaucracy, he placed his greatest intellectual emphasis on achieving goals by an 'act of faith' alone; that even the most difficult things were not beyond the power of will. In other words, it was the will of the people, the power of the masses, that would enable the Chinese to catch up with the Soviets and the advanced industrial powers of the west.

This, in essence, is the key to the Great Leap Forward. By this Mao hoped that steel production would increase if the energy and will of the whole nation could simply be directed towards that particular end, regardless of technical and practical objections. Revolutionary zeal would be enough. Of course it was not. The steel that was produced was of poor quality and the neglect of other areas of the economy, agriculture in particular, was to create one of the worst man-made famines in the whole course of Chinese history. Despite this Mao did not abandon his belief in revolutionary spontaneity, which was to emerge once again, with equally disastrous consequences, in the Cultural Revolution.

In thinking of the deleterious effects of these forms of anti-materialist and, it might be said, anti-Marxist voluntarism you might also wish to consider the actions of Pol Pot, Mao's greatest and most murderous disciple. Clio the Muse 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that Maoism is the Chinese flavour of Communism doesn't seem entirely accurate, considering how influential the ideology has been outside of East Asia. Groups as diverse as the Party of Labour of Albania, the Shining Path of Peru, and the Black Panther Party for Self-Defence in the United States have all been influenced by Mao Zedong Thought... He must have been saying something universal. 89.213.79.245 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One could make exactly the same observation about Leninism or Stalinism. It does not make the doctrine any less original, or the imitators any less barbarous, a point I was under the impression I had made in reference to Pol Pot. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On the question of why many groups outside China have turned to the Maoist variety of Marxism-Leninism, the answer is mainly in the third-worldism of the Maoists. As stated above, Marxism (i.e. historical materialism) traditionally postulated that societies move through stages from feudalism to capitalism and only then on to socialism. The Maoists broke with this idea to say that less-developed countries could move directly to socialism. (Guevarism was a similar tendency.) Hence revolutionary movements in India (the Naxalites, in Nepal, and other places were more attracted to Chinese than to Soviet communism, especially when the Chinese were actively courting those movements and promoting the notion of people's war and the Soviets were pursuing peaceful coexistence.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Population of Palestine prior to the Arab/Muslim Conquest of 640

Would anybody know what the population of Palestine (roughly today's Israel, Gaza and West Bank) was just prior to the Arab/Muslim conquest of 640, as well as its composition in terms of Jews, Arabs, Christians, Romans and others? 70.51.23.55 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

'Palestine' was part of Roman provinces named Judea and Arabia, and contained a predominantly Jewish population, with a sifnificant Christian minority, but this was 200AD. By 640 it was part of the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium. This would have left it changed very little, however it was this area which was weakened so much by the Seluciad Roman wars earlier in the century which left it practically undefended, leaving it susceptible to a Muslim attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You forgot about the Plague of Justinian, which struck circa 540. One of the regions it ravaged was Palestine. -- llywrch (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But to be clear, should I take it then that prior to the Arab/Muslim conquest of 640, Palestine was populated predominatntly by Jews? If so, would you have any rough idea of the proportions of the different groups at the time.

Also, the expulsion of the Jews from ancient Israel, renamed Palestine, is for the most part attributed to the Romans, long before the Arab conquest. Would anyone have an estimate as to what proportion of Jews had already been expelled by the Romans by 640 compared to how many remained and were later expelled by the Arabs? 70.51.23.55 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you will ever get precise figures, 70.51, though I should point out that the Jewish population of Palestine had declined steadily as a result of the various Jewish-Roman Wars, particularly from the Bar Kokhba Revolt in the second century AD onwards. The proportion that remained came under serious threat in the wake of the seventh-century Revolt against Heraclius. By the time of the Arab conquest it seems likely that the majority of people living in Palestine were Christian, Monophysite probably. You should also have a look at the Jewish Diaspora. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I poked into my library, & found a possible reference on population for this period -- J.C. Russell, "Late Ancient and Early Medieval Population", Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 48 Part 3 (1958), pp. 88+ As for the form of Christianity in this area, don't underestimate the presence of Jerusalem, & other significant religious sites: there was enough interest from Constantinople & parts of Europe to encourage through money & favoritism the existence of a significant Orthodox/Catholic community. (I also would not be surprised if there still sizable pockets of pre-Nicean Christian groups, such as Ebionites.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at our article Palestine, particularly Early_demographics, which incompletely cites this paper by Sergio DellaPergola,"Demographic Trends in Israel and Palestine: Prospects and Policy Implications" (PDF). see [16] for earlier version wi his email. Some of DellaPergola's publications listed at his university site [17] could be useful. Roberto Bachi Population of Israel, 1974 and Population Trends of World Jewry Jerusalem: Hebrew U., 1976 are (the?) standard works on the historical demography of Israel/Palestine, used along with a few others by SdP for his table used in Palestine. Don't have Bachi's books but there's also this book, America and the Founding of Israel: An Investigation of the Morality of America's Role, Fr. John W. Mulhall, (Christian, somewhat pro-Arab POV, but with an account based on Italian/Israeli demographer Bachi.) It's on the web [18] and particularly [19] section IV and V, except unfortunately for the notes, which IIRC go into more detail on this. Have the book but can't find it at the moment. The area had a Jewish majority until ca. 300 or earlier, the Romans didn't expel all Jews by any means. There was a slow, partially economic migration largely to Mesopotamia and conversions/intermarriage with Christians. Another group which was important then was the Samaritans numbering perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, but which repeatedly revolted unsuccessfully against the Romans/Byzatines, sometimes along with the Jews, and had a more serious demographic catastrophe. Mulhall: "During the sixth century Christians became the majority in Palestine. Arabs moved into it from surrounding areas" So "By 638 Palestine was perhaps only one-tenth Jewish." The not too numerous Arab conquerors didn't do much expelling; many saw them as a lighter hand than the Byzantines; they revoked the prohibition against Jews going to Jerusalem generally in force before. Estimates of the 100AD population vary widely, centering about 2.5- 3 million, while the population around 4-500 AD before wars and revolts was the highest it had been before the 20th century.John Z (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly trying to make some sense of the Palestinian position that in returning to Palestine, Jews are in some way "stealing" Palestinian land. If Palestinians are Arabs, and if Arabs originate from the Arabian peninsula and only conquered Palestine in 640, I just don't understand how and why the Palestinian people have any logical basis with which to entirely reject the return of Jews to Palestine. Palestine being a land that only fell within Arab "Palestinian" hands due to a conquest that occurred only several centuries after most Jews were expelled by the Romans from a territory before there even existed a Palestinian people. But I suppose I'm just making trouble here by asking a question that actually challenges this great RefDesk's well established bias, and for that I apologize. A good pun would seem to be in order here, unfortunately I possess no doctorate in puns. 76.69.249.230 (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Frederick and Adolph

Frederick the great was one of Adolph Hitler's personal heroes, even having Thomas carlyle's biography of the Prussian king read to him in the final days of the Third Reich. But how close does he really correspond to the qualities hitler imbued in him of a german national hero? While I'm here is there any more information on the fate of Menzel's portrait of the king, last seen in Hitler's bunker in 1945? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.3.103 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Frederick the Great was Adolph von Menzel's favourite historical subject, and Himmler gave Hitler one of Menzel's many portraits, Frederick the Great on a Trip, for the Fuehrer's 49th birthday in 1938. I can't tell you what happened to it, but it's less interesting than what happened to the remains of Frederick himself. After spending the Second World War in an underground mine for protection, they were liberated by the US Army in 1945, then travelled to Burg Hohenzollern, and in 1991 were finally buried (for the first time in accordance with Frederick's Will) with his greyhounds on a terrace at Sanssouci, "ohne Prunk, ohne Pomp, und bei Nacht". Xn4 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, Frederick is better seen as a Prussian rather than a German hero. He was also a rationalist, an admirer of the French (it upset him to see them so easily routed at Rossbach), one who despised native German culture, thinking it impossible to create any worthwhile literature in the language. More than that, he was almost certainly a homosexual. So, not all that close to the Hitler ideal!

On your second question, 81.156, Hitler left instructions for Hans Baur, his pilot, to smuggle Menzel's portrait to a 'safe place in Bavaria.' Baur's attempt to break out of the Bunker failed. The fate of the painting is uncertain, but it was most likely destroyed at that time. Either that or it is hanging on the wall of some cottage deep in the Russian steppe! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Argument to the best explanation

What does Bertrand Russell mean by this exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find a discussion of this in his 1912 The Problems of Philosophy. It's his response to the sceptic argument, which says we can claim no knowledge beyond sense experience, to even think that physical objects exist at all. It goes further than that; for as Russell points out, from a pure sceptical perspective we ought not to think that there are other perceivers beyond ourselves. After all, if we cannot refute scepticism about objects, how are we to refute scepticism about other minds?

Russell offers the 'argument to the best explanation' as a way through this difficulty. It is simpler, he argues, to adopt the hypothesis that, first, there really are physical objects, and, second, that our perception corresponds to them in a reliable way. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Inference to the best explanation. Llamabr (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

German Army - World War II

I was reading my father's WWII memoirs and came across the word "Fbak" which is used in the context of a German Army Unit in Greece in 1943. Can anyone tell me what the "Fbak" was? I have Googled it and got nowhere. Custodi (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That'd be Flak, anti-aircraft guns. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think that is correct. I will give the entire quote from the memoirs, which indicates a Unit of the German Army, perhaps Supply or Administrative. Saturday, September 11, 1943 "The Germans have arrived here to sequester our materiel. Several FBAK officers and military staff arrived in the morning to requisition our automatic weapons, the Fiat 1100, the Guzzi, and all the SPAs except one so that we could haul provisions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Custodi (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy of Lucien Wolf

What is the genealogy of Lucien Wolf (born 1857 in London; died 1930)? What is his parents names? What is his Jewish name? I doubt Lucien Wolf (i.e., "Light Wolf") is his birth name. Thank you. Shearzar (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucien Wolf was his real name. He was the son of Edward Wolf, a London pipe manufacturer, and his wife Céline (born Redlich). Wolf's father was a Bohemian Jew who came to England after the trials and tribulations of 1848, his mother Viennese. Xn4 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please provide reference. My google and yahoo searches did not verify your information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shearzar (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Shearzar (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Conjecture regarding this individual's Hebrew given name: "Lucien" may be a vernacular rendition of "Meir" (מאיר; who gives light), or otherwise any Hebrew or even Yiddish name with the initial letter L. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Try this search[20] Julia Rossi (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My search of the reference you provide does not mention Lucien Wolf's parents by name. 24.126.255.229 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 24.126.255.229 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No trouble, Shearzar, see the article Wolf, Lucien (1857–1930), journalist and lobbyist by Mark Levene in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004) and Levene's Jews and the new Europe: the diplomacy of Lucien Wolf, 1914–1919 (1992). Levene's sources include Lucien Wolf: a memoir by Cecil Roth in Essays in Jewish history by Lucien Wolf, ed. Roth (1934), pp. 1–34, and Lucien Wolf: a life, by David Mowschowitch, which is the draft of a biography of Wolf by one of his advisors, now in the archives of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, New York (Mowschowitch collection). Xn4 10:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not a paying subscriber to the Online Oxford reference you directed me, I am still unable to verify the names of Lucien Wolf's parents. If it is a historical fact that Lucien Wolf's parent's names are Edward and Celine (born Redlich), please edit the Wikipedia article about Lucien Wolf to include those facts and provide references that can be substantiated by others. Thank you. 24.126.255.229 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)24.126.255.229 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Online Jewish Encyclopedia article about Lucien Wolf (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=240&letter=W) does not mention his parents names. Shearzar (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the Lucien Wolf article and added the references to Levene. I can't add the Roth and Mowschowitch ones, as I have only Levene's citations of them. Xn4 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jobs in Rural Areas

What would be a job that I could do on my own land? I have lots of forest and I'm in a rural area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lumberjack. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear the land and plant crops? Dismas|^(talk) 13:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Carbon off-setting? Get guilt-ridden jet-setters to pay you money in return for not cutting down any of your trees. 89.213.79.245 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Make charcoal. --Karenjc 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Forest preservation has it's attractions – you could connect with special interest (birds etc) and wildlife groups to see if your forest has special features – you could use these to invite others as visitors to appreciate them and charge entry fees. If you're interested in any area yourself, you can arrange guided tours, put special markers around, create walks – or make a wildly "hazardous" mini golf course; a camping ground? Artists' camps? Musicians' camps? Look into small business advice bureaus online. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Green graves,I remember an organisation once that allowed people to be buried without coffins by trees or with a sapling over them.The pagan rite of your choice could be held there.hotclaws 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Manage the woodland by coppicing and run workshops for people to learn about coppicing. They cut your wood, they pay to do it. You could have a team of working horses to shift the wood and also charge people to learn about managing working horses. Do all the other things mentioned as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you might get away with a nudist colony? --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Green woodworking [21]? See pole lathe and bodging. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

April 26

North Korean Opinion on Chinese Socialism since 1980s

Does anyone have quotes or speeches from the North Korean government, or Kim Jong Il, or Kim IL Sung expressing their opinion on Chinese socialism and the market reforms? Do they consider China socialist? --Gary123 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jong-il briefly discusses the issue in this speech, in which he proclaimed to Hu Jintao, "Touring various special economic zones making a great contribution to the socialist modernization drive with Chinese characteristics, we were more deeply moved by the Chinese people’s enterprising and persevering efforts and fruits born by them." --Bowlhover (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Southern star

For those who are confused by the following, this question refers to Advance Australia Fair. Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the "glorious southern star" that McCormick's 1879 lyrics refer to? Sirius? --Bowlhover (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sirius is just as prominent in the Northern Hemisphere and not unique to the South. The Southern Cross and the two pointers, especially the very bright Alpha Centauri (one of the closest stars to Earth), are more likely as they are only visible in the south. Our Australian flag article says "The Southern Cross (or Crux) is one of the most distinctive constellations visible in the Southern Hemisphere and has been used to represent Australia and New Zealand since the early days of British settlement." However this 1879 lyric predates Federation and the current flag by two decades. New Zealand's national anthem has a "triple star" reference that is also unexplained. My guess is the stars in both aren't literal but are metaphors, despite AAF's lyrics being more of a simile (the country will "shine like our glorious southern star"). Perhaps "glorious southern constellation" was too difficult a rhyme. I'd say that perhaps the lyrics of both country's anthems have as much astronomical veracity as thay do artistic merit. What really baffles me is who Joyce is and why we are all enjoined to ring her in the first line Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mhicaoidh, I'll never hear that the same way again. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

something to do with the eckcent I think : ) Mhicaoidh (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably those who are old and married can't ring her (just the young and free). Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the lyrical issues, but as to the astronomical one: Sirius is at declination -17° (to the nearest whole degree). It is therefore visible on a clear night at any time on any night (what is called circumpolar) from latitude south of 17°S; and some of the time from latitude 17°S to 73°N, with the amount of visibility decreasing as you go north. Alpha Centauri is at declination -61°; therefore it is circumpolar only south of latitude 61°S, and visible some of the time from 61°S to 29°N. Although Sirius is a southerly star for those of us living in the Northern Hemisphere, Alpha Centuari is a much more southerly one. --Anonymous, at about 44°N, 00:37 UTC, April 27, 2008.

Interesting to note the current revised updated etc official version has a verse starting "Beneath our radiant Southern Cross..." Mhicaoidh (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anynomous: that is not exactly true. For a circumpolar star, the complementary angle of the observer's latitude plus the complementary angle of the declination must be less than 90 degrees. The minimum altitude of a star is reached when the observer is opposite to it. At the time of minimum altitude, the observer sees the star across the south pole. If there is more than 90 degrees of latitudal distance between the star and the observer, the former cannot be seen.

Sirius, then, can only be circumpolar south of 73 degrees S (90-17). Alpha Centauri can only be circumpolar south of 29 degrees (90-61). The further south in declination a star is, the further north an observer on Earth can be for it to still be circumpolar. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Damn, you're right. Thanks for the correction. I should have drawn myself a diagram of the sky before posting, instead of one of the Earth; it's much easier to think about it that way. --Anonymous, 07:10 UTC, April 28.

By the way, why is there no mention at Advance Australia Fair of the traditional lyrics Brittannia then shall surely know,/Beyond wide ocean's roll,/Her sons in fair Australia's land/Still keep a British soul.? Republican POV pushing, perhaps?! Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to have been part of the original lyrics, I've added it to the article. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The "traditional lyrics" mentioned by Gwinva were not part of the original lyrics. They were a modification by Professor Stuart Blackie of Edinburgh.[22] The original wording was as shown in verse 4 at Advance Australia Fair#Original. To Bowlhover, you didn't add those words to the article. You duplicated verse 4 of the original lyrics as verse 5, which never existed, and changed the reference from the original 1879 lyrics to the 1900-1909 version. I've reverted the changes so the article is, once again, correct. The "Blackie" version is not shown in the article.

Addressing the original question, my grandfather corresponded with Peter Dodds McCormick, the composer of Advance Australia Fair. The original correspondence is now held in the National Library of Australia.[23] Although the correspondence doesn't mention what the "southern star" was, I remember being told as a child that Amicus had said that it referred to the Southern Cross, not an individual star.

Thanks, and sorry for the mistake. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Poverty

When and why did poverty cease to be a natural condition and become a social problem? Miranda Angel (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm…good question. I would guess that it came largely with industrialization and the urbanization that ensued. Poverty in rural societies can often be blamed on natural phenomena like crop failures, the weather, and so on. And the feudal system which upheld it was regarded as being divinely ordained from time immemorial. But when vast numbers of peasants began to move to the cities and work in factories, the exploitation of man by man became transparently obvious, and the new classes of capitalist and entrepreneur did not have the reinforcement of long centuries of tradition. Thus, the 19th Century saw new formulations of political theories which stressed the nature of social classes. Some of these philosopher economists called for a revolution (like Karl Marx) and others just wanted society to take on a more responsible and Christian approach to the newly dispossessed in the large slums of the city. It should be added however, that all three of the main monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – exhorted the faithful to charity towards the indigent, the orphaned and widowed, and the sick. Traditionally, these religions did not see such problems as essentially “social”, that is, typical of a class or social structure, and symptomatic of man’s oppression of man. Nevertheless, when such secular interpretations of society began to prevail, they gained considerable force from the altruism of these spiritual beliefs. Thus, the Christian Church had great influence in the abolition of slavery, and in the institution of welfare state ideals of social democracy.

If you wanted a “best fit” date, I would opt for somewhere about the 1870s, after the Paris Commune, the inauguration of the Working Men Unions, and the publication of Das Capital. Myles325a (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When peasants did something about it? See Popular revolt in late medieval Europe, (addn) then, Peasant revolts for dates and Crisis of the Late Middle Ages. cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Origins of the Poor Law system. That just deals with England though; provisions for doing *something* with the poor (giving them free food, rounding them up and having them watch chariot races all day, or whatever) go back to at least ancient Rome. As long as there has been urban civilization, the poor have existed as a social problem. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know just how well Tacitus's famous comment about "bread & circuses" fits the definition of a poverty program. On one hand, its intent was not to stamp out poverty -- the bread dole & the entertainments were available to both rich & poor Romans alike -- but to keep an idle populace too busy to riot over the latest political scandal. On the other, in order to get a token for the bread dole, one had to deal with a government apparatus that operated through political influence and patronage: the average citizen needed the help of a patron in order to get this token, & if one had that kind of connection, she/he wasn't poor. The need for connections also meant the quite real possibility of abuse, so that some had more tokens than they were entitled to.

That said, Helping the poor because they were poor was not a new idea to the audience of the Christian gospels; empathy has been part of humanity as long as history has been recorded. I'm not sure anyone has looked at the history of the perception of poverty; it's only been within the last few generations that "real" historians have looked beyond the affairs of court, battlefield, and cathedrals. -- llywrch (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is actually remarkably simple when you think about it, and when "poverty" is viewed more prosaically, for example as the near-fatal lack of food. Sometime in the nineteenth century communication and agricultural productivity had grown such that the world in general could always feed itself - if it wanted to. The extreme case is illustrative: prior to that period famine might occur because of a shortage of food due to climatic conditions, and an inability to transfer sufficient foodstuffs to the area in time. After that period, famine became a purchasing power problem, and thus depended strongly on the social and political system in place. The classic example is famine in India, where Amartya Sen has won the Nobel in economics for demonstrating that devastating famine in British India - especially in the 1890s, but also the horrific 1942 famine, which came because of wartime restrictions on food import and transportation - were not problems of production, but problems of distribution. A standard and well-accepted corollary is that famine since the mid-19th has only been found in oppressed societies. Cf India and China over the past 50 years.

Basically, there was once a time when extreme, life-threatening poverty was something nobody, even visionary ethicists in Tiberius' reign, could believe would never be with us. Sometime in the past few generations it has become possible to believe that the persistence of such poverty is a product of our social structure rather than mechanistic necessity. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer, Miranda, is that ceased to be a 'natural condition' when it became a matter of intellectual debate and then a subject of social policy. And the debate on the 'mischievous ambiguity of the word poor' really takes shape in the period between the late 1700s to the publication in England of the Poor Law Report. It was Edmund Burke who was among the first to raise the issue when he objected to the 'political canting language' of the expression 'labouring poor', thus highlighting the confusion between those who worked for their living, and were thus properly labouring people, and those who could not work, and were thus dependant on charity. For him the word 'poor' should really only be used in reference to the latter.

It was a standard later taken up by the poor law reformers, who aimed to end this ancient confusion for good and all. Pauperism and poverty would never be perceived in the same terms again. Both those who supported the Poor Law Amendment Act and those who opposed it, from Dickens to Disraeli, met in a battle where poverty, and all the things associated with poverty, were brought ever more directly into the public consciousness. In future it was no longer a case of the poor always being with us, but the manner in which they are with us. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the days of the week

Today is a Saturday because yesterday was a Friday. Yesterday was a Friday because the day before was a Thursday - and so on backward through the centuries. But at some point, the system must have had an arbitrary starting point - someone must have decided that some day was a Monday and future days would follow that order. When did this happen, and has the sequence ever been broken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyroclastic (talk • contribs) 06:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

calendar is a useful article to read along with days of the week. There have been and continue to be a wide variety of calendars in use around the world, the dominant one reflecting the hegemony of that century's (or millenium's) particular dominant culture . The continuity of our Western one has been "broken" from time to time through calendar reform and you would find gregorian calendar interesting Mhicaoidh (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Can vegans use bone china?

I never thought about it before, but recently read that up to 45% of the mass of fine bone china is ground ox bone, which is mixed with clay and other compounds. As vegans do not use dairy, honey, silk, or leather, I was wondering if they avoided such other products as crockery made from bone ash, with the ox of course being an especially holy animal in many parts of the world. And where does all that ox bone come from anyway? Google sources seem rather reticent on this. And why ox bone, when surely cow and sheep bones would be much more plentiful? Myles325a (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You've started something now, Myles. Speaking as a member of the food chain, would a vegan shake hands, ride horses, or maybe it's only "products" that count? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaking hands would definitely be fine; it's between consenting agents. Riding horses is probably not very vegan—using animals as beasts of burden and all. Anyway, it's clearly not an issue of just "products"—Veganism is meant to be a holistic philosophy, an approach to life. As for bone china, the answer sounds like no to me—they won't wear leather shoes, they sure won't like pottery made of bones. --75.36.41.18 (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OP myles325 back here. Of course, we could just look up a Vegan website, but that would be cheating wouldn't it? Myles325a (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving companies sell lists of new addresses to marketers?

In a recent Popular Science article [24], it is mentioned that "moving companies sell lists of new addresses to marketers". How prevalent is this in the United States and elsewhere around the world? --203.10.47.15 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the USA, the official government post office change-of-address process is funded and run by junk mail companies (famous Direct Marketing Association quote: "there is no such thing as junk mail, only junk people"), so there hardly seems any need for movers to get in on it. --Sean 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Women in American Politics

American women got the vote in 1920 but made almost no progress in breaking into political life in the period before World War 2. What were the reasons for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Watt (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And they still haven't made much progress. Would be interested in the answers. WikiJedits (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is really to be found, Linda, in the structures that support access to political life. Women may have got the vote in 1920 but there was still considerable residual prejudice and discrimination towards them in those very areas and professions, particularly the legal profession, which generally act as the ante-chamber to a political career. Although many women did in fact run for office in the United States in the inter-war period they most often lacked the backing of the major parties. If they did achieve such backing they often had oppose incumbents. Failing in such contests, as they most often did, made their re-endorsement all but impossible. The best most women could hope for from the major parties was to be adopted as auxiliaries, a kind of reserve army of political labour!

Times have changed a little, I think it only fair to add. In this regard I have to say that I am impressed always by the way history works, by her delightful and delicious sense of irony. It had to come that one day a woman would be a candidate for the most senior office in the land. It had to come one day that a black man would also become a candidate for the most senior office in the land. But for the Democrats to put forward a woman and a black man at the same time, now that really is something! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that very interesting answer. Do you mind if I ask which of the two you support? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Watt (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm English, Linda, and thus not allowed to make a choice over such matters! I can tell you who I support for Mayor of London, though. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe and Zimbabwe

I'm trying to make sense of what's happening at present in Zimbabwe. It would he helpful if one of you could recommend same background reading. I also have a number of general question that someone could perhaps help me with. What is it Mugabe wants? Why have elections at all if he simply refuses to give up power? Is there no possibility that he could be removed, either by an internal coup, or by external pressure? By what process has he brought Zimbabwe to its knees? I'm sorry, I know this is a lot to ask for. It's probably all a reflection on my mental confusion. Light on the darkness would be welcome! ZZT9 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately our ZANU article shows clear signs of tendentious editing, so I cannot recommend it. When the first elections were held after the end of Rhodesia, Mugabe, who had emerged from the Rhodesian Bush War a hero to most Africans and many across the third world, became Prime Minister, and took a series of steps to placate the white minority, and protect their economic interests. Over time, however, a combination of emigration, absentee landlordism, declines in agricultural productivity, and bad economic policy caused the fact that a vast part of the wealth and land of the country remained in white hands to become a political problem that could not be avoided. Mugabe himself may have always intended a one-party state, though this is disputed by scholars; it seems certain that by the mid-1990s he did. The most relevant fact: he's had a hard life, and is 84 or something. He's almost certainly senile. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here's an effort from Britannica that is several times better than anything we have at the moment. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The two most recent publications that may be of use to you, ZZT9, are Mugabe: Power, Plunder and the Struggle for Zimbabwe by Martin Meredith and The Day After Mugabe: Prospects for Change in Zimbabwe, a collection of papers edited by Guguletho Moyo and Mark Ashurst.

There is surely no fable more appropriate to the fate of Zimbabwe under the moronic Mugabe than that of The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs. In April 1980, as the country celebrated its independence, Mugabe was told by Julius Nyerere, President of nearby Tanzania, that he had inherited a jewel and that he should keep it that way. Well, he has cut the throat of the goose and thrown away the jewel; for what he wanted above all was power and then more power. It did not really matter how this was attained, even if it meant the wholesale destruction of a prosperous farming sector by 'war veterans'; even if it means forever dwelling on the supposed crimes of the colonial past, as the rest of Africa moves on and forward.

He will not be removed internally because the forces behind him, particularly those responsible for the Matabeleland Massacre, fear the future too much. He will not be removed by external pressure because Thabo Mbeki and the like have not sufficient determination to stand up to him, pandering to his old myths and illusions. In the end Mugabe seems to have proved one point and one point only-Ian Smith may have been right after all. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Smith right? About what?

You're quite wrong about the prosperity of the farming sector, actually. It had already begun to collapse in the mid 1990s. Few postcolonial nations can preserve agricultural productivity without extensive land reform, anyway. India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana: all have had to go through it. The only difference in Zimbabwe is that land ownership is divided along racial lines - the crimes of the colonial past are still very much in their present. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ZZT9, I've adapted an answer I gave to a question on Western Imperialism, which appeared here last March. I think this might put things in a more general perspective for you. Regards. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa is a huge place, and there are indeed tragic examples where colonial history has had the direst of consequences, economically and politically: Mozambique and Angola spring to mind, countries all but destroyed by war and civil war. However, Africa is also a great continent, with a great and energetic people, badly served by its politicians. How long are we to forward the excuse of colonialism as a justification-and it has become a justification-for backwardness and the sheer failure of potential?

Take the example, if you will, of the Republic of Ireland, which had an experience of colonialism far older and of land expropriation far more severe than the least fortunate of the African colonies. Although free for almost a hundred years now it was dominated for decades after independence by a reactionary Church hierarchy. Despite this, its transformation over the past twenty years or so into one of the most dynamic of European economies and societies is especially worthy of note, particularly when the country possesses little in the way of natural resources. I wish I could see similar signs of renaissance and resurgence in Africa; but I can not.

There is a word in Swahili which explains the plight of Africa far better than outdated notions of imperialism: it is WaBenzi, meaning boss or, better still, big shot. The WaBenzi, the undeclared tribe which crosses all borders, is, in my estimation, by far the greatest of Africa's misfortunes. Take the example of Malawi. In 2000, following the death of Hastings Banda, the former dictatorial president, the British government increased aid to the country by some £20 million. The WaBenzi promptly celebrated by spending almost £2 million, yes, £2 million, on a fleet of 39 S-class Mercedes, in a country where the roads are hardly fit for carts. Take one more example. In 2002 Mwai Kibaki came to power in Kenya on an anti-corruption platform, announcing that Corruption will now cease as a way of life in Kenya. The very fist law passed by the new Parliament was to increase politicians' salaries by over 170%, to about £65,000pa ($125,000). Beyond this, each MP was awarded a package of allowances, including a grant of £23,600 to buy a duty free car, all in a country where the average per capita income is £210 ($406) per annum.

I could go on like this, but it's really too depressing. You will find all of the details of these examples and more in How African leaders spend our money, an article by Aidan Hartley, published in the London edition of The Spectator in June 2005. I have visited several African countries, and I love the people and the place. But we have to stop making excuses for failure, to stop draping history around the necks of Africans as a catch-all explanation for their perceived shortcomings. If Africa is to move forward we need to understand the real causes of failure; and these are far closer to home.

Much too much is made of the deleterious effects of imperialism in explaining the failure of many modern African states. India, Malaysia, and Singapore were all under British control, but this has not hampered the development of modern economies and mature political structures. In Africa imperialism has become a crutch, intended to explain and excuse failure. In many countries corruption has become the dominant mode of political exchange. Imperialism did not destroy Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe did. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio's analysis is indeed similar to several that have appeared in various sources over the past few years. While there is much truth in the stories of great corruption and even more in the tragic effects of AIDS, there are essential errors in most such comparisons, however; in the specific case of Zimbabwe, the problem is, as I said, one of the structure of land ownership. The relevant comparison should be not Ireland - in which vast tracts of the best land were no longer in the hands of frequently absentee Anglo-Irish landowners but Pakistan, where feudal overlords supported by the Raj were left control of their land in 1947, and as a consequence Pakistan has not been able to democratize and is, indeed, more corrupt than Zimbabwe. (A pattern replicated in miniature across the states of India, and indeed Malaysia and Indonesia.) And Clio's point about the Irish miracle is also true in this respect: if Europe were to admit Zimbabwe into the EU, what a miracle of growth would result! A fair price for their agricultural exports, and a destination for their unemployed and European capital... much as happened in Ireland throughout the 1980s.

More generally, it has been understood since Robert Bates' landmark study of African trading boards in the 1980s that the structures of imperialism persist and continue to stifle growth in sub-Saharan countries. In Zimbabwe it is land tenure and in West Africa the monopolistic cronyism of the great oil and coffee companies. This argument has been effectively expanded by the Turkish economist Daron Acemoglu in work that won him the John Bates Clark Medal: as well as such things can ever be demonstrated, he has shown that in places where the occupiers set up "extractive" economic and political institutions, growth has been disappointing; in places where they set up "supportive" institutions, growth has been good. This conclusion is broadly true, regardless of the location of the colony or the identity of the occupier. So it is, indeed, the case that the numbers indicate that the cold undead hand of imperialism stifles the best hopes of these people.

That does not mean that the arguments such as those in the Spectator will go away any time soon. It has always been a source of amusement to me that those who most subscribe to the persistence of institutions at home, and indeed sometimes revere them, are quickest to deny that institutions abroad have any real effect. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A good war?

I need some help preparing for a school debate. The motion is Was the Second World War A Good War? I will be arguing against. If you can please help me with some details, arguments against the justice and effectivness of the British war effort. Was Churchill really all that he is made out to be? Please be as precise as possible. I love this page, I love how much some people seem to know. Yours sincerely, John Fitzgerald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.161.146 (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Very difficult to argue that a war fought to defend your homeland from the Nazis wasn't a pretty decent war. Best to try something they aren't expecting. Reframe it in terms of the "world" part. Did, when Britain went to war, it have the right to declare war on behalf of the entire Empire and expose Australia to danger and India to revolt? --Relata refero (disp.) 13:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Britain didn't declare war in 1939 on behalf of the whole Empire, as it was able to do in 1914. Canada, South Africa and New Zealand all made their own declarations of war, while in Australia Menzies somehow persuaded the Australians to go to war as a matter of imperial duty without actually declaring war. The lawyers had to cover up for this, later on. Xn4 13:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tut, really? I knew there was some disputation in Australia, but I assumed it was because the G-G had happily informed everyone that they were off to defend Singapore tomorrow, pack a toothbrush. Turns out it was Menzies. The Menzies Virtual Museum says "Prime Minister Menzies declares that Australia is at war with Germany. This reflects the attitude of the majority of Australians who considered that Britain's declaration of war on Germany automatically committed Australia to the conflict in their desire to provide traditional support for Britain", which sounds to me like protesting too much. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The exact text of Menzies' speech is "Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." Schmindependent. Anyway, still holds for India. Focus on that, and Roosevelt's commonly expressed view that Churchill's rabid imperialism was eating into the justice of the war effort. Your best shot. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On the main issue, we've debated it before on this reference desk, and I remember putting the case that the Second World War certainly didn't achieve any of the war aims the British set out with, such as the defence of brave little Poland. By the end of the War, the Allies were able to persuade themselves that the Germans and the Japanese had been so wicked that it had been necessary to crush them, whatever the initial aims... the trouble with this is (1) that the worst wickednesses of the Axis powers were made possible by the War: hard to believe, for instance, that what we call the Holocaust could have happened under peace-time conditions; and (2) that Stalin and his thugs were no better than Hitler and his thugs, and leaving much of central and Eastern Europe under the domination of one or the other came to much the same thing. Churchill certainly took that view. you can also make the case that the British defeats in the Far East (in particular, the Battle of Singapore) led to an earlier end for the Empire than would otherwise have been the case, and that with more time the independence of India and Pakistan could have been more peaceful (there, you get into deep waters). Appeasement was an essential policy for buying time. With the benefit of hindsight, it's at least arguable that averting the War entirely, with such concessions as could have been bought, would have turned out better in the end. Xn4 13:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I second the "Oh, dear." You want specifics, but that is too much like doing your homework for you for me. I can suggest a tack: Great Britain capitulates under the Blitz. GB gets good terms, even better than the French got, because Hitler is scared to death of crossing the Channel, and Britain knows it. Germany gets to concentrate on the Bolsheviks and takes them out of the picture but gets seriously mauled doing it. Britain rises up against a weakened Germany (who still have no navy to speak of aside from the U-boats and who have lost their Fuhrer to assassination) when the US comes in, as they would have had to eventually, especially with Winston in Washington playing the gadfly the whole time. The Nazis capitulate because their now-sane leadership, perhaps headed by Doenitz, see that the light at the end of the tunnel is a train. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The barest assessment of World War II I've heard goes something like this: "If we didn't win, we'd all be speaking German now." My response is, what's wrong with speaking German? It seems to suit the Germans perfectly well. People cannot readily conceive of a radical change in their lives so they presume the status quo must be preferable. This is folly. "Man will even get used to the gallows." Vranak (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The way to win this argument either way is to be the one to define what "good" means. You could argue that it was avoidable. You could argue that bad things happened to the world because of it (Cold War, Berlin Wall). "Good" is such a vague word. Make it mean what you need it to mean. "If 'good' means "brought peace to the world", then WWII was not a good war because..." "If 'good' means "it was a war which we had no choice but to fight", then WWII was not good because we should have seen what was coming and stopped it before it got out of hand, etc. etc. Wrad (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You could also argue point of view. WWII was a great war for Communism. China, Russia, Eastern Europe...to them it was a good war. To the Jews was it a good war? If you asked anyone from that time period, I doubt they'd say "Oh, that was such a wonderful time to live! It was such a good war. Everyone loved it! We all cried when it was over because we just couldn't bear to see it go." Yeah right. Wrad (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt that the Allies fought (on the whole) a decent war, if war can be decent. The question John Fitzgerald has to debate is whether it was a Good War, and that's rather different. Xn4 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. They won and they were defending themselves. That makes it as good as it can be. Still, though, if you want to argue the "good" point, get control of the word's meaning within the debate, and you've won. Wrad (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II What is a good war? -- Ironmandius (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. That's what Wrad said. I was wondering that myself: what is a good war? I answered myself, "A good war is one that is in the best interests of the country in question." Was WWII worth the expenditure of life and treasure it cost the UK in terms of the outcome? Was there another way to achieve an equivalent result, or was there a different conceivable outcome undesirable on the face of it that would have yet been preferable to the slaughter and destruction the war wrought in Britain and its empire? I want in on this debate, dammit. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that human deaths in the millions are not regarded as acceptable, even tolerable to today's PC society. One is usually too many -- the international response to the execution of Saddam Hussein was widely condemnatory. Laymen who take a non-historical look back at the past judge things by today's standards of right and wrong, good and bad. In the 40s, knowledge of the concentration camps was limited. If it wasn't, can we presume the average citizen of an Allied nation would have cared? We would like to think so, but who knows... Vranak (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nien, ist war nicht ein gutten strum. -Arch dude (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept the OP is debating seems more closely allied to the ancient concept of the Just War -- our article on this is useful. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument "WWII was NOT a Good War" does not necessarily imply that the expansion of the Third Reich and its barbarity - after they had occurred - should not have been countered by military measures. As such, it qualifies as a Just war (see Brainy Babe above).

It may be argued in this context that Hitler´s´rise to power was far from irresistible, it may be argued that a great many diplomatic / economic measures were missed or severely fumbled by other European powers in deescalating the emerging problem.

I am not a historian (and rather naive, to boot), but I fail to comprehend (inter many alia) why Germany was allowed to embark on a massive program of rearmament. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the Stresa Front, the annexation of Austria or the Munich Agreement seem to be pitiful examples of chances which were poorly handled .

It may be argued that WWII could have been avoided (or could have been a pre-emptive strike against the nascent German Reich), had the actors on the political stage shown more determination. To call an avoidable war which cost the lives of 60 million people a "Bad War" must remain a reasonable argument.

On the other hand, without WWII many on this desk - including me - would not have been conceived and would not have been born. Whether tis alone makes it a Good War, however, is questionable.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that it was better to defeat Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo than to let them divide the post-war world into spheres of occupation pending a nuclear WW3 between East and West. But it was a war that began very badly, with appeasement by Chamberlain when Hitler's despotism could have been nipped in the bud by encouraging the anti Hitler plotters in Germany, and that ended badly with the holocaust, terror bombing by firebombs and nukes by the allies and Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, and the failure (like after WW1) to implement the grand pledges of freedom in the postwar world, with the denial of self-determination in the colonies resulting in more decades of conflict. Edison (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if I were John Fitzgerald (the OP), I shouldn't introduce the Just War arguments into the debate myself, but hold them in reserve and hope they wouldn't become too central, because it seems to me more arguable that WWII was a just war than that it was a good war. If JF agrees to argue 'good war' by reference to 'just war', then that seems to set hares running. Surely better (as Wrad says) to define 'good' in terms which help the case, which will I think be different from just. Xn4 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, John, how wonderful; you have fallen on the right side of the debate; I envy you so much. You can safely ignore the discouraging 'oh dears', the suggestion that your argument will have to be based on dubious grounds. You will understand why by the time I have finished. I assume you know your opponents? Well, if so, you might just drop a hint that you’re having trouble working up an effective rebuttal to notions of a 'just' war, because the chances are that they will fall back on this sophistry as the main prop of their argument! Your strength is to dismiss abstractions, with all of the force you can muster; to focus always on specifics. Demolish them with cases, John, demolish them with examples!

Anyway, put out of your mind the suggestion that we were fighting to defend our homeland from the Nazis; we were not, not by any measure. We declared war on Germany; Germany did not declare on war on us! We declared war for what? For Poland, for the freedom of Poland? I'm now finding it difficult to stop myself from laughing! Xn4 has given you some useful hints. Appeasement was not just a good policy: it was an essential policy. More than that, it would have been far better, in every respect, not to have gone to war in the first place. In July 1940, in what he called his ‘final appeal to reason’, Hitler called for an end to the conflict;

The continuation of this war will only end with the complete destruction of one of the two warring parties...I see no reason that should compel us to continue this war.

He was wrong about one thing: the continuation of the war brought the complete destruction of one of the parties, yes, but it also brought the near destruction of the other. The roller-coaster ride I am about to take you on is based, for the most part, on my reading of Homan Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization by Nicholson Barker, which I have not long finished. If you have the time dip into it. Be ruthless: use the index!

So, was the Second World War a 'good' war, understanding good to mean that it brought some benefit to those who needed help? The answer is not at all obvious, is it? Think of our leadership, think of the adventurism of Churchill, the tyrant of the glittering phrase. Soon after hearing of Hitler's 1940 peace offer Frances Partridge wrote in her diary "It's too tantalising since there's no shadow of a doubt we will reject any such suggestion. Now I suppose Churchill will again tell the world that we are going to die on the hills and the seas, and then we shall proceed to do so." A pretty accurate prediction, don't you think?

The problem with Churchill was that he was the eternal schoolboy caught up in the excitement of the battle, a man with little or no long-term vision; no understanding of the political consequences of fighting on the beaches and the landing grounds, in this place and in that; no understanding of the consequences for his country or its Empire of unrestrained and prolonged conflict. In 1945 he had heaps of moral authority. The trouble is he had almost nothing else; an Adam without the fig-leaf. Oh, sorry, he did have something else: he was also the chief architect of imperial deconstruction, rather ironic when one considers his past history! Break through the circles of his rhetoric and the picture that emerges is not particularly uplifting.

What Churchill was really interested in was not an 'anti-Fascist' crusade; for it is doubtful that he ever really understood the nature of Fascism, a concept altogether too modern; he certainly never saw any fault in Mussolini, or danger in Japan. He wanted a scrap with Germany; that's it. His scrap, moreover, was not, by and large, with German soldiers but with German civilians, waged with the ruthless weapons of blockade and bombardment, bombardment increasingly delivered without any degree of moral restraint. After all, if the Nazis were bad, why should we not be worse? As the civilian populations, swollen by refugees, of Poland, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands faced starvation, Churchill refused to let food aid through the Navy's blockade of Europe. In justification he told Parliament in 1941 that the enemy would use fats to make bombs, potatoes to make fuel and that 'the plastic materials now so largely used in the construction of aircraft are made of milk.' Yes, he did! In October of that year Herbert Hoover asked;

Is the Allied cause any further advanced today because of the starvation of children? Are Hitler’s armies any less victorious than if those children had been saved? Are Britain's children better fed today because these millions of former allied children have been hungry or died? Can you point to one benefit that has been gained from this holocaust?

There is, of course, no answer. Nor is there any answer, when one thinks about it, to the effectiveness, or the desirability, of the bombardment. In 1941 it was estimated that only one in five British bombers was dropping their payload within seventy-five miles of their designated targets. Because of this targets were deliberately selected so that, even if the aircraft missed, there would be a 'bonus' in civilian deaths, and thus the weapons would not be wasted. But even this brought no discernable benefits, either in the dislocation of production or the collapse of morale. So what was needed? Why, more and bigger bombs; more and more dead civilians. Neither Churchill, nor Bomber Harris nor anyone else in the British command seems to have considered just exactly what impact the German Blitz on Britain had.

Be ready for the argument, John, that the war was fought to prevent the persecution of the Jews. It was not. Churchill showed almost no interest in the German persecution. More seriously, the twin weapons of blockade and bombardment impacted most severely on Jewish people; for as rations reduced everywhere they reduced even more severely in the ghettos; as the bombing took hold it was Jewish families who were among the first to be evicted to make way for those whose home had been destroyed. Indeed, the Final Solution itself was in every respect one of the direct consequences of the Second World War. It is inconceivable, in other words, it its absence.

So, we fought to destroy Hitler and lost all perspective in the process. Yes, he was a tyrant. Yes, he was a butcher. But we fought alongside a man who was no less tyrannical, no less of a butcher and, in the end, no less of an anti-Semite. At huge cost, both human and material, we fought to free Poland from Hitler...only to give it to Stalin.

Watch you pacing; breath carefully; take note of your timing, aim slowly, aim carefully. You'll demolish them! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

CLIO I LOVE YOU, I LOVE YOU!!!! J Fitzgerald 12:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Fitzgerald II (talk • contribs)

Aww, shucks! Use 'we' if you like, John; it will serve to give your argument greater power and immediacy! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But please don't say "we" unless you are actually old enough to have been alive at the time! (unless you feel that you contributed by having been present as a twinkle in a forefather's eye) SaundersW (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How about deaths that occurred because information from the Enigma project could not be released?hotclaws 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy and voting in Canada

In Canada and its provinces, does the economic cycle affect the outcome of elections? Are particular parties, or the incumbent, more or less likely to be elected during or immediately after a recession? NeonMerlin 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You could start with Canadian federal election results since 1867 and then compare Economic history of Canada. WikiJedits (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamp value

I have a few stamps, and I can’t seem to figure out how much they’re worth. They don’t seem to say on it, but don’t look like the first class forever stamps described in Non-denominated postage. I found a picture of one, http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/01/08/postagerate.hike.ap/storyvert.stamp.ap.jpg. Can anybody tell me what it’s value is? Thanks! 130.127.186.122 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an American, but from what I can find, the value of this stamp in 2005 was $0.39.[25]. The value of the stamp was raised by $0.02 between then, but that shouldn't matter. Since 1861, the law has been that, if a stamp has no postage price indicated, it is postally worth the purchase price, so that would be $0.39. PeterSymonds | talk 12:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? In the UK, if a stamp says "1st" or "2nd" on its face, its value always matches the current price of first class or second class postage, as the case may be: so its value can change. Xn4 13:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture you link seems to be from this CNN article, the caption to the picture being "New first-class and U.S. non-denominated 39-cent stamp." From the US Postal service site (usps.gov), we can indeed confirm that the stamp is valued at 39 cents (Quick Service Guide 604a, Basic Standards for All Mailing Services, Nondenominated Postage) -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. postal system has had numerous rate increases over the years. Sometimes they expect the rates to go up but do not have final authorization for and determination of the higher rate, so the have left it off the new stamps, creating years of confucion when someone finds some of the non-denominated stamps. They latest move was to makr them "USA First Class Forever"" meaning that even if they cost 41 cents they will carry your 99 cent first class letter a few years later. It also provides a bit of pat-on-the-back affirmation to a country badly needing it. Edison (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

superstition

What does Islam say about superstition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you accept a priori that there is some difference between religion and superstition then, well, Islam's stand on superstition is strongly disapproving. (If you don't, read that sentence as saying "Islam's stand on other supersitions...".) The great Alberuni, for example, was the first to clearly delineate what was the province of astronomy and what was that of astrology, and explicitly based his refutation of astrology on its lack of rationality, which he believed conflicted with Islamic precepts. The more restrictive schools of Islam view syncretic traditions within Islam, such as the veneration of saints called pirs and the celebration of Milad-un-Nabi, Mohammed's birthday, as "superstition". The word is loaded with negative baggage as Islam itself is portrayed as being born in reaction to the superstition in which the Arabs were sunk during Mohammed's lifetime. Of course, there's also this, which tends to undercut that slightly. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical Revolutionary-War question

I've been deliberating as to whether or not this belongs here or at the Language reference desk, but I figured that this has to do with connotation, not definition.

Q: Why is it that the battles won by the minutemen in the Revolutionary War use the preposition "of," and the battles lost by the minutemen use the preposition "at"? (e.g., Battle at Guilford Court House [lost], Battle of Yorktown [won], Battle at Charleston [lost], Battle of Cowpens [won], Battle of King's Mountain [won], Battle at Savannah [lost], Battle of Vincennes [won], etc.) Does it have to do with some obscure, undefined implication I'm unaware of? Also, now that I've linked them, I could further ask why the battles in which the minutemen were defeated lack articles of their own. --^LaPianísta! 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The redlinks in your question seems to indicate that Wikipedia uses the "of" construction either way. See Battle of Guilford Court House, Battle of Charleston and Battle of Savannah. APL (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So then, a better question would be why my stupid history textbook insists on the opposite. --^LaPianísta! 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely because it is a stupid textbook? Clio the Muse (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, agreed; thanks for your help. ;-) --^LaPianísta! 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Violence against women

What does Islam say about violence against women and girls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd best read Women and Islam for that question. --^LaPianísta! 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Islam" doesn't have one opinion regarding women (or violence against them in particular). There are a large number of muslims in the world and their values/beliefs vary quite vastly. On the one extreme you have fairly progresive types of belief (see this [26]) and on the other extreme, you have some fundamentalists who practise such things as honour killings (which in some cases are the result of a sexual assault upon the victim).Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We have more specific articles. Check out Islam and domestic violence, which is not especially great but has useful references for further reading, and Islamic feminism, which includes many names. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assisted reproductive technology

What does Islam say about A.R.T.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not a monolithic entity. For these and other questions, it may be best to refer to a few Imams and ask them in person their interpretation. (Is that the correct plural?) Ironmandius (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like [27].

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically it's "a'immat". Adam Bishop (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One position is given in this fatwa. Algebraist 17:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You might try Bioethics#Muslim_bioethics for a list of readings to start with. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

friend or enemy

Is there a compiled list of things which typically or actually made a ruler of a conquered land a friend or enemy of Rome? 71.100.11.39 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign rulers were perceived as friendly or hostile to Rome for a number of reasons, which included actual or perceived acts -- or the usual rationalizations that allowed that city to either declare war -- or evade the issue. I mention the later because John Rich makes the interesting observation in his "Fear, greed and glory: the causes of Roman war-making in the middle Republic" (in War and society in the Roman World, ed. John Rich and Graham Shipley [Routledge, 1993]) that despite the Roman's well-deserved reputation for being eager to wage war, that there were occasions when various elites within Rome found good reason not to go to war. One reason being that, the glory for defeating an enemy of Rome might give a political opponent an undesired advantage. So the answer is no. -- llywrch (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I find it odd that no scholar has ever compiled a list of conditions be they common or atypical under which a decision was made by Rome to execute a conquered ruler or to let a conquered ruler live if for no other reason that as a guide for its governors. For instance, refusing to renounce all but the Sun God as Divine seems to be one of the first conditions that might be put on such a list. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Such matters are determined by political considerations, and by political considerations only. These will always vary according to circumstances, and cannot be subject to any form of calculus. The Roman Empire expanded by a mixture of pragmatism and opportunism. If it had proceeded in the fashion you suggest I doubt it would have got much beyond the banks of the Tiber. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Even political considerations have a tendency to consist of more then one independent variable. I can list a ton of things I need to do and avoid doing to keep my boss happy, all with several variables that must be weighed. Certainly a Roman governor would have a list of things to do and not to do to keep Caesar happy, including who to execute and who not to execute following a military campaign. Even political considerations have rules. For instance, I might want to offer a new client a piece of the bosses' candy but then I might also need to taste test it first to be sure I can recommend it to the client. A political consideration rule might be to forget the candy unless the client is wealthy or forget the candy if the client is overweight. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right, 71.100, but in saying this you are perhaps beginning to understand the impossibility, or impracticality, of producing the kind of historical calculus that you originally set out in search of. Just think: how many governors, how many emperors, how many provinces, over how many hundreds of years? The number of variables one would have to take into consideration would be simply enormous. Yes, I suppose you could set out to accumulate such evidence, as if you were piecing together an explanatory mosaic. I suspect this might very well be a task that would fascinate Jorge Luis Borges, providing a possible theme for one of his inspired 'fictions'; because, at the end of your labours, you may very well discover that you have written a complete history of the Roman Empire! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Logical Atomism

Clio the Muse, please do you know the key to the method of logical atomism in Russell's philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference desk is for public queries. If you wish to address one editor, please write on her talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yes it just makes us mediocre contributers to the reference desk feel bad. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See logical atomism. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The key, J E, lies in his assertion that logic is the essence of philosophy, where logic is taken to mean mathematical logic. Its importance is that it provides the means of effecting powerful and philosophically revealing analyses of structures, most particularly, the related structures of propositions and facts. Have a look at Logic as the Essence of Philosophy. Happy reading! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Proportion of the world with a high school diploma

 Done

Can Anyone give me an estimate of what percentage of the world has completed secondary education? With a good source of course. --Ybbor^Talk 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted my earlier answers, as they were only for current enrollment. This site, from the World Bank, looks like it has the answer. From what I understood from Table Three, it would be 27.8% of adults aged 25 and over. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you very much :) --Ybbor^Talk 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

April 27

Schooling in America

Does education in the US proceed with first reading, writing and arithmetic (elementary schools) followed by introduction to significant topics with each year going a bit deeper into the topic (grade school) followed by even greater depth, basic expansion and introduction to preparation for a trade or for higher learning (junior high) followed by even greater depth and expansion of trades or preparation for higher learning (high school) followed by even greater depth and specialization of a trade or higher learning (Junior college or tech school) followed by higher learning (college) followed by graduate and post-graduate studies (University) or is there some other basis for year to year progress through the educational system? 71.100.11.39 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call that the most accurate description. If all you're wondering is whether you have the names right, you generally do (though most schools I know don't differentiate between "elementary" and "grade" school. The notion of progression is there--it could hardly fail to be in any schooling system...I cannot conceive of a real life school system that taught students advanced subjects first and gradually worked down to basic skills like literacy and addition. But your chain of events seems to suggest that one is gradually prepared for a specific trade, and that kind of vocational focus is rare in schools below high school in the U.S. Honestly, even in high school, vocational classes (depending on the school) are at best a small portion of the degree--most of us still hold to the "comprehensive school" model that believes all students should be given a background in a wide spread of subject areas, so as not to limit student career choices post-high school. It is fair to say that junior colleges are more focused on vocational instruction, and that college and beyond continues that instruction, but the system is not quite as carefully constructed and linear as you envision.

If you're wondering how someone "progresses" year to year, generally it's due to age--one year older equals one grade higher. Yes, generally you work on more advanced stuff as each year goes by, but a student can easily take French one year, skip that class for a year or two and then return to the language. Prerequisites (in high school and above) are designed to make sure students take courses that prepare them for more advanced classes before they can enroll in those advanced classes, but in practice it is not at all strange for a student to intentionally, say, take a "tough" junior year followed by an "easy" senior year, merely by adjusting the classes they wish to choose. I'm sure others will have their own perspectives, but that's the way it looks in a reasonably wealthy school district in the Pacific Northwest, according to a high school teacher of history and literature. :-) Yours truly, User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I'm asking is that when statistical results of a study were recently presented to me that at first I was lost owing to the good number of years since I was deep into the subject but now that I have revisited the subject my comprehension seems to be ten fold what it was since I last cracked a book. I know a lot has to do with the new tools the Internet provides along with software like MathCad but it is still like the time in between has allowed me to subconsciously digest the material such that my comprehension can be so much better now. I'm wondering if getting all of the basics down in the 5th grade might not be better for full comprehension in the 10th versus one piece one year and another piece the next year resulting in still incomplete comprehension by the 12th. In other words is there a fixed curriculum for each grade everywhere that builds on the previous year or just haphazard pieces presented in a haphazard fashion just to fill the years. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In most school systems, mathematics is taught in a cumulative way, for convenience. It certainly is easier to teach someone advanced statistics if they already know lots about arithmetic and algebra. In theory is is possible to completely change the order of topics so that topics that are usually considered difficult come first and those usually considered easy come afterwards. But it would require a lot of ingenuity on the part of teachers and for most students it would not give any advantages. I think you found your comprehension much better when you came returned to statistics after some years for a combination of reasons. Many adults returning to study find the topics much easier the second time round and wonder why they found them so difficult the first time. As an adult learner you are not under any pressure to compare yourself with others in the class, so you are not pre-programmed to fail. You are more used to reading texts and so you can understand the phrases in the textbook more easily. When it comes to calculations, you can see that they are done for a purpose and not just as an abstract exercise. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth

Does the truth have to be honest? For example if someone passed by me while I had my eyes closed. And then someone else came and asked, "did you see anyone pass here?" And I said, no. Is that the truth or honest? 99.226.39.245 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot follow your logic. If you did not see you did not see! Your truth is relative...and honest. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There's the literal question and the implied question. You decided to answer the literal one which, as Clio says, is true for you. You might like our article Casuistry. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's say for instance that the person asking the question is a detective. Most likely he would ask "Did anyone pass?" with further questioning if he sensed any deception. In the case of criminal pursuit an answer perceived to be deceptive might result in your being held as an accessory. So, yes, under some circumstances you may not have been completely truthful even though you were quite honest about the facts. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that this is why the courts (in the U.S. at least) demand that witnesses swear not only to tell "the truth" but "the whole truth". Your answer of "no" is the truth, but not the whole truth--saying "no, I had my eyes closed" would meet that standard, I think. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This would amount to lying by omission, especially if you knew someone did pass. --Sgt. Salt (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But it might be the whole truth if 99 had no sensory awareness that anyone had passed by. The above answers seem to assume that even though 99's eyes were closed, he/she was still aware that someone had passed by, maybe because he/she heard them, felt a slight breeze, or smelled something different - or was later told that someone had passed by. None of things may be the case. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

99 would probably not be asking the question if 99 were completely unaware that someone had passed when 99's eyes were closed. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is "Yes" or "No"; "I believe so", "I don't think so", or "I don't know" for uncertainties. Vranak (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two types of truth. We'll call them absolute and relative. An absolute truth is something which is true regardless of whether people know it or not. For example, it is true that someone walked by you, whether you saw them or not. By this definition, your saying no one passed you is a lie. A relative truth is whatever you think the truth is. Since you didn't see anyone walk by, you can honestly think no one did and honestly say they didn't. It all depends on what your definition is. Wrad (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You may find the concept of Sophism worth researching. Although you may find the Wikipedia article insufficient, it contains references to some more works you may find more useful. -- llywrch (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there would seem to be far too many lawyers, or would be lawyers, here and not nearly enough philosophers! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my philosophy is that there are absolute truths that you can know about. I know that many philosophies think otherwise, but other people can explain those! Wrad (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Methinks that too many follow the word but not the spirit. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Therefore I will try a philosophic evaluation of all answers. I don't know how to defend an "I don't know" response—you don't know if you saw someone? Of course you know if you saw someone or not. Was it a hallucination maybe? If your eyes were closed, the truthful answer is "no". You did not see anyone because you saw nothing. If you say "yes", you are lying. Imagine a follow-up question: were they wearing a red shirt? You can only say "I don't know" because you lied and you didn't actually see the person. HYENASTE 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we all assuming that "Yes", "No", or "I don't know" are all that someone can say? "I wouldn't know for sure: my eyes were closed." is a perfectly reasonable answer. If this is a philosophical dilemma in which yes and no are the only responses, then maybe we have to play games with words, but given access to the wider range of reasonable responses, I see no reason why this poses us a challenge. 71.231.197.110 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tried that, closed my eyes, fell over, and some passer by tripped over me.--Artjo (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I may just risk a final statement here. I read the question as a philosophical paradox on the nature of truth itself; of truth in its relative and in its absolute form. There are certain truths that can only ever be relative, given the limits of perception. If you did not see you did not see; that's it; that is the only possible answer. What can be seen from the eye of God, or in the eye of another, is quite immaterial. Everything beyond 'I did not see' is verbiage; or in philosophical terms, it is nonsense. Let me make 99.226's question more specific, and then perhaps the lawyers among you will understand. 'Did you see Hannibal ride past on an elephant?' Now, do you still think 'I wouldn't know for sure: my eyes were closed' was a perfectly reasonable answer?! Ah, well, I suppose some of you may very well, but I would simply ask the others to remember always the admonition of Ludwig Wittgenstein-Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (Or was their really a hippopotamus in Russell's rooms at Cambridge?!) Clio the Muse (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

emperor maro

Hi folks, Titus Flavius Vespasianus became emperor Vespasian of the Flavian dynasty, meanwhile (actually a bit earlier), Publius Vergilius Maro just became Virgil. Does that mean if Virgil had been an emperor instead he would have been emperor Maro of the Vergilian dynasty? t.i.a. 203.221.126.232 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, three emperors were named "Titus Flavius"; one was Titus Flavius Domitianus (Domitian), and two were Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian and Titus). We distinguish them so it is less confusing but I don't think contemporaries called them by different names. Virgil was always known as Virgil (well...sometimes he was called Maro, although maybe that is just a medieval thing). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a trait of the Eighteenth Century too:

'Twas such as these the Rural Maro sung

To the full Roman Court, in all it's height

Of Elegance and Taste. The sacred Plow

Employ'd the Kings and Fathers of Mankind,

In antient Times.

James Thomson, 'Spring' (1728) ll.55-57.

Lord Foppington (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Prison violence

There doesn't seem to be any summary of violence in prisons in Wikipedia... There's an article on prison rape, but nothing on other forms of violence, e.g. murder, and not even a mention in the main article on prisons. I myself do not know anything about the subject, so what's the best way to help? --Sgt. Salt (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way, Sgt. Salt, would to do some basic research, if you are so minded, and then either add the information you manage to uncover to the existing prisons article, or perhaps write an independent piece, if you feel this is warranted. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When I discovered that the coverage of topics about Ethiopia was unsatisfactory, my solution was to ... research the subject. It's been a long process, & I'm still not finished learning enough to write satisfactory articles (although I'm at the point now where I can seriously think about bringing some of them to FA status like the Battle of Adwa), but it's a useful side-effect of writing for Wikipedia: you learn something, even if they are things you cannot use in a Wikipedia article. (BTW, it appears that no one has written an article about the history of prisons, another subject worth writing about.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the comments above, Sgt Salt, and add my own encouragement. My major contributions to WP have been to subjects I have looked for and not found, rather than those in which I have an existing expertise or knowledge. It is extremely rewarding and satisfying to produce a well-researched article and, as Llywrch says, you learn all sorts of things along the way. How to go about it? If you feel there is enough information to warrant a separate page, then start with the basic outline, and plug in more information as you come across it. You might prefer to start the article in your own userspace first; then you can tinker away at your own speed, without feeling that the eyes of the world are on you. (See User pages.) It can be moved or copied to mainspace when you are ready. Of course, you can also start directly in mainspace. The main thing is to find good sources. Google searches are quite good, but the majority of stuff on the internet fails WP:Reliable sources, so hunt out journal articles, reference sites and so forth rather than forums and general sites. Visit your library: some of the best and most reliable resources are only available in hardcopy (academics and researchers tend to publish their studies; it's how they make their living). Check out WP:CITE: it is good practice to provide inline citations as you go; good articles require citations, and anything uncited can be challenged or removed later, and it is much harder to go back and prove something you knew you read somewhere... Above all, enjoy it! Forgive me if I've repeated basics you already know. If you need further advice or help, then most regular editors here are happy to help (you can certainly contact me on my talk page). You can also check out related WikiProjects, which offer support, resources, peer reviews, assessment and so forth. Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal justice seems to be inactive, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Law should be a good starting point. Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing

Not directly relevant, but I'm fairly assured in my belief that this is the place where West Wing fans are most likely to surface. For the life of me I can't recognize who http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4261/vlcsnap3438612jd1.png is. He had the camera trained on him in Tomorrow (The West Wing), so I'm assuming he's important enough for me not to forget - moreover, he looks familar, but just sounds like Babish in my head. AlmostCrimes (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the great Aaron Sorkin himself, the creator of the series. Gantpupo (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard II, royal power and divine right

I consulted your Richard II of England page for some information on the exact reasons for his fall in 1399, but I'm not much wiser. Not only is the page breathless and ill-organized but my question was not fully answered. It also says that Richard adhered to the 'old' notion of the divine right of kings. Now I'm really confused. I always thought this was something assocaited with the development of absolutism rather than medieval monarchy? Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogeeee (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard seems to have got on well enough with his uncle John of Gaunt, and John’s son Henry Bolingbroke was his cousin and playmate, but Richard’s attempts to take charge of his kingdom were messy. Henry and his uncle Thomas of Woodstock were both members of the Lords Appellant, who forced the execution of several of Richard’s friends, including his beloved tutor Burley, and as Churchill says, “We must suppose that this treatment produced a marked impression on his mind.” Certainly in 1397, now secure in his authority, he finally began to take revenge on those who had bullied and domineered over him before he reached adulthood, particularly the Lords Appellant. Arundel was beheaded, Warwick was exiled and Gloucester was murdered by Royal agents while under arrest, and Richard used Parliament to rubber-stamp these acts. It all smacked of tyranny.

Thomas Mowbray had been a Lord Appellant too, so when Henry accused Mowbray of treason, Richard may have seen a certain irony in the accusation and its source. He refused to allow a duel of honour between the two and banished them both, apparently with the permission of John of Gaunt. Henry is said to have been outraged by his ten-year banishment, so perhaps he was genuinely loyal to Richard and trying to protect his interests. He certainly wasn’t after a year’s exile and then the loss of his father's estates, confiscated by Richard on John's death, of which Christopher Lee says “And then, it seems, Richard lost his reason.” Going off to Ireland was another dreadful miscalculation – Henry was popular, had powerful support in the North, and was viewed by some as a doubly wronged man. He only had to turn up in Richard's absence, as he promptly did, to become a symbol of resistance against injustice and tyranny. Richard’s overthrow is an example of the power of PR, the fickleness of mobs, and the danger of taking your eye off the ball. -- Karenjc 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right to be confused by the reference to Richard’s alleged adherence to the 'old ideal' of the Divine Right of Kings because-how can I put this without seeming unkind?-it's complete and utter tosh! Sadly, this is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia, when seemingly plausible information is incorporated into articles without challenge. The Divine Right of Kings was a feature of the forms of royal absolutism that began to develop in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and is associated in England with the House of Stuart, particularly James I, who might be said to have given the notion intellectual substance in his The Trew Law of Free Monarchies.

The reasons for Richard's downfall are simple enough: he failed to understand the nation and its institutions; he failed to understand the significance of Parliament, and he failed to understand just how exactly an English monarch fitted within the general system of government. He was also lacking in any kind of political skill, making enemies of the most powerful men in the land at a time when he needed real friends, not passing favourites. If I can put it this way, Dogeee, an English Monarch of the high Middle Ages was a little like an early Roman Emperor. He was, in other words, Primus inter pares-first among equals-, at the top of a feudal hierarchy, yes, but dependent, and crucially dependent, on the senior aristocracy and the lower gentry below that. With Richard, arbitrary and unpredictable, the pyramid simply collapsed. It was not that he was unfit for office, rather he simply lacked the suppleness of mind to detect the changing mood of the nation as expressed in Parliament, an institution which had grown in strength over the preceding century, especially during the reign of Edward III, Richard's grandfather. Above all what he completely failed to realise was that Parliament expected to be considered as am essential partner in the nation's business, not just a forum for granting royal taxation.

The immediate cause of Richard’s fall, of course, was that the confiscation Bolingbroke's inheritance had alarmed all of the senior nobility, who could see their own rights threatened by such arbitrary action. Richard was in every way the architect of his own downfall: a politically inept king and a bad manager of men. It had nothing to do with fickleness, with PR...or with mobs! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Instruments and instrument players going extinct

Is there any serious study on the lack of musicians working on the manufacture and playing of certain instruments? One can imagine how instruments cease to be played or created every now and then due to lack of interest on the art. Do you guys know anything about this? Any instruments that are nearly extinct you can name? — Kieff | Talk 11:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The dinosaur bone flute is rarely made nowadays,sadlyhotclaws 12:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an instrument called the Zither that's always on the verge of dying out and then you get a revival. Various specific types of flutes have become extinct or are on the verge. A saw isn't really an instrument but there are very few people who can really play it well. Harpsichord and Mellotron are not that common, but probably have enough people to keep them going. The nice thing is that unless all knowledge gets lost, instruments can be revived. Look at the Lute that lay dormant for almost a century and then came back into use. --Lisa4edit (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on reading the lyre article, many types of lyre are distinct and are played only by small groups. The article also says that we cannot know exactly what the lyre of the classical heroic age was. I infer that many types of lyre have gone extinct and that others are currently on the edge of extinction. -Arch dude (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My favorite obsolete-but-subject-to-revival instruments are the crumhorn, rackett, and sackbut. Pfly (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Praetorius knew about playing the comb? ! Julia Rossi (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Three life expectancy questions

• 1. Why does Bhutan have a higher male expectancy than a female one? And how did it manage to remain with one ever since the country's initial existence?
• 2. If Andorra has the highest life expectancy, why aren't there/haven't there been many 100-year olds and 110-year olds there?
• 3. Does Georgia (the country) really have one of the highest rates for 100-year olds? It says so in a fact book that I have. 124.176.209.38 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 2): life expectancy is measured as an average, therefore 100 year olds are not required for a high life expectancy as long as you have a lot of 70-90 year olds. Regarding 3): this says that the top three for centenarians are the US, Japan, and Canada. Wrad (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1 This https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html#People gives 65.5 for males and 66.4 for females. It states that the first modern census took place on 2005, so an erroneous estimate may have been published elsewhere.
• 2 Average life expectancy and maximum life span are, whilst related, not identical. They certainly differ when the mean is calculated at birth as the mortality rate of infants (inter alia) reduces the average expectancy. If the infant mortality rate is low and few people die prior to their average expectancy this results in there being no or just a few centenarians. Of course, Andorra is quite tiny and the size of an average suburb.
• 3 Georgia has a life expectancy at birth of 77 and an infant mortality rate of 17. The equivalents for Andorra are 84 and 4 (these demographics are superior to the stats from the UK / USA). As far as the Ukraine is concerned, I found some stuff published by the Institute of Gerontology of the Kiev Acadamy. As I can´t read it, I have no idea about the frequency of centenarians. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1. At birth, there are generally more boys than girls, and more boys than girls die very close to birth (neonatal mortality). If they are counted as born dead, then they are not included in the statistics for calculating life expectancy. In developing countries the rate of death of mothers at or after the birth (peripartum mortality) is higher than in developed countries, which could also reduce the life expectancy for females. SaundersW (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You should also consider whether the culture you are looking at favors male (or female?) children. There are some areas around the world where children are not counted as "alive" until several days, or weeks after birth. Infanticide would then not be counted/reported. Another thing to consider in agricultural societies is whether the farming in that country is a predominantly male or female occupation, or evenly divided amongst the sexes. There are cultures that send women straight back to work in the fields after giving birth. In addition to women dying in childbirth such things can skew statistics. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Message left on WT:Reliable sources

Copying this here from WT:Reliable sources.

looking for information on tom browning of brownington mo who the town was named after and who left the ground for the brownington baptist church to be build on he was my great grandfather thank youBarbara1st (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith (talk)

If you live in the area and have some time you might try their microfilms http://tacnet.missouri.org/hcl/papers1.html You gave very little information to search for anyone by. E.g. key years might have helped. Have you tried contacting the church? jperkins@mobaptist.org ? There is a Brownington Baptist Church that was established in 1882. That it? Was Tom his full name or a shortened form? There are archives for Civil War information, but you are going to need more details to find anything there. Lisa4edit (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Chicago

This question is politically themed so please leave it here. Who was Nash refering to with:

"Don't ask Jack to help you 'cause he'll turn the other ear. . ."?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.4waysite.com/faq/faqsongs.htm, Graham Nash: "The 'Jack' in my song Chicago is Jack Kennedy. Jack is a term used by many English people as a kind of generic word. Although Kennedy had been dead for years, his spirit lives on."
In the context of the song, "Jack" could refer to those people for whom the Chicago issue is not "their problem"; the song infers , of course, that no matter how far removed from a problem "Jack" might think he/she is, it is always one's responsibility to stand up, be counted and do one's level best to resolve the issue : hence the refrain "We can change the world" ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Birds In Reference To Eyeglasses

What Bird, whether by name or type of species, relate to eyeglasses in any way?––ROS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.28.208 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The quite unspectacular zosterops, aka the spectacle bird. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe too obvious and neither a name nor type of species, but some owls look as though they're wearing a pair of glasses. :-) I had a bit more luck with a quick search in German where there are lots of animals that have a prefix "Brillen-" (spectacle) -ente (duck), -pinguin (penguin), -taube (dove), -pelikan (pelican). It's likely there are more. Non of those has anything to do with glasses in English. They also have a bear, a snake, a sheep and a sort of reptile, to name just some I've heard of. I guess "spectacle" just doesn't flow well and "eyeglasses" is too long as a compound and could lead to misunderstandings. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Penguin has a monocle...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Spectacled Warbler (Sylvia conspicillata) and Spectacled Owl (Pulsatrix perspicillata). There's a Spectacled Tern too, but I think it's officially a Grey-Backed Tern these days. -- Karenjc 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples of non-Russian high profile people in Soviet Union

Hello,

in the west, one often thinks of the Soviet Union as a Greater Russia, so it usually comes as a surprise that important people like Stalin and Beriawere no ethnic Russians. I was wondering : what other examples are there? (They don't have to be politicians, nation-wide known military commanders, scientists,... are welcome too) Thanks, Evilbu (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just now I'm able to give you Brezhnev and Kliment Voroshilov, who I happen to know were Ukranian. Some digging around in our soviet biography articles (the two linked ones give you some good categories) will find you more. User:Krator (t c) 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Khrushchev was ethnic Russian, but lived a lot of his early life in Ukraine, and was often identified as being Ukrainian, although he identified as Russian. Corvus cornix_talk 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky came from a Jewish family in the Ukraine, which makes it kind of ironic that under his watch, the Red Army dropped its internationalist pretenses and began to propagandize for the mighty Great Russian people to defend the Motherland. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such development while Trotsky was Commissar for Defence, Mwalcoff, a position he lost, of course, in early 1925. It would hardly have been advisable considering that one of his best formations was made up of Latvians! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

During the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-20, according to Orlando Figes, I believe. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

Trotsky at once saw the propaganda victory to be won by getting Brusilov to join the Reds. The next day he announced the general's appointment as the Chairman of a Special Conference in command of the Western Front. Printed in Pravda on 7 May [1920], the announcement was typical of the increasingly xenophobic tone of the Bolsheviks' rhetoric. It called on all patriots to join the army and 'defend the Fatherland' from the 'Polish invaders' who were 'trying to tear from us lands that have always belonged to the Russians'. Trotsky claimed that the Poles were driven by 'hatred of Russia and the Russians'. The Red Army journal, Voennoe delo, published a xenophobic article (for which it was later suspended) contrasting the 'innate Jesuitry of the Polacks' with the 'honourable and open spirit of the Great Russian race'. Radek characterized the whole of the civil war as a 'national struggle of liberation against foreign invasion'. The Reds, he said, were 'defending Mother Russia' against the efforts of the Whites and the Allies to 'make it a colony' of the West. 'Soviet Russia', he concluded on a note of warning to the newly independent states, aimed to 'reunite all the Russian lands and defend Russia from colonial exploitation.' It was back to the old imperialism. (A People's Tragedy, p. 699)

Incidentally, Karl Radek, like Trotsky, came from a Jewish Ukrainian family. The fiercest nationalists are always those with an adopted national identity. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mwalcoff; I should have known it would have been in that war that the Old Russian Adam would have made his reappearance! However, I would dispute that the use of this kind of traditional imagery proved that either Radek or Trotsky had somehow become Russian chauvinists. Both men were firmly international in outlook, as they were to demonstrate time and again. But they were both talented propagandists; and such people always know how to make the best use of the things that move people most. The war with Poland excited Russian national sentiment more than all the battles of the Civil War, fully demonstrated by the open support of Brusilov, a national hero, for the regime. It would have made perfect sense to capitalise upon this general mood as part of a propaganda battle. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Evilbu, I could compile a list of dozens of names, but I think I would find the task altogether too tiresome. So, let me confine myself simply to the politicians. Taking a strict definition of ethnicity, as supposed to the location of an individual's birth, a great many of the early Bolshevik leadership were Jewish, from Trotsky to Sverdlov. I think you will find all of the names in the article on Jewish Bolshevism. Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder and first commander of the Cheka, the forerunner of all of the Soviet secret police forces, was Polish, and Anatoly Lunacharsky, the first Commissar for Education, was Ukrainian. Anastas Mikoyan, a senor member of Stalin's coterie, was Armenian, and Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze, another of his close associates, was a fellow Georgian. That's enough, I think, to give you a taste. But it goes on, Evilbu; it goes on! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I see Poles, Ukrainians, Armenians and Georgians...but what about the Central Asians?Evilbu (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Few, I imagine you will ever have heard of. People like Dinmukhamed Konayev, from Kazakhstan, tended to have a purely local significance. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Master of Hestviken FAMILY TREE

Although Wikipedia has a list of characters for The Master of Hestviken by Sigrid Undset [[28]], I'm trying to find a FAMILY TREE similar to the one for the Potter family of the Harry Potter books [[29]]. Is anyone aware of such a family tree or interested in adding one to Wikipedia? Ubaldofsubiaco (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Ubaldofsubiaco

You can't count on someone else wanting to do this work. You could compile it yourself but other editors may not think it is a useful addition to the encyclopedia. Suggest it on the talk page for The Master of Hestviken. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

William Blake illustrations for "Paradise Lost"

I'm soon self-publishing a book about the nature of duelism in Western Theology. On your site, the photographic reproductions of Blake's illustrations for Milton's PARADISE LOST are said to be "in the Public Domain whose copyright has expired." I'm wondering if I'm able to use a couple of these illustrations lawfully in my book, without payment of royalty?

--Goranlut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goranlut (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If something is in the public domain, that means that it can be freely used without payment of royalty, because it is public property. Since the author has been dead for about 180 years, its copyright has expired. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Though in some jurisdictions the photographs themselves may be copyrighted. That's not a risk in the United States, if that's where you're publishing. (This comment is not to be construed as legal advice) Algebraist 10:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporter's Day

Other then China, which countries have an nationally designated Reporter's day? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this a day on which they lock up reporters? [Judging by this http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715], countries with similar attitudes to China are Turkmenistan, Cuba, Burma and North Korea. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Logic of Coalitions

Why is it that so many European countries have coalitions instead of single parties? If they were led all by one person, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be merged into one party, instead of having many confusing names? FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your first question lies in the use of various forms of proportional representation, which rarely, if ever, allow a single party to emerge dominant. Political Parties will come together over matters of mutual interest, though a considerable amount of horse trading is usually involved before a common programme agreed and a government formed.

As far as your second question is concerned, well, there are people, for example, who will define themselves as Liberals and people who will define themselves as Socialists, but there is no reason to suppose that, while they might be prepared to work together, they would readily agree to accept the full incorporation in one party or the other. Differences in ideology and organisation make this impossible, to say nothing of the electoral constituencies they each appeal to. In Germany the liberal Free Democrats have been elastic enough to enter into government with the left-wing Social Democrats, at one point in their post-war career, and the right-wing Christian Democrats at another. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think FromFoams referred to electoral coalitions instead of governing coalitions, such as the Coalition for Bulgaria, National Union Attack or United Democratic Forces. I think three things are important in understanding why these coalitions form: first, Eastern European party systems are still not fully developed and stablized (and it is not sure whether they ever will): splits often occur, new parties are formed, old parties die. Because of the dynamic nature of the party system allegiances often change. So while it may be logical for a party to team up with one party in one election, it may be logical for it to team up with another party in the next election, because of the instability. Second, the electoral system although proportional in nature often there are quite high thresholds, this forces parties to team up, in order to gain seats. Finally, it is important that what is rational or logical from a design perspective, is not necessarily what happens historically. Path dependency can be important factor in explaining why these coalitions exists. Eventhough parties may form a coalitions they may not want to give up their nominal independence, their own organization, ideology and identity.C mon (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

April 28

Fear of reprisal

If I were a member of the current North Vietnamese government would I have anything to fear from John McCain being elected President of the United States? 71.100.11.39 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"North Vietnam" no longer exists. It's now part of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which includes the entire country. And the U.S. long ago recognized and made peace with the country. So no, I don't think so. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Edison (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you were a member of the Vietnamese government, you very well could worry about McCain bringing attention to human rights abuses in your country. However, as President, McCain will have far less power to do anything substantial than he currently has as a member of the Senate. -- kainaw™ 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say he "will have far less power" as president than as a senator. Presidents generally get wide latitude in setting foreign policy and get to appoint the secretary of state and ambassadors, negotiating treaties, etc. A senator is merely one vote out of a hundred that gets to ratify appointments and treaties. A senator on the foreign relations committee would certainly have more influence than other senators over foreign policy, but still much less than the president. (McCain isn't on that committee.) That said, the status quo policy on Vietnam has wide support and I doubt McCain would change it much as president. A search of John McCain's campaign website shows the only mentions of Vietnam are in relation to his service in the Vietnam War and his time as a POW. No mention of contemporary Vietnam. --D. Monack | talk 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain was, in fact, among the first Congressional proponents of normalizing US relations with Vietnam. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

playing in the street

Please note: The responses had been re-ordered by the questioner, and, as a consequence, the thread became confusing. I have put the comments back in chronological order, and changed the indenting as was appropriate. I have changed no text within any comment. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Our town has a law (misdemeanor) against blocking traffic by one or more persons in the street which is the basis for a code enforcement (civil) law that prohibits basketball nets being set up on the curb or in the street. Youth refuse to comply with this law and setup the nets and play in the street anyway. Code enforcement and the police will enforce the law but only under a large amount of pressure. The consequence is not as significant for motor vehicles as it is for bicyclists who the players absolutely refuse to grant the right-of-way, especially if they are burdened with groceries, etc. What steps can a bicyclist use to deal with this effectively on a daily basis if an alternate route is unavailable? (BTW, this is a perfect example how one culture is totally ignorant of the many cases and long history behind the need to have and maintain right-a-ways. PS. I'm not asking for legal advice either although I am looking for a solution that is legal. I already know that I can spend 130 weeks worth of groceries on an attorney to find out where each player lives and file a law suit.) 71.100.11.39 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore the aside about what "one culture" does or doesn't understand, and comment only on the basic issue. If a polite "Beep, beep; Excuse me; I'm coming through" doesn't work, then I suggest (as there are likely more of them than you) you get off your bike and walk it through the game, with the same degree of care and courtesy as you would if you were not on a bike. You could also stop to talk to the youths at some time other than when you are trying to pass through an active game, explaining your difficulty, but I would not recommend you bring to that talk either attitude or a legalistic approach. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered filing a petition with your city/municipal or county government. It seems there is a need for basketball courts/ community space for juveniles in your neighborhood. If you get all sides of this issue together (cyclists, players, parents, drivers) you might even get a signature list going. Some local governments have open sessions where "the public" can ask questions and request actions. You may even find it on your TV. Your local/district/county representative will also be more receptive to the needs of his/her constituents around election time. Also consider hooking up with bigger groups like the local cycling association, scouts, neighborhood association, urban community projects etc., etc. The more the merrier. If you can find a pot among all the public funds that would pay for the costs that would be a cherry. (There's a lot of money out there that is set aside and doesn't get spent in the right place or on the intended purpose because no one asks for it). Win-lose strategies (right of way) only work if you have the upper hand, otherwise win-win strategies (you get your space, I get mine) have more of a chance of getting you somewhere. Hope this helps.--71.236.23.111 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that someone in this "one culture" should take personal responsibility and simply walk safely - or worse, drop the passive-aggressive attitude and discuss the problem directly with those who are part of the problem? That isn't how they do it on TV. You are supposed to complain to everyone (except those who can do something about the problem) and eventually explode with hostility one day and drive an SUV through the game at high speed. At least that is how I figure this "one culture" works. -- kainaw™ 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You should not ignore the mention of "one culture" since it is the crux of the problem. What should not be ignored either is your same lack of knowledge and comprehension regarding the need and purpose for designating right of ways. I know of a case where day after day a motorist's right to pass was denied until one day his wife's urgent phone call turned his need to pass into an emergency. Instead of using the right of way which had been provided by the City, namely the street, he was forced to use the yard of the property owner where the net had been placed; destroying in the process, a fence, a hedge, a lawn, and a tree while on the return trip to the hospital with his wife lying in the back seat moaning and his horn blowing nailed a number of defiant players. He was of course arrested at the hospital and eventually released but all this just because the members of a more privative culture decided they owned the street and the right of way was theirs. That's what you can expect when members of a culture with more primitive rules rejects the rules of a more sophisticated culture that have been developed over time from many relevant cases representing both sides of the argument. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have tried that on several occasions at more than one location and invariably you become treated as an intruder or as an invader of the more primitive culture's space. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the agonizingly careful language, this is beginning to have the smell of a rant about it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Only in response to your comment and defense of the awareness of how the failure to acknowledge the difference in rules followed by one culture versus another actually plays out. It may very well seem like a rant to someone unwilling to comply with the rules of the more sophisticated culture when it is in reality only a statement that a conflict in the rules exists and the more sophisticated rules are the law of the land, which are being defied and not followed. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I just completed as a matter of fact a petition for sidewalks on a street in a different part of the neighborhood. I have also provided a copy of the law to the property owners who leave the nets out on the streets. They know what the law is but remain defiant and demand to have it their way. They do have other places they can play such as in their driveways instead of on the street which is why we suspect that their true motive for playing in traffic is so they can agitate drivers and have a more interesting game. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) My advice would be to sit them down and have a talk with them, being careful to explain to them why they are so primitive and you are so sophisticated. I think the problem will probably resolve itself at that point. Recury (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The only things we know for certain are that the basketball players are young and in a different culture to you. So I'm going to assume youth subculture but which of these is it? I see there's nothing on that list dealing with street-basketball playing youth so perhaps you can add to it?

71.236 mentioned the parents, did you try them?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a little perspective? Is it really that inconvenient to ride around the children? Is this a residential neighborhood? Give the kids a break. I'm sure you are very by the book, but I've noticed many bicyclists who couldn't care less for the rules, riding on the wrong side of the street, going the wrong way on a one-way street, acting as if stop signs and red lights don't apply to them. All of this leads to little respect toward bicyclists. --Nricardo (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Older art (war based)

Okay this is the only place i can think of that could answer this, i hope i am not placing this in the wrong section! :)

I am looking for some images of some old art, and unfortunately i dont know where it is from or what it is called, consequentially, i cant really search so well for it can i?!

The art depicts (i think) characters at war, or characters in general in such a way as it tells a story. It is sort of cave painting style in this manner because it tells something with pictures, but it definately seems to be way past that era, possibly done on paper or some form of fabric.

The art commonly has text above in a thick sort of calligraphy. The language i dont know, but it could be an old form of english, whereas the letter V is standing for a modern U or such. Im not certain about that though.

It is POSSIBLE that the type of text or the language in which it is written could be somewhat common in images of a catholic origin. I'm not sure.....

I have described what i am looking for to the best of my ability. I will add more if i think of it, but does anyone have an idea what i may be speaking of?

137.81.113.204 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

137, I'm not absolutely sure what it is that you are looking for, but it occurs to me that the Bayeux Tapestry depicts a story of politics and war in very much in the manner you describe. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty much exactly it! Is there a name given to depictions LIKE this one, so that i may find more of the same style? At least i know its language and location now and one instance of it! THANKS! 137.81.113.204 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say if there is a specific name given to this art form, but for another in very much the same style there is the Overlord embroidery. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Intereesting range of dates, the events are 1066 and 1944... but both about normandy.... HM! Thank you very much Clio! :) 137.81.113.204 (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other embroideries of this kind: for example the Hastings embroidery [30] and the Plymouth tapestry [31] and the New World tapestry. SaundersW (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Islam sometimes considered an Eastern religion?

Is Islam sometimes considered an Eastern religion? Islam has more followers in the Eastern countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, and India. It look like an Eastern religion to me because of followers in the Eastern world and It's Middle Eastern culture. Jet (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If by "eastern religion" you mean the ones that are lumped together like Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc, then no, not at all. Islam is lumped together in another group with Christianity and Judaism, the "Abrahamic religions". Adam Bishop (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Christianity is popular in Australia, which is very far east. That doesn't make it an eastern religion. Paragon12321 (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do some people in the Middle East don't know Western culture?

I was chatting online with a Muslim missionary on Friday night. The missionary is in Saudi Arabia. I told him, about the leis and other Western cultures. He doesn't know that because Islamic culture does not include Western culture. Jet (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What are the leis? And why is this surprising? Most westerners don't know anything about Islam. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

...or Hinduism, or Buddhism. Slightly more confusing: Saudia Arabia has Islam as a state religion and 100% of the population are Muslims. What would be the task of a missionary in this country? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most westerners don't know much about LEIS, either, despite its being a product of their own culture. Algebraist 10:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about Hawaiian leis? These aren't really a part of Western culture, though most Westerners know about it, if only through The Brady Bunch. --D. Monack | talk 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No More Heroes Any More

In criticising Thomas Carlyle's great man theory of history Herbert Spencer said that an individual is the creation of a series of complex influences and long before he can remake his society, his society must make him. Does this mean that the actions of any given historical figure are only of passing relevance, and that things would have happened in much the same way, even if he had never existed? Count Fosco (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose what he was saying was that to attribute the great changes throughout history to individuals is to ignore the processes that shaped those individuals. It could be interpreted as meaning that if it wasn't for Napolean, someone else would have have done what he did, or it could be interpreted as saying that Napolean is only important insofar as he is a figurehead for the numerous social and political movements that made him into the Napolean we know and lead to the actions that made him famous. I'm just speculating here, I have only a passing knowledge of the great man theory.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Spencer's view is similar to Marx's: "Man makes his own history but not in the conditions of his own choosing"; "the educator must himself be educated". (Sexist language the fault of the translator!) The "great man" view was very prevalent in the 19th century, when schools saw it as their role to hold up models to be emulated, hence the need for writers to critique it. I think these critiques can be taken in a strong sense or a weak one. In a strong sense, people's actions hardly matter at all, and social forces account for everything. But if we take them in a weaker sense, we must take into account that the "great" person's character was formed by social influences, but once that character is formed, the person's actions can have a decisive effect at certain historical junctures. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And if you want a novel written with no other purpose in mind than to critique the "great man" view of history, pick up War and Peace. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Spencer is, of course, reacting to Thomas Carlyle's statement to the effect that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men" by pushing the pendulum in the other direction. The reaction is understandable, and the corrective necessary. There are few modern historians who take Carlyle's inflated accounts of Robespierre or Napoleon seriously, just as few have any patience with his over-ripe and flowery prose.

The unfortunate thing is that pendulum has remained for too long at the other extreme, held in position by those who followed in the steps of Ferdinand Braudel, E P Thompson and the like. The altogether tiresome 'history from below school' has become just that-tiresome! In my experience academics are, once again, beginning to pay close attention to the actions and decisions taken by key players at key moments in time. What, for instance, if Constantine the Great, had been killed at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, would the history of the Roman Empire have proceeded along the same lines; would we now, perhaps, be investigating Christianity as just another vanished cult along with Mithraism? What shape would the modern world have if Mohammed-or Lenin-had never been born? Is it possible to imagine that the history of Europe would have taken the same course in the middle of the last century if Adolf Hitler had never emerged from the doss-houses of Vienna, or if Soso Dzhugashvili had become an Orthodox priest?

Count Fosco, you might wish to have a look at Ian Kershaw's Fateful Choices, which touches on some of these themes. And I can assure you that it is far, far easier to get students interested in the sex-life of Henry VIII, or Charles II, than it is in crop rotation and trade patterns! Make room always for the big ideas...and for the great people. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet

please what is long source of present difficulty with china and tibet? Sreykor (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow that's a difficult question. Have a look at Tibet. To simplify, Tibet has (sort of) always been a part of China. To quote the article: "no nation has ever recognized Tibet as independent". Tibet is obviously a Buddhist region, and as China is a communist state it is committed to atheism. So there's a bit of conflict there. When the Republic of China formed in 1912, the Dalai Lama declared Tibetan seperation from the new state, which was treated as de facto independence until 1950. In the late 1940s, as the Communist Party gained power in China, there was immense internal pressure to reclaim Tibet as a part of China, resulting in an invasion. The Chinese communists saw Tibet as a backward region that was stuck with a heirarchical feudal system and which refused to modernise. Much of the conflict comes from the two opposing political systems. Tibet is ruled by the Dalai Lama under the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, while China is ruled by (at present) Hu Jintao under the teachings of communism and ba rong ba chi. China sees itself as having a claim on Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China, while many Tibetans want at least greater autonomy, if not independence. The current Dalai Lama does not make claims that Tibet should be independent, but does want greater autonomy and a respect for Tibetan traditions and culture. These cultures and traditions are often antithetical to the Chinese communist tenets of government, especially the elevation of the Dalai Lama to near-godly status. Recently, due to the emigration of Tibetans and the resulting Western trend for new age mysticism, often combining elements of Buddhism, Tibet has become an issue in Western countries, which has increased scrutiny on Chinese activites there. As China is a known abuser of human rights, the cause of Tibet is championed around the world, to the dissatisfaction of many Chinese nationals and expatriates who take the view that Tibet is indeed a part of mainland China. Much of the problem goes back into the 13th century when China was controlled by the Mongol empire, and then later when China was unifed under the Qing dynasty. Tibet has been a part of China for a long time, but it has generally been left alone by the various governments that have ruled it, as it has little strategic value and few natural resources. The current incarnation of the Chinese government, however, dislike the idea of a region operating under medieval religious traditions and as such have attepted to reintegrate Tibet into mainland China. This has exacerbated the problems in the region, helping no-one and creating the modern situation. I hope that helps. --Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Next time I see a contribution here appended with the formulae 'I hope that helps', which seems to appear ad nauseam, I may very well scream out loud! Or, better still, I shall conclude my own with 'I really do not care if this helps or not, but I have spoken! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! It would be pretty neat if you could similarly summarise all the other current world events that we should know about! ----Seans Potato Business 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet has (sort of) always been a part of China. And Hungary and Serbia have (sort of) always been a part of Turkey; Hawaii has (sort of) always been part of the United States; Sinkiang has (sort of) always been part of China; Afghanistan has (sort of) always been part of Greece... --Wetman (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

I suppose that's a fair point, although none of those situations (apart from Xinjiang) could claim equivalance with that in Tibet. I was attempting to summarise the complexities of the issue for the OP. I admitted that I was simplifying vastly, but Tibet has been a part of China for hundreds of years and continues to be so today. The history of the formation of the various Asian states is long and complex, and I was simply trying to get across the point that Tibet has been a part of China for as long as the current incarnation of China has existed. The current problems in Tibet don't really go back further than that, so I saw no need to go into the politics of over a millenium ago. I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive answer, but I felt that I covered the overwhelming majority of the issues, gave links to some informative articles and tried to not take sides on the issue. If you disagree with what I wrote, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but the fact that Tibet has (sort of) been a part of China since its unification is a major factor in the troubles there today. The Tibetans aren't happy with being a part of China and China is not willing to relinquish a territory that has been a part of it for hundreds of years. As I admitted, this is an oversimplifaction, but it illustrates the facts well and the articles I linked to should have more thorough explantions. --Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Syrekor, China and Tibet existed together for many centuries in what might be thought of as a symbiotic partnership, where each derived positive benefits from the other. Tibet is a poor country with few natural resources. What was important, it might be said, was its spiritual power, not its material wealth. It was this that the Tibetans used in their exchanges with their more powerful neighbour to the east; passing on something of their spiritual knowledge-and magic-in return for protection and other forms of support. It was a mutually-beneficial relationship that went back to the time of the Mongols.

In 1244 the Mongols, who had conquered much of China, reached an agreement with the powerful Buddhist religious order of Tibet. In return for access to some of the more esoteric branches of Tibetan knowledge, the Mongols appointed the monks to rule the area on their behalf. It was the beginnings of the patron/priest relationship. Even Kublai Khan's chief spiritual advisor was a Tibetan Buddhist, famed for his alleged magical powers. The relationship between the Mongols and the Tibetans deepened over time. It was Altan Khan, a later Mongol ruler, who is though to have bestowed the title of Dalai Lama on the Tibetan holy man who converted his people to Buddhism. The fifth Dalai Lama was even to call on Mongol troops to defeat his internal enemies. And thus the partnership was established, one of equals. And for as long as the rulers of China coveted Tibet's spiritual wealth, then it remained for all practical purposes as an independent nation. From the Mongols to the Manchus, Lhasa was the spiritual centre of the Chinese world.

But Tibet's unique spiritual heritage, the tradition of Lamaism itself, was accompanied by growing political weakness. The whole structure, the balance between spiritual wealth and earthly power, was threatened as external forces came into play in the nineteenth century, when Britain and Russia began to struggle for influence in Central Asia in the so-called Great Game. When the British invaded Tibet in 1903, forcing the then Dalai Lama to take refuge in China two things became clear: Tibet was incapable of defending itself and its weakness was a threat to the security of the Chinese state. It was from this point that the ancient symbiosis began to degenerate. The Chinese managed to re-impose their control of the area but were driven out by the Tibetans themselves after the onset of the Revolution of 1911.

When the Communists came to power in 1949, ending decades of anarchy and civil war, the old spiritual bond between Tibet and China was gone forever. All that remained was a security threat. Mao Zedong, fearful that Tibet would fall under the control of the western powers during the Cold War, invaded and occupied the country in the early 1950s. The Chinese arrived no longer as protectors but as nationalists, determined to continue with the creation of an integrated and unified state. It was against this background that Tibetan cultural identity was seen not as an asset but as a threat. The Mountain Kingdom of the Spirit was simply no longer needed. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone I know wrote an article for his university's student newspaper ([32]) that explains some of the background, although he focuses mainly on the events around the Qing dynasty. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wittgenstein at Cambridge

I believe that when Wittgenstein taught at Cambridge he had a ferocious reputation. Seemingly only Alan Turing ever had the courage to contradict him. Are there any details on his teaching method, his approach to students and the nature of his dispute with Turing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Back in Cambridge in 1939, (Turing) attended lectures by Ludwig Wittgenstein about the foundations of mathematics. The two argued and disagreed vehemently, with Turing defending formalism and Wittgenstein arguing that mathematics is overvalued and does not discover any absolute truths." Jenseits aller Gewissheit - Die Begegnung zwischen Alan Turing und Ludwig Wittgenstein, ISBN 3-85218-203-4 [33] SaundersW (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) The book to hunt for is Wittgenstein's Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cambridge, 1939

Ludwig Wittgenstein, ed Cora Diamond, which has been assembled from notes taken by R. G. Bosanquet, Norman Malcolm, Rush Rhees, and Yorick Smythies. SaundersW (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are still stories circulating in Cambridge about Wittgenstein's time. There was a bizarre, almost Monty-Python like quality to his lectures. His students were obliged to bring along deck-chairs, on which they all sat in absolute silence while the professor remained immersed in thought. Every so often this silence would be punctuated as Wittgenstein, in the midst of deep labours, would deliver some idea! He would on occasions turn on one of his students and start a rigorous intellectual interrogation, a process that has been likened to being under examination by the Spanish Inquisition.

He had the capacity, by sheer strength of his intellect, and his relentlessness in pursuit of a point, to reduce his audience to a state of terror. You are right, Jet, that the only person with sufficient courage to stand up to him was Alan Turing. Wittgenstein maintained in one of his lectures that a system-such as logic or mathematics-could remain valid even if it contained a contradiction. Turing rejected this, saying there was no pint in building a bridge with mathematics that contained a hidden contradiction, otherwise the structure might collapse. Wittgenstein responded by saying that such empirical considerations had no place in logic, but Turing persisted. How I would love to have been present! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I vote anywhere? Does my opinion mean anything?

As a British student (23), studying in the Netherlands, the only tax that I pay being on goods that I buy and my (paltry) income in the Netherlands, do I have any right to vote in any political elections or even write to any MPs in either country?

You can vote in European parliament elections in the Netherlands (and in the UK, as far as I can see). It's possible you can also vote in other elections there (EU citizens can vote in UK local elections, for example); I don't know. You can also vote in national (but not local) British elections: see here. Algebraist 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to have lived in the Netherlands for five years in order to eligible to vote in the municipal elections. Without a Dutch passport you can't vote in the general election. You can vote for either the Dutch or UK European Parliament candidates. You are free to write or sign petitions to Dutch MPs or to attend meetings. You can even become a member of one of the political parties and have influence on the selection of candidates and the writing of the election manifesto. But you can't vote in general elections. C mon (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Algebraist's link doesn't work, for me at least, but here's a link to the website of the British consulate in the Hague where you can read about how to register to vote in British elections in the Netherlands. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

De Beauvoir and Genet

Sartre was fascinated by Jean Genet, even writing a book about him. Do we know if Simone de Beauvoir had the same high estimation of the thief/homosexual/poet/author.Steerforth (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sartre and Beauvoir met Genet in 1944, in the last months of the occupation of France, and both became his friends at a time when the Maquis and the Resistance of the Left were embracing not just sabotage but also all kinds of criminalty to fight the Germans. A few years later, in 1948, Genet was facing a life sentence for ordinary crime, and Beauvoir joined Sartre, Gide, Claudel, Cocteau and others in their successful efforts to get him a pardon from Vincent Auriol, the French President. But her admiration didn't go to such extremes as Sartre's. Genet was so horrified by Sartre's book about him, by the way, that he tried to burn it. Oddly enough, Genet died the day after Beauvoir - Jacques Chirac linked the two and said "The end of an era". Xn4 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would go a little further than Xn4: de Beauvoir developed a pronounced dislike for Genet. She described him as the "bitchy queen, fairy, gossip" who was also the "thief, juvenile delinquent, bastard and protégé of Sartre." She was particularly uncomfortable when he insisted on giving lurid descriptions of his homosexual encounters and when he told of violent robberies, She says that when she worked her way through the proofs of Saint Genet she felt both 'repulsion and violation.' Clio the Muse (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A play about amputees in garbage cans

I've been trying to remember the title and author of an Absurdist play that I'm sure I've heard of, in which the only characters are two homeless men with no limbs sitting in garbage cans. I thought it might be by Samuel Beckett, but apparently not, or if so I can't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.85.171 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be Beckett's Endgame, there's a man and a woman in garbage cans, but they're not the only characters in the play and they do have limbs (well, arms at least). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reaonably sure that you are referring to Beckett´s "Endgame". Negg and Nell, the two characters in the rubbish bins, are without legs and the protagonist, Hamm, is paralyzed in a wheelchair. The only mobile character is Clov, a sort of reversed Godot. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tailoring question about shirts

There is a thing on the back of shirts sometimes, usually western shirts, or outdoors-style where there is what I would only describe as an extra flap of material. It covers the upper back, but stops usually about 40-50% down the back in a hemmed, but open flap. This piece of material is on top of material that would be on a normal shirt I think. I'm looking for what it's called, searching is hard since I can't get many good terms... :) - cohesion 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't really answer your specifics, but there's a western style yoke, for shirts, found on jeans as well[34]. The one you mean is on the Driza-Bone western duster as a weather run-off and on the shirt, it could be a variation of the yoke or a double of it. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an open-style yoke or vented back (probably because most guys think a yoke is a driving wheel for an airplane), commonly found on outdoor clothing. It usually covers a mesh material for ventilation. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a picture under the name of a vented back. SaundersW (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Search for two phrases

I'm thinking of two different phrases, and blanking on what they are... The first means something along the lines of "illusion of reality" and refers to, well, the illusion of reality in fiction: plays, novels, films, etc. One could break this phrase by, say, breaking the fourth wall, by showing that it's not real after all, but "fourth wall" isn't the phrase I'm looking for. I feel like this is an obvious phrase that I just can't place.

The other one I'm less sure about, an example of it would be the point at which robots become conscious or as conscious as humans and can think. I guess this is mostly a science fiction phrase, but I have a feeling it's not just. Another example might be animals becoming fully conscious (ie thinking for themselves, having non-basic "intelligence"), or a theory that universes themselves could become conscious. Any ideas? --zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

suspension of disbelief, technological singularity --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A different answer for the first one is "verisimilitude". On the second, I've read a lot of SF and I can't think of an expression that refers specifically to the point at which a being becomes conscious or intelligent; I don't think the above answer hits it. Words like "awakening" are sometimes used. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, April 28, 2008.

Virtual reality what you were looking for? The other one may be Artificial intelligence or Strong AI. Self awareness or Sentience are also good candidates. An extension of Gaia philosophy would be your last thought. Have a look through the philosophy topics. --Lisa4edit (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the first, maybe immersion? SaundersW (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ShareAlike copyright question.

I have a question about the ShareAlike license: say that there is a song that's been licensed under CC-BY-SA, and I want to use that song in my movie. Will my entire movie have to be ShareAlike-licensed?

I'm fairly certain that the answer is no: no reasonable person could think that a 90 minute movie is a "derivative work" of a 45-second clip of a song contained within it. I mean, that's silly. It's obviously a different thing if I'm making a music video or something, but the fact is that if I just use it on my soundtrack, I'm not making a derivative. I'm just distributing it along with my movie.

That's certainly how Wikipedia works, isn't it? I mean, we're free to include ShareAlike images in articles, without resorting to fair use, but the articles aren't necessarily licensed under ShareAlike (which of course they can't be, since that would be a violation of the GFDL, and the previous editors copyright). Isn't this the same situation as with my movie? --Oskar 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if you want to use the 45 seconds, you have to license your entire thing CC-BY-SA. (Copyleft is not really about total freedom; it's about an alternative regime of copyright protections that works differently.) That's the whole point of SA -- to keep people from using the work in things that are licensed otherwise. And yes, any new work you make using a copyrighted work is considered a derivative work. It doesn't matter how brief or how tiny it is in the context of the movie, unless it falls under fair use (which requires taking other things into consideration as well). But yes, your movie would be considered a derivative work if you wanted to use copyrighted (even if it is "copyleft") material in it, by definition. All "derivative work" means in this (legal) context is that it is a work based on or derived from previously existing works.

Wikipedia falls under the CC category of "Collections" (see 1.b), which means that it is a work made up of individually licensed works, easily distinguishable from one another (the text is GFDL, but the images are all differently licensed and are easily labeled as such. In general a movie wouldn't fall under this category (an exception would be a movie that was nothing but a bunch of discrete film clips in a row, each labeled with their copyright status and not overlapping with one another); your described use would not fall under this category. --69.110.41.71 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

April 29

Why is my ethnicity (Thai, Thai American) classified as Other Asian and not a separate category like Chinese, Filipino, Cambodian, Laotian, etc?

Why is my ethnicity (Thai, Thai American) classified as "Other Asian" and not a separate category like Chinese, Filipino, Cambodian, Laotian, etc? I was taking a state examination and there an ethnicity boy of the test scantron. I has those ethnicities mention except Thai. The State of California Department of Education do this? I don't mean to defame the department. I know the Thai, Cambodian, and Laotian ethnicities are similar. I know that Thai American is a minority group. I think classifying Thai as "Other Asian" is similar to racism. Why they do it and what should I do? Jet (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC

I believe that they list those questions according to the most common answers given. Apparently there were too few Thais last time they asked to give it its own category. I wouldn't call it racism at all, just simple numbers. Wrad (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There are literally hundreds of separate Asian ethnicities living in California. They may not all be as numerous as the Thais, but they all can't practically be named. For that matter, "Chinese" is a catchall term. A Cantonese or Uighur person might ask why he is being lumped in with all those other Chinese. A better question might be, "What right does the California Dept. of Education have to ask such a question?" I never answer bureaucrats' questions about my ethnicity or religion as a matter of principle. --D. Monack | talk 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Be happy you didn't have to check a box "Indian" and then have to explain "No, no not from India." Used to happen all the time and not to immigrants either! --71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

art terminology

I was reading a book on ancient Rome, and there was a picture of a sculpture, and the caption described "Augustus on the left." It was clear that Augustus was on my right, but his left. When describing paintings and sculptures using left/right terminology, I thought it was conventional to refer to the viewer's left and right, not the people as depicted in the artwork. What of this?? I searched "art terminology" on wikipedia, but found nothing. thanks in advance. 203.221.126.206 (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When you are looking at a painting, it is essentially a two-dimensional representation, and you are generally supposed to view it from head on (not to enter into any discussion of anamorphosis. Left and right can refer unambiguously to your left and your right. However a sculpture, other than a relief, is essentially a three-dimensional object that can be seen from any direction, and right and left can become ambiguous. In general you see a picture of a sculpture in a book, which then returns the case to two dimensions, but the writer may not have been thinking of the pictorial representation when composing the caption. My suspicion, though, is that the original wording was "on his left" but was edited incorrectly at some point. Or just possibly that the photo was printed reversed, which happens. SaundersW (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

church loyalty

Hi, I was reading After the Black Death by George Huppert, and it described the position of the Christian Churches in Medieval/ early modern society, saying they effectively had a marginal role in the lives of ordinary people. I want to be careful that no one misinterprets me here, because it does not claim Christianity was irrelevant politically. It's a work of social history, and the section on religion focuses on the laity, and goes to some lengths to illustrate their degree of skepticism, disinterest and occasionally heresy. I'll quote a couple of sentences:

In spite of pressure from the authorities - and in spite of the efforts made by presumably zealous clergymen - the mass of the population kept resisting indoctrination. This was true of Lutheran Saxony as well as of Catholic Bavaria - and it was true in the cities as well as in the countryside.

As for evidence, the book gives mainly anecdotes, primarily from rural communities, and apparently mostly from historical "ethnographies" of village life by the likes of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. I'm willing to assume the picture is reasonably accurate (feel free to dispute this), so it would appear that sometime in the modern era, after say the French Revolution, it seems the Churches made great headway against this apathy. Perhaps they never achieved the levels of indoctrination they wished for, since the main problem presented by Huppert was simply ignorance of Church doctrine (for example about the Trinity), which may have remained all throughout Christian history. Yet it would appear that there was a rise in respect for Christianity the last couple of centuries, and a big increase in its social profile. If indeed this is true, when did it start, and how did it happen? Thanks in ad. 203.221.126.206 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

roman citizenship

Yet another question from me - I always ask them in batches of about three. In the Roman empire (including the republic) Roman citizens were afforded protection throughout the realm. When this came up, and someone claimed in a legal case that he was a citizen, how was this proven? Did they have records (say from their censuses) that were sufficiently accurate to determine the matter, or did they have to take witnesses and investigate the claim in detail before the case could proceed? I know they took censuses, but it sounds like they relied on people simply reporting who was in their household, so it seems like they would have been easy enough to dodge, eg. if a Roman patriarch wanted to "donate" the gift of citizenship to friends he had made in a province (or sell it for that matter). thanx 203.221.126.206 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Social consensus

From a sociological perspective, how is it possible to be remain an active part of society while actively challenging social consensus ? Can being a heretic have occasional benefits ?

For example, the vast majority of the West clearly favors a woman's right to an abortion. How can one dare call himself Western if he/she is pro-life ? Is such a position taboo ?

Can there be any moral equivalence between Western and non-Western societies ? It is as Montesquieu said in his Lettres persanes : Comment peut-on être persan ?

Does society have any obligations towards itself ? For example, can a society survive on the long term if it does not have babies and/or accepts things like active euthanasia ? In East Germany and Russia, demographers predict a vast population decline because of a legacy of agressive statism.

69.157.234.29 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Unknown artists

Looking for information on unknown artists :- T.Monlimen or Montimen . Pier scene with sail and steamer , possibly about 1890-1910 S.McKinley . Seascape with sail vessel and steamer . Looks more modern 1930's to 1970's M.Burns 1981 . Old sailing vessel Turakina which belonged to the New Zealand Shipping Co Thanks A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.r.macgregor (talk • contribs) 08:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

why the sudden change of topic captain?

hallo people, why the sudden change of topic? or should i say context? the poor fellow ended up not knowing the name of the song!! captain i guess you were out of line when you shifted the discussion from music to synagogues.41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)davis