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

May 12

How might an undefended Asante town in 1701 deal with a British landing?

Hi

First a little background. I play a historical play-by-email game. I play the Asante Union. Now please note that this is a game, and whilst based in history (and adhering to historical concept) there is room for manoeuvre.

Now then. I have received a report that a British fleet has docked at Accra and has unloaded British forces. I do not know how many, how big the fleet is, or what their intentions are.

I have a large force in Kumasi which I am sending to Accra. In the meantime I can only assume that the British are there for hostile intent.

Could anybody advise me of historical scenarios where an undefended town has been able to hold off, or deal with a foreign army (once the foreign army is inside the town)? Alternatively, any suggestions or comments would be welcome. For example, I have considered ordering the townspeople to escape north toward Kumasi, or to rise up against the British.

Thanks

Joseph (Osei Tutu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.78.50 (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Guerrilla warfare might give you some ideas. Basically try to determine what the attitude of the local population would have been and then imagine them taking/ or not taking action with local resources available to them. I assume there would be an Assante equivalent to "toadstool casserole". It may not come out in a role playing game, but troops can not operate in a vacuum. Particularly not that far from home. That offers many points of attack. If, however the local population used to be subjected to strict rule, or includes many different sub-groups, it is a lot less likely they'd act. (One oppressor's as bad as another.) Lisa4edit (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Is there a barrier (like a wall or a hedge of thorns) around the town? If so, the inhabitants could keep the gates closed & refuse entry to these newcomers, even if they had no soldiers to help them. While the British commander could force his way in, he might lose a lot of men & lose time when his intent is to march towards that army in Kumasi. (ISTR a number of stories of walled cities holding out against an enemy army, defended by only a half-dozen soldiers or only a group of determined women, children & elderly men -- but they kept the gates closed & the enemy had no siege equipment.) But if the enemy has entered the town -- or there are no defensive works, the best thing to do is grab what they can & flee to the bush. (Which is what the inhabitants of Massawa did in 1522, when the Portuguese arrived with a diplomatic mission to the Emperor of Ethiopia. Massawa had no defensive works) -- llywrch (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips thus far - what is meant by "toadstool casserole"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.78.50 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn’t Tarzan have a beard?

What was the reason for the writers of Tarzan not to portray him with a beard. I mean he lives in the forest so how could he shave? And he thinks that he is monkey and monkeys don’t shave so there for how does he not have a hairy face? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a work of fiction and the writers didn't want to deal with writing around it or they didn't even think about it. Dismas|^(talk) 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. But it seems the simplest solution and with the help of Occam's Razor, seems the best. Writers do it all the time though. Many movies, books, etc never mention many bodily functions such as eating or going to the bathroom. Or hygiene, such as taking showers. It doesn't move the story along any, it's not important to the plot, and it can easily be done away with by just never bringing any attention to it at all. Dismas|^(talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the book. It has been a while since I read it, but as I recall, he found his parent's cabin— untouched since the great ape killed his father and the female ape carried him off. He found his father's knife and picture books for a child. He learned to read and write using the books. From the pictures, he decided that men do not have facial hair and and learned to shave using the knife. Burroughs wrote some fantastic stuff, but he paid attention to detail. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...But it seems the simplest solution and with the help of Occam's Razor, ha ha ha..... this just had me in hysterics!

I have a weird sense of humour! I read it as a sort of pun, Tarzan trying to shave with Occam's razor. This gave me the mental picture of Tarzan swinging in through the window of William of Ockham's priory on a vine and swinging out again with a razor, shaving brush and soap. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could entertain. And I took "portray" to be in the visual sense and thus was referring to the films and such that show Tarzan. Dismas|^(talk) 12:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tarzan was a British lord at the turn of the 20th century. Beards were not in style at the time. Corvus cornix_talk 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And I think it could be argued that it is fairly important to the Tarzan story that he is a clean-shaven white guy jumping around in the trees as a "savage". If he was hairy or non-white he'd be much less interesting to a white audience, he wouldn't be the "white guy in a non-white situation", and he might even appear fearsome to an audience in the 1910s-50s. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironically a beard would be a good way to distinguish a white guy from a "savage", in some regions. Do men of the relevant area have facial hair? —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Beards not in style? The King had one. —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppression

What is the true nature of oppression ? Various theories go on and on about oppression of workers, oppression of minorities, oppression of women, oppression of power, and so forth. 69.157.246.246 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ecological feminism is an area of study that attempts to find patterns in the oppression of various groups.--droptone (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Michel Foucault's theories address the question of oppression in general. He is a difficult writer, particularly when translated into English, but there are some books on his thought for beginners. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some recommended reading, quite accessible in English translation; you might consider these lively descriptions of historical (and current) situations reflecting the realities of many people's lives, rather than "theories that go on and on":

• The Colonizer and the Colonized by Albert Memmi
• Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire

-- Deborahjay (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire in the 16th century

What held it together? Such a big question and so little time to answer it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.166.181 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It had a strong ruler in Suleiman the Magnificent who reigned for 46 years. He could draw on a strong military & a relatively efficient administration to support his rule, although there was at least one revolt against him -- which he was able to put down. Then Suleiman died, & the Empire started to fall apart. If you want further details, find the time to read the relevant Wikipedia articles, & the books & articles these articles refer to. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And see Ottoman Empire - Expansion and apogee (1453-1566) Strawless (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Cybernetic mind control

How many cases have gone to court claiming the government or military have been subjecting civilians to remote mind control technology, and have any been won? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "have gone to court"? Why don't you ask the courts? Please specify. Mieciu K (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I find it extremely unlikely that any court anywhere has ever ruled that a government or military is guilty of subjecting civilians to remote and/or cybernetic mind control. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Most mind control technology (education / religion / advertising / media / et al) is remote. Remote in the sense that no wires are poked into your cortex or no funnel is stuck into your brain.
• As a result, there have been numerous court cases where schools, sectarian movements, cigarette companies, public media and the like have been accused of manipulating the opinions or the behaviour of "civilians".
• In the proper definition of communication / control / feedback between complex systems, these are cybernetic processes as sensory perception, individuals, society, language, technology, commerce, industry and political systems interact.
• --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I very much doubt the original poster meant anything other than that of actually directly or semi-directly controlling the behavior of people. Obviously, there are a thousand ways of manipulating and influencing people, but that's not what "cybernetic mind control" would be reasonably expected to refer to. YMMV, of course. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The original questioner didn't ask how many courts have ever ruled on the subject. The question is, how many cases have gone to court? Corvus cornix_talk 23:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't help with cybernetic mind control, but there have been several cases about mind control. For instance, in a Federal Court case in Canada the civil liberties lawyer Joseph Rauh won compensation for about two hundred victims of brainwashing experiments by Ewan Cameron, a Scottish doctor working for the CIA's Project MKULTRA in the 1950s and 1960s. He carried out mind-control experiments using electric shocks, LSD and other drugs, using techniques like those portrayed in the book The Manchurian Candidate, attempting to brainwash and reprogramme people. A distinguished fellow, Cameron became President of the World Psychiatric Association. Xn4 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgian Power

I have always felt that Belgium was a rather inappropriate country to lead the European Union, especially at a time of crisis. The country has some huge internal political problems of its own, and yet it still claims to be a leader in European unification.

To what extent does Belgian culture influence the culture of the EU ? If it splits, as it seems to be doing now, what message would that send to candidate members and allies who have internal separation problems of their own ?

Belgium also has some significant sociological issues to deal with, such as one of the lowest marriage rates, low birth rates, high euthanasia/suicide/abortion rates, large Morrocan and Turkish immigration, a very large bureaucracy and other cultural difficulties.

More than a model for the EU, is Belgium supposed to be a model for the whole world ? If it is, I guess it's a very belgian world we live in. 69.157.246.246 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In what sense does Belgium lead the EU? The Presidency of the Council of the European Union is currently held by Slovenia and the President of the European Commission is Portuguese, while France and Germany are often (in the UK at least) seen as the leading powers. What does Belgium do other than host a few institutions? Algebraist 14:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two main ways in which Belgium influences the European Union beyond its capacity as a member. Both follow from its role as principal host for EU institutions.

• A disproportional amount EU civil servants are Belgian.
• A disproportional amount of EU interest group members are Belgian (for example, political party membership, particularly active members, of EU-wide parties).

User:Krator (t c) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To move the headquarters in a physical manner would, one can safely assume, lead to the same problems arising in any new country that hosted the headquarters (here pointing to what Krator says). Is this a solution so long as the new host country meet your criteria for what seems acceptable - id est to have no public debate regarding ethnical groups gaining independence and their own state? The sociological issues you, 69.157, state, are not unique to Belgium. All countries have domestic problems in one sense or another. Would France be any better? Or England? I can immediately think of arguments akin to yours against both of these, but I can't honestly say I think they matter. What Krator mentions, and specifies, are perhaps true "problems" - but unavoidable so. Scaller (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A civilization which can inspire Hercule Poirot can't be all bad. Xn4 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Hercule Poirot was fictitious, with a large comedic element. The Belgian Congo, alas, was the unpleasant reality. Civilisation? --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

British Naval power in the eighteenth century

Why was the navy neglected in the first half of the eighteenth century? What were the factors, financial and political, leading to its recovery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.194.89 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Was it neglected? In 1713 Queen Anne handed control of the navy to a parliament eager to develop naval dominiation. But even before 1713 the navy was practically controlled by the cabinet and, in particular, Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin and John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. Between 1691-1715 159 ships of the line and 113 cruisers were built despite financial problems. The War of the Spanish Succession solidified British naval power in the Mediterranean and created a Blue-water navy, with victory at Battle of Vigo Bay and the destruction of the French fleet at Toulon. After Anne's death in 1714 the navy developed considerably under the house of Hanover. By 1755 the navy had 200 ships in commission (88 of the line) and personnel of 40,000 men. In 1759 it had 300 ships and 80,000 personnel.

Think of Pope's lines in 'Windsor Forest' 1713:

'While by our Oaks the precious Loads are born,

And Realm commanded which those Trees adorn.' Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky Books

What would be considered Noam Chomsky's 4-5 most important books in the area of Politics? --Ckdavis (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It will largely depend on which areas of politics you consider important. For a starting point, here are links to some of Chomsky's books (in chronological order) which have their own Wikipedia articles - The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967), American Power and the New Mandarins (1969), The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (1983), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Necessary Illusions (1989), Deterring Democracy (1992), Class Warfare (1996), Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (2003), Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (2003), Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2006) Xn4 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the most influential and discussed of these are Manufacturing Consent and Hegemony or Survival. Marco polo (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was I born to my parents in my town at a specific time?

(Hello, I was told to move this question here. Is this where the philosophy questions go? If so, I'll stop posting thiese kinds of questions on the science board. Anyways, here it is, in progress,)-

What I'm trying to ask is why was I born in this exact situation? It seems strange to me that fate (or whatever) chose to begin my life exactly where, when, and with who it did. Is there a scientific reason for this? Now I'm not religious, but it seems to me that we came from somewhere. I dont think we were just thrown into existence from nothing ,otherwise we'd be inanimate and wouldn't be able to articulate this question. --Sam Science (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's more the realms of philosophy than science. I'm not sure if it really answers you question, but you might be interested in the anthropic principle. --Tango (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The only 'scientific' reason for you being born in your exact situation is that your parents chose to have sex at a certain time and as a result you were directly conceived. You were then given birth to 9 months later. Any 'fate' involved is in the realms of philosophy or religion. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if you think you're not inaminate then I agree you have a problem. Much easier to discount the possibility. Not just easier - more interesting. Try and think of how you could 'articulate this question' while being inanimate. --90.203.189.22 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that you seem to exist, then either you had an origin or you did not. Based on human experiences every one nowadays is born. You had to be born somewhere at sometime. Ask your mother why, it was mother's day yesterday! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that you may get an interesting variety of answers on the Humanities reference desk. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this relate to the origin of life? Since you could ask the same question of your parents, their parents, their parents' parents, etc. until you reach microorganisms. See also determinism. --Mark PEA (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you weren't born to your parents in your town at a specific time then you wouldn't be you. Since you are you, then the rest follows. Vranak (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because when a mommy cat and a daddy cat love each other very much they ... --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Providing a definite answer to this is quite impossible. If you want to read some good food for thought on the subject, you may want to read Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, I, 1-6. [1] The guy is very religious but this text is a good starting point for any philosophical inquiry into this subject. User:Krator (t c)

And karma would be another good article to read. 64.228.89.230 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the error -- or perhaps the conceit -- in this question is in the underlying assumption (which, in my experience, is very common, and of which people are commonly unaware) that their present circumstances or existence are somehow exceptional -- that isn't it amazing that you happened to turn out to be just this person, in just this situation, instead of any other? But that's a terribly solipsistic view to take, because the only thing that's exceptional about you is that you happen to be you -- but that's just because it's the only experience you have. The exceptional thing isn't that you happened to turn out just like that, or that you happen to be thinking this, but that you alone can experience this particular life. They only thing that's strange or unusual is that you happen to be there to think about it, and even that is a purely subjective thing -- we just think that we're terribly unique, because we don't and can't know any better, so to speak.

Of course, that's particularly true if you're a bit of a nihilist. Or even just a harsh realist, really. But there are other ways to look at this -- you may be someone who prefers to make things meaningful to them by their own actions, not by the circumstances they happened to come to this world in or the circumstances they find themselves now, for example. If we conclude that there's no intrinsic meaning in our lives or existences, that doesn't mean that we can't decide to have some anyway. It might be argued that it's more useful and important to find that meaning ourselves than wait for someone else to hand it to us from on high.

The less you mind getting a little sentimental and optimistic, the truer that probably is going to be for you. A pretty classic example of that is Alan Moore's Watchmen, which contains a scene in which Dr. Manhattan, a godlike being who has lost interest in humanity, human emotions and human fates is talking with his girlfriend, who considers her life to be a complete and meaningless waste. However, to her surprise, the previously immovable Dr. Manhattan suddenly disagrees, and goes on to explain: "Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical that they are effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing. And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold, that is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle. [...] But the world is so full of people, crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace, and we forget... I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take the breath away. Come... dry your eyes, for you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly."

Or you can just conclude that God, or some equivalent force/entity, really wants you to be just where you are, but I personally have a pretty hard time swallowing that... well, except for causality. I guess I'll buy that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Predestination may have something for you. Strawless (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, say I throw a pick a random number from 1 to 1,000. Picking 749 would be very improbable, but it's not remarkable because 749 has no relevance to anything. Now if I was 74 years 9 months old it would be a bit odd, but any random number would be improbable. Ziggy Sawdust 01:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Classics

What is the criteria for a classic? Not a classical book as in written in the classical era but a classic novel, like Chronicles of Narnia. What makes them classics? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One definition is that it is a book that is part of the canon, something that has been read and written about and has influenced people in a significant way until knowing it is useful for a literate person who wants to understand history or the arts. Another definition is that it is a book that is so well written, with such depth and complexity, that the reader's understanding is richer with every re-reading, and that generations will be able to write about it and discuss it without running out of things to say. "Hamlet" is such a work; we've been writing about it, talking about it, and re-interpreting it for 400 years, and still there is more to say about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: the test of time. A classic work is one whose popularity has outlasted fads; whose power to move or entertain people is not limited to the time in which, and the generation for whom, it was created. —Tamfang (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Division Bell in Parliament

Does anyone know if there is a sound file on the web where I can listen to the Division Bell which is rung in Parliament. I tried searching but all I get are sound files from the album by Pink Floyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdegus (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really what you're looking for but there's this BBC Radio program where you can hear the Westminster division bell in the background (link). Thuresson (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, there's more than one parliament in the world, and there's no reason to assume all their bells (that's those that use a bell system) sound the same. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity and kosher foods

Are there any modern Christians who still adhere to the Biblical food laws presented in Leviticus? If so, do any Christian sects require this, or is it more of a personal matter? 207.233.87.203 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Messianic Judaism might be of interest to you. It indicates that many Messianic Jews follow kosher dietary laws. However, the article also mentions that there is some dispute as to whether this group in considered a part of Christianity. GreatManTheory (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC) In Acts 10, Peter has a dream which is interpreted as meaning that there are no restrictions on clean and unclean food for Christians (thus that the kosher laws no longer hold for Christians). However there are two kinds of modification on the "anything goes" food message. One is that Christians should not knowingly eat food offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8), and the other is that they should refrain from eating blood (Acts 15). But Christians still eat bloody steak and black pudding (blood sausage). Go figure. SaundersW (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ethiopian Church are the largest group of Christians who observe these dietary laws. (The Wikipedia article needs a lot of work. I only wish I had the time to do it in.) These practices are enforced not only by their priests, but by the cultural beliefs of the members. Obviously some Ethiopian Christians may not be as devout as others, but this matter is taken seriously. Some experts believe this unusual practice is because there was a large Jewish community in Ethiopian before their conversion circa 350, who introduced the practice. Personally, I wonder if these customs weren't introduced by early missionaries, most of whom came from the pre-Islamic Near East where there were survivals of many old Christian traditions. -- llywrch (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Noahide laws, particularly the one pertaining to eating, and then check out which Christians abide by this.-- Deborahjay (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

UK prime minister

How much freedom does the UK prime minister have to do as he pleases with regard to his function? ----Seans Potato Business 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? It goes into much more detail than my quick answer will. The Prime Minister really has little statutory authority in their own right, but are required to "form a government". They have power of appointment, so choose people to take the various important roles, (like the members of cabinet, which are generally from the elected members of his political party), and will often wield a lot of influence with them. The PM and cabinet still need the support of the House of Commons and, to a much lesser extent, the House of Lords. And, the media are always quick to condemn the PM, so he/she can't do whatever they please! Gwinva (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Far be it from me to point out the appearance of sexism in your question, Seans Potato Business! See Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Xn4 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Some key accountability mechanisms limiting the Prime Minister's powers include: the confidence of his or her own party, both the parliamentary party (as in the MPs in the PM's own party) as well as the rank-and-file party "out there"; a possibly hostile House of Lords; public scrutiny through the media and the Opposition, which will dilligently report anything that can possibly damage the government's standing; the electoral process, since unpopular policies would damage the party's electoral chances in the next election; the judiciary, which can strike down legislation; and finally the Monarch's reserve powers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Prime Minister article only briefly mentions the Royal Prerogative; which is actually quite significant in the United Kingdom, as among those powers, it gives the PM authority to declare a state of emergency and to declare war, without consulting Parliament, or, in theory, consulting the monarch or the cabinet. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It should be noted that the Royal Prerogative has been effectively deferred to the Prime Minister over the last twenty years, but the Queen still holds the powers de jure. PeterSymonds | talk 11:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The PM is essentially an Elective dictatorship, the formal checks on his or her power are few and far between. I suppose though, a Westminster-fan would argue that the best elements of our system are the informal elements, and that it is these that keep the whole system functional. Ninebucks (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Roadside Park

In Canada and the United States the idea of a roadside park is quite popular. How popular is it in Europe and is it a worldwide phenomenon? --Doug ^talk 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In France, the Netherlands and Germany, rest places on the major highways are common. Not all of them are parks though: something called an Autohof or Reststatte in German is just a big parking lot with some snackbar and a total lack of trees or anything park-like. It usually does have picnic tables though. User:Krator (t c) 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In Australia there are frequent roadside parks. Government campaigns for people to take a break while long distance driving, sometimes have stops where there is free tea on offer called "Stop, revive, survive" or something like that, around holiday times. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ghost Account" phenomenon

Websites which provide social content and some form of community interaction (MySpace, FaceBook, Yahoo, Wikipedia...) are relatively new. However, as time pass by, first-generation users will inevitably die, leaving Terrabytes of personal information, photos, conversations filling server space in abandoned accounts. Will companies adopt some unethical policies in order to deal with this problem? Will the internet world face a "Ghost Account" phenomenon? Just curious about your ideas and thoughts :-) Eklipse (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe most social networking sites have policies governing the death of the owner. Facebook converts these pages to a “memorial account” for a short time before ultimately deleting the information. That’s what I’ve heard at least. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A friend of mine, who owned a Yahoogroups group, died recently, (RIP). I am a co-owner of the group. I asked Yahoo what needs to be done to replace her ownership, and they said that they require a copy of the death certificate. That, to me, was a burdensome requirement, although I do understand their need for verification of some sort. So, the group will remain unowned for the known future. Corvus cornix_talk 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Empty accounts aren't always because of death. Usually, the active users of a website is (number of accounts / 50). People will create several accounts and only use one, people will leave, and people will create accounts, hang around for a day, and leave. Plus, sometimes people will do DDoS or spam-attacks and create dozens of useless accounts. Ziggy Sawdust 01:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

May 13

Advantages and disadvantages diplomatic immunity

What are the advantages and disadvantages of diplomatic immunity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.152 (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The article on diplomatic immunity may help you find the answers to this. - Eron^Talk 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It answer my question properly. Don Mustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1931 to 1945 world map for allies and axis

cant seem to find maps or map that has names of countries and the allies or axis that controlled them.this is for school project .. help I am stuck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilleno (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lilleno, I guess you've seen our map of the countries that show countries as Axis, Allies and neutral in the article Participants in World War II. You might have to read through the articles Allies in World War II and World War II, and work out which countries they controlled until someone more enthusiastic comes along. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(Later) The best article I see is Axis leaders of World War II which shows the puppet states controlled by Germany, Italy and Japan, and Allied leaders of World War II gives you the countries involved with the UK, Greece, France and China, (with flags in a table bottom left) but you might have to map this across a world map of your own. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar/China response to disaster

Two totalitarian countries in Asia, both experienced natural disasters. Myanmar couldn't do less to help the people while China went all out. Why? F (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Some simple reasons: China is very wealthy; Myanmar is very poor. China has well-developed infrastructure; Myanmar does not. China has a legitimate, well-functioning modern government with a large bureaucracy (though I'm sure certain people would dispute "legitimate" and "modern"); Myanmar has a military kleptocracy. China wants the rest of the world to see it as a happy friendly place, especially now; before this week, did the average person even know Myanmar existed? In China there is no risk of a popular uprising at any moment; in Myanmar there is, and apparently they are afraid that the presence of international aid workers will make that threat worse. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the average person knew Myanmar existed, but maybe as Burma they might, and Aung San Suu Kyi put it on the map at one level. I for one didn't know how extensive it was in size until the cyclone. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the average journalist still doesn't know that the capital has been Naypyidaw since 2005. Most of them are referring to "the capital, Rangoon", unaware that even Rangoon is now called Yangon. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I consider myself better informed than the average person, & both points you mentnion, Jack, were a surprise to me. I guess, to paraphrase Will Rogers, everything I know about Burma Myanmar is what I read in the papers. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of changing capitals, were you aware that the capital of Sri Lanka is not Colombo, as most everyone seems to think? It was moved to Sri Jayawardenapura-Kotte (generally known simply as "Kotte") in 1982. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's just that they're afraid of international aid workers inspiring an uprising. Their afraid of what the aid workers may do. Paranoid? Perhaps. But it's not as if countries haven't used a variety of means and people to spy on their opponents before, some of them extremely controversial (e.g. Richard Butler (diplomat)). And given the way a lot of the world has dealt with Myanmar, and given as well other events like the war in Iraq, is it perhaps surprising that the military government is extremely paranoid about what other countries may do if they give them a chance to enter Myanmar? The biggest problem is that the Myanmar government/junta doesn't recognise that no one actually cares enough about them to actually want to invade them or spy much on them, and even if someone wanted to do it, using the provision of aide as pretext for an invasion is too far, probably not for the leaders themselves in general, but for much of the populance. (China on ther other hand hasn't needed to rely on foreign workers much, and they know that even those they do allow in are not going to be a big threat to them.) But if you analyse the situation, I think it is possible to see there are several reasons why the military leaders were so paranoid about allowing foreign workers into their country and yes, the actions of various countries in the world before the cyclone had a lot to do with their paranoia. It's also a noterable point that from what I can tell, aide workers from SEA and India have had a lot less problems accessing Myanmar then those from countries who have treated Myanmar like a paria state until now, the problem is that these countries being mostly poor themselves don't have sufficient expertise or money nor is it a good idea if we start letting countries pick and choose which aide workers they want enterring their country. None of this of course justifies what the military government has done. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Characterising both China and Burma (the Junta seized power illegally, and so none of their actions in government have been legitimate, thus, according to both mine (and the opposition/legitimate government's) opinion, the nation is still called Burma and its capital is still Rangoon) as totalitarian seems misleading. China is authoritarian, but I would say that it desires to control every aspect of its citizens' lives in the same way as the Burmese Junta. In response to your question, I would say that the tragedy is mostly the result of the Burmese Junta playing politics with peoples' lives. The Junta has been organising a referendum on a new constitution, a constitution that will essentially leave the Junta in charge indefinately. The Junta's first instinct was to cover up the news of the cyclone and tell its people further upland that everything was completely fine. After that, their plan has been to hijack all incoming aid donations and use them as leverage to make sure people vote as they should - as opposed to professional aid workers, who are trained in distributing aid according to need, the Burmese military will use aid to bribe dying people into voting them into power permenantly, and will deliberately deny aid to those suspected of voting against their constitution (the dead, after all, cannot vote). Ultimately, the Burmese military is an organisation that is dedicated solely towards its own interests, and not towards Burma as a whole. Ninebucks (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you mean "but I would not say that...", in there? --Anon, 22:12 UTC, May 14.

Identifying statues on the Albert Memorial's frieze

I've been working on the article Albert Memorial, and one of the things I have been doing is trying to identify all the poets, musicians, painters, architects and sculptors found on a feature of the memorial called the Frieze of Parnassus. I'm now at the stage where I need help for the last few links. See Albert Memorial#Frieze of Parnassus. The first two parts of that list was obtained from here. A full list was obtained from here. Unfortunately, that full list, despite being from the official history of the memorial, sometimes only gives surnames and has transcription errors as well. I've been working on the list at Talk:Albert Memorial, and I think I've managed to identify or link to nearly all the 169 individual people featured on the frieze (the talk page list is still a bit untidy, so use the main article to see which poets, musicians, painters, architects and sculptors I've linked to), but if people here could help with the following, I'd be very grateful:

• (1) If possible, go through the list in the article and click on the names and see if you think the right person's article has been linked to - the original source is on the talk page, sometimes with initials, sometimes not. The names are also carved on the memorial itself, so photographs could also be taken to show what was carved.
• (2) The architects and sculptors are arranged chronologically, but the poets, musicians and painters are arranged "by national schools". Could anyone help identify the schools involved here, and if possible link to the relevant articles?
• (3) Three of the historical figures are mentioned in the list of architects are Sennacherib, Nitocris and Cheops. The architectural achievements of Sennacherib and Cheops are fairly clear, but Nitocris seems to be here because at one time it was thought that she built the "third pyramid at Giza", but now that pyramid is attributed by "modern historians" to Menkaura. Does anyone know when this change occurred and what people thought at the time the Albert Memorial was being built?
• (4) I've drawn a complete blank on three names (they could be transcription errors). Does anyone know who the following refer to?
  • (a) R. de Courcy (from the list of architects, I redirected this to Richard de Courcy, but that looks wrong for the dates, unless it is for Norman castle architectural achievements - another possibility is John de Courcy, if you assume the "R" was a transcription error.)
  • (b) Giuliano de Ravenna (sculptor, I found Giuliano da Maiano, and Giuliano Finelli, but neither of these seem to have been associated with Ravenna, and they don't fit the chronological order - this Giuliano needs to be very early medieval, at the time of or before the 13th-century Nicola Pisano. I was hopeful about Severo Calzetta da Ravenna, but the date is still wrong and it is difficult to get from Giuliano to Severo. One more try threw up what might be the most promising possibility so far: John of Ravenna, mostly theological, but unlike the 1911 Britannica entry, the Wikipedia article has an extra possibility, an 11th-century abbot of Fécamp Abbey - that is famous architecturally, and there is also an earlier abbot, Guillaume de Volpiano (William of Volpiano) whose article says he was an architect, of Mont St Michel. Still not 100% convincing, but does anyone think this is getting closer?)
  • (c) W. Tonel (sculptor - I'm drawing an utter blank here. Tonel is a football player, but the Tonel we want should be 15th century.)

I'll check back here to see if anyone has any answers or comments, but people can put stuff at Talk:Albert Memorial#Redlinks and disambiguation pages instead or as well, if they want. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Update - turns out that W. Tonel was a transcription error. It is William Torel, though the carved name is TORELL. And R. de Courcy may turn out to be Robert de Courcy (though that is not 100% - can't find any big architectural connection) - the carved name is ROB DE CODCY, in case that helps. Also, still don't know what Giuliano de Ravenna is about - the carved name is GUILIANO DI RAVENNA. See here for the four pictures of the friezes: 1, 2, 3, 4. Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've nailed down William Torell and John Bushnell. --Wetman (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert de Coucy sorted. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why (and when) did Britain's John Lewis Partnership start calling itself a co-operative?

The second sentence of its 2008 annual report says :

It is also the country’s largest employee co-operative, with over 69,000 employees.

It has traditionally described itself as an employee-owned company and as a partnership. Its structures of democratic governance are more complex than the one-member-one-vote that is conventional in the co-operative movement, and as far as I know, they haven't changed since the 1930s.

Not only have I recently noticed it calling itself a co-operative, but organisations like Co-operatives UK and the International Co-operative Alliance have included it on their recent lists of the world's largest co-operatives. At least one John Lewis executive has become a co-operative development activist.[2]

Is this co-operative identity something new for John Lewis? If so, it seems that for some reason it has become more acceptable for John Lewis and the British co-operative movement to associate with each other. How and when did this happen? Has it officially joined any co-operative federations? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realise they had called themselves a co-operative: I stand corrected. As I've said elsewhere, they have some key features of a classic co-op and some clear differences, but accurately identifying co-ops in the UK is a nightmare job and so there's never going to be a definite answer. I would imagine that the JLP's self-identification changes depending on its leaders and the climate in the UK: now that the Conservatives have got co-ops in the news again, they obviously think it's a good idea to identify with the Movement. Which can only be a good thing. JonStrines (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That preamble to the Annual Report goes back several years - I haven't looked at how far - but definitely before David Cameron's Conservative Co-operative project. Maybe Brown as chancellor did something that somehow made co-ops cool, or maybe it is something in the current JLP chairman's preferences. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Martín's comments at Talk:British_co-operative_movement#John Lewis Partnership? were also very useful to me (and, no doubt, to the article.) However, the answers to my original questions of how and when have yet to be uncovered. Nonetheless, thanks to all who investigated the questions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The size of the atom according to the ancient atomists

Hi, this question was sent to the Science Desk, but I'd like to try you guys now.

From this article, [3] I got this quote:

Some controversy surrounds the properties of the atoms. They vary in size: one report—which some scholars question—suggests that atoms could, in principle, be as large as a cosmos, although at least in this cosmos they all seem to be too small to perceive

Can anyone tell me more? Who was it who suggested atoms could be so huge? Were they suggesting another universe populated with a single gigantic atom?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation 'DK68A47' is in the Diels-Kranz numbering system, concerning the Presocratic philosophers, and refers to the Aëtius compendium. (See Freeman, Kathleen, Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, Harvard University Press, 1983). The only remnants of the Presocratics are quotations embedded in texts by later authors. Xn4 16:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant; thanks yet again, Xn. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How do i get involved in fighting poverty in Angola

I am extremely interested in travelling to Angola and working to help fight poverty. How do i get involved? Erin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.146.221 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You could seek out a charity (see also Category:International charities), or a volunteer organisation like Voluntary Service Overseas, or approach your nearest Angolan embassy or consulate (best search the phone book or yellow pages for their contact details). If you're not quite so "action" orientated or busy with your normal work, you could simply donate to a charity instead. Astronaut (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend steering clear of the Angolan embassy or consulate unless you need an official document and/or you want to grease an Angolan bureaucrat's palm. Corruption in Angola is so serious a problem that it has merited its own Wikipedia article, and government corruption, including corruption at embassies, has undermined international relief efforts according to this article. A list of poverty relief programs sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is on this page. If you intend to travel to Angola, you will need to speak some Portuguese and/or one of the local African languages, since English is not widely understood there. This article lists some of the international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate in Angola, many of them on poverty-relief programs. Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit to add to Marco polo's post. Erin, if you are an American, the CIA World Factbook has the contact info for the Angolan embassy in the US and the US embassy in Angola: [4]. I wish you all the best in your mission! - Thanks, Hoshie 09:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ranks in 16th Century Venetian Navy

^{Hope it's ok to pose two questions at once...}

Can anyone list for me the ranks of the men on the naval ships of Venice in the 16th Century?

ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They had Capitani (Captains) who each commanded a ship, and the commander of the fleet was Capitano Generale da Mar (Captain General of the Sea, or Chief Admiral). Below the captains were chief and petty officers. Nobili di poppa, noblemen of the poop, were rather like midshipmen: that is, they were young gentlemen learning the crafts of navigation, seamanship and naval warfare. Xn4 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see there's much more detail of the Venetian naval ranks in an article of the Italian Wikipedia, Marineria veneziana. If you don't read Italian, I can give you a summary of what it says about ranks, please let me know if you need it. Xn4 01:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I love you, XN4 - I'd appreciate any summary - love 'Nobili di Poppa' - great stuff! Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's taken me a little while to get around to this, but here it is. Perhaps I might just mention that this is merely a summary of the material on naval ranks in the article mentioned above, I haven't looked for better sources...

The command of the navy was a right and prerogative of the Doge up to the end of the Republic. However, in time of war a commander-in-chief was appointed, with the title of Capitano generale da mar (Captain general of the sea), who was commander of naval operations and of the core of the fleet. Immediately below him (and holding office at all times, both in peace and in war) was the Provveditore generale da mar (Provisioner general of the sea), first naval officer of the Sea Staff, responsible for discipline and order and also paymaster general. In war-time he was deputy commander of naval operations.

There were also permanent naval squadrons, commanded by:

• The Capitano del Golfo (Captain of the Gulf) commander of the Adriatic fleet, based in Corfu;
• The Capitano delle galeazze (Captain of the Galleasses), at the Arsenale station;
• The Capitano dei galeoni (Captain of the Galleons), commander of the great navy based at the Arsenale station;
• The Governator de'condannati (Governor of the Condemned), commander of the squadron of galleys used for long haul patrols;
• The Capitano del Lago (Captain of the Lake), commander of the squadron controlling Lake Garda, during part of the sixteenth century only

Commanders of various lesser naval forces, organized on an ad hoc basis, held the title of Capo da Mar (Sea Chief), equivalent to admiral.

The title of ammiraglio (Admiral) was held not by naval commanders but by officers controlling the ports of Venice and also by the officer who commanded the Bucentaur, the state galley of the Doge.

• The Ammiraglio dell'Arsenal (Admiral of the Arsenale), was military commander of the Arsenale;
• The Ammiraglio del Lido (Admiral of the Lido), was superintendent of the port of Lido;
• The Ammiraglio di Malamocco (Admiral of Malamocco), was superintendent of the port of Malamocco [which was a small port of Venice].

There was also:

• The Capitano dell'Arsenal (Captain of the Arsenale) deputy military commander there.

On board the warships were:

• The sopracomito (before the 13th century called patrono, later for a short time the comito), the ship's captain, always a patrician;
• The comito (first officer), always a citizen;
• The nobili di poppa (nobles of the poop), concerned with fighting skills
• Sometimes also a segretario (clerk) and a medico (doctor);

The crew, which in a galley might amount to two or three hundred men, consisted of:

• marinai (sailors), including timonieri (helmsmen) addetti alle vele (sail-setters), etc.
• galeotti (oarsmen), including free men, forced men and galley slaves
• corpo tecnico (technical corps), carpenters and axe-masters for making repairs
• fanti da mar (marines), fighting men

In times of war, numbers were boosted using the zontaroli, or sentenced prisoners from all the territories of the Venetian Republic.

I hope this is what you need. Xn4 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful - just what I need - thanks so much - perfectly accords with my impression of Venice as a state where every aspect of life was baroque and slightly alien. I would love to pick your brain some more, XN4, if that'd be possible; there are one or two other articles in the Italian WP I'd love to have summarised - I wonder if we can come to some kind of arrangement? Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but perhaps we are the aliens?

No doubt the arrangement is that you ask and I or someone else responds, time permitting... if I disappear from here for a time, you should be able to reach me on my Talk page. Regards, Xn4 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Earliest mention of Lord in a religious context

Does anyone know what the earlies mention of the title "Lord" is in a religious context? What I mean is: When was the first time the title Lord was used to describe God or Jesus. In the English language please (I don't mean Adonai and all that = ))! Thanks --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1549, according to The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. I take it you mean in England? It was used in the 1549 Prayer Book of Edward VI. PeterSymonds | talk 13:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually forget that, that's the Lord's Prayer. :S Sorry. PeterSymonds | talk 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends what you mean by "English." Bede would have used the word in his partial translation of the Bible late in the seventh century, in what we now call Old English or Anglo-Saxon, as would have Adhelm in his translation of the Psalms around the same time. Basically, whenever you pinpoint the beginning of the English language, is where you will find the first use of the word Lord in a religious context. Remember that the persons most likely to be literate in the Middle Ages are the religious scholars, and their writings are very likely to use that word in that particular context. Pastordavid (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm yes I see the difficulty posed by my question now. Thanks for the info though, I think it will suffice! Thanks again! Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's any use, the earliest known example is Cædmon's hymn. Hamer's A Choice of Anglo-Saxon Verse says that some [who?] read Bede's account as implying that Cædmon was the first to compose Christian verse in Old English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual first use in relation to god recoded in the OED is from the homilies of Ælfric of Eynsham c.1000 and the first use of lord for a ruler comes from the glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels c.950. The Lindisfarne Gospels though do not use Lord to refer to god they use instead the word drighten which seems to be its first religious use although it is used to mean ruler in Beowulf. meltBanana 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Aelfric (the one abovementioned) uses 'hlaford' (which becomes modern English 'lord') as a translation of the Latin 'dominus', which was used for both secular and religious meanings of 'lord'. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the answer to a different question. "Drihten m 'ruler, king, lord; God, Christ, the Lord'" [Mitchell, Invitation to Old English, p. 376]; "Lord dryhten (m), ealdor (m), frēa (m), hearra (m), hlāford (m), mondryhten (m)" [Pollington, Wordcraft, p. 78] Drihten/dryhten is "lord", so C8th if not earlier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sailing east: any poems, songs or nicknames?

Let's say an Arab, Chinese, or Portuguese merchant travels far from home for trading opportunities. Did these people having a popular poem, song or nickname for sailing home (particularly in a easterly direction)? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if they could get away with adopting James Elroy Flecker's The Golden Journey to Samarkand, chanted "at the Gate of the Sun, Bagdad, in olden time"? Xn4 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

UK court-dress changes

Anyone know where I can find a large/hi-res pic of the newly revealed British judges' gown? Thanks —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

What I don't understand is why when Elizabeth Bowes Lyon married George VI she became Queen consort, but why when the Duke of Edinburgh married Elizabeth II, why did he not become King consort, and was instead made a Prince/Duke? --Hadseys 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Men aren't traditionally granted the title "king consort". The last one to do so was Philip II of Spain when he married Mary I in 1554. A king is seen as higher than a queen, for obvious reasons, so if Philip were king, he'd outrank Elizabeth in status. That's why he's given the lower title, because the Queen is the Queen, and there can be no one higher. Queen Victoria wanted her husband to become king but her ministers blocked the idea, because he was a foreigner of supposed "low birth" (as far as German princes are low!). Best, PeterSymonds | talk 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Many people view King to be higher than Queen (they obiously have no regard for the "regnant"/"consort" bit) and thus people deem it inappropriate to have somebody who has only married into the royal family (ie Philip) to hold a title seemingly higher than the monarch herself. The same goes for most titles of the nobility: If a Duke marries a woman (even if she is common as muck) she becomes a Duchess, however if a Duchess marries a man (even if he is the Prince of X) he does not become a Duke. You may wish to read articles such as King regnant,King consort, Queen regnant and Queen consort and even Prince consort.--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: When Peter says "Men aren't traditionally granted the title "king consort"" he speaks for the UK...some other countries do grant men this titles, though nowadays there are few. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Kingmaker" (who died in 1471) was known by his wife's title; and at one time it was customary in Scotland, when a peeress married a commoner, to duplicate her titles for the husband (for life). When did these practices end? —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The wife of a king becomes a queen, unless prevented from doing so by being a king's wife in a Morganatic marriage, whereas by marrying a queen regnant a man doesn't acquire any title at all ipso facto. Often, such husbands of queens hold a princely title already, as Philip did. The Crown, as the fount of all honours, can grant a queen's husband the title of prince consort or even king consort, or else a rank in the peerage, but that's rarer than you think and needs a political consensus as well as a willing queen. In the case of Queen Victoria, it was many years before she even gave in to Prince Albert's aspirations to see state papers and to have a share in royal duties, let alone creating him Prince Consort. That came many years after their marriage. Xn4 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe Philip had to renounce his Danish/Greek princely title as a precondition of marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth. He was not recreated a Prince - this time of the United Kingdom - until 1957 although he was inaccurately referred to as Prince Philip in common parlance before then, as he was given an HRH and made Duke of Edinburgh at the time of the marriage. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Marriage goes into this at some length while Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Royal Status makes it (reasonably) clear that contrary to the assumption of the OP and other posters, Philip is not the Prince Consort (although that term is also commonly used erroneously). (I happen to have read the Philip article about 2 days ago - I don't make a habit of knowing this kind of thing!) Valiantis (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

While it's undisputed (except by some Divine Right kooks) that Philip did renounce his foreign titles when he was (redundantly) naturalized, I don't know what grounds there are for saying he had to. —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Strictly speaking Elizabeth Bowes Lyon married the Duke of York, and only became Queen consort 13 years later. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

.. and likewise Prince Philip didn't marry Queen Elizabeth II. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon thought that the Duke of York would become king one day and she become queen, it's likely she would not have married him at all. The 1936 abdication of his brother Edward VIII to marry "the woman he loved" was unimagineable in 1923; Edward was healthy and there was every reason to believe he would father an heir and, barring a meteor strike, would be king for a long time and then be succeeded by his heir. Although she seemed to cope well in public after fate played its hand, it seems behind the scenes she always hated the position that Edward's decision placed George and her in, and she never forgave Edward for what she considered to be his treacherous behaviour to the family and the country. She refused ever to see Edward again, and I believe she refrained from even attending his funeral in 1972. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Norse Mythology

Was there a Norse goddess of gateways? If there wasn't one, what would she have been called if she exsisted? Emma Hordika (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No there wasn't but this list may interest you. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between "Natural Rights" and "Human Rights"???

Is there any response to the claim that these sorts of "rights" are an outgrowth of Hume's Is-ought fallacy?--Goon Noot (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mine is that natural rights are based on the concepts of natural law and go back much further than Hume, to Aquinas, Hobbes and Grotius, among others. While Human rights are claimed to have ancient beginnings, their main origins in the 18th century are at least as political as philosophical. There's a system of international human rights law, but no one has promulgated any international natural rights law, because natural law just doesn't take such forms. Xn4 00:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

May 14

Obscurantism

Is there anyone known for praising obscurantism? Like someone who was so anti-everything that they purposely used it because they didn't want anyone to understand, or something to that effect. I personally think obscurantism is really funny and kinda cool haha. Evaunit♥666♥ 00:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The liberal media are sometimes accused of being obscurantist, because

• 1) they tend to claim that all knowledge comes from investigative sources.
• 2) they further argue that only the information élite has the ability to gather sources, and that most contemporary knowledge comes from themselves.

There are various kinds of obscurantism, but they could be divided into two categories :

a) the élitist brand which limits knowledge to very specific categories of human activity, say philosophy, physical science, economics, history, medicine, politics, religion, exploration, etc. b) the populist brand, much more common, that says that all knowledge is an emanation from the people, at that everything which is not democratic, popular, collective, is presumably false.

So, one could argue that obscurantism is much more common than is generally thought. Any person or any collective who claims to be the guardian of truth, freedom, modernity, etc, could theoretically be accused of obscurantism. 69.157.239.231 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche wrote a few paragraphs to the effect of 'not all philosophy should be accessible to the masses' and so on. Vranak (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been branches of postmodern theory that have taken pride in their inability to be understood. Donna Haraway, though obviously brilliant at times, is known to be quite dismissive of the idea that clarity is a good idea. There are some (and I think I am not incorrect in counting Haraway among them) that believe that clarity serves certain masters more than others. (I disagree—but that's not really the issue, is it?) If I knew more about French philosophy I'd probably be inclined to throw Derrida and Deleuze into that lot (but not Foucault, who obviously took pains to be quite clear), but perhaps my feeling about them is colored by the fact that I think a good deal of what they say is nonsense wrapped in terminology. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Lacan wrote in a way that he felt related to the subconscious as much as to the conscious mind. His work is particularly impenetrable when translated due to his use of puns at key points, which only work in French. Roland Barthes' concept of the "writerly text" is also relevant. He celebrated kinds of writing that required effort on the part of the reader, the pay-off being "bliss" rather than just the "pleasure" of normal reading. The postmodernists can justify their obscurantism by citing these two as well as Derrida and Deleuze. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Standby Power wastage

The television when on standby consumes up to 10 watts doing absolutely nothing. So why isn't there a $1 million dollar X-Prize for inventing a standby mode which consumes less than 0.5 watt of power? 202.168.50.40 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Today's TVs probably consume less energy when turned off than "instant on" TVs of the 1960's which kept some voltage on the vacuum tubes and picture tube. The TV would need to store some info in nonvolatile memory to avoid the reprogramming some sets need when they are unplugged. Otherwise you could use a power strip to turn off the entire home entertainment center when it was not in use. If you feel of the little power adaptor or "wall wart" and it is warm, then it is wasting energy. Edison (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Already done... According to the manual, my 6 year old Sony (21" CRT) consumes 60 watts when on, and 0.5 watts when on standby. Leaving it on standby for a whole year would cost about £1. Astronaut (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The butter tray in the fridge at my place uses 36Watts constantly. I've cut the wire to it.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Darwin and Eugenics/Social Darwinism

Was Charles Darwin a proponent of either Eugenics or social Darwinism? --Begantruetwo (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

From our article on Social Darwinism: Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton's work, but thought the ideas of "hereditary improvement" impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, he was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the "principle of inheritance" and let people decide for themselves.--droptone (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(cross-posed at Science desk)

For a fairly complete approach, by a respected historian of heredity, you might look up this article: Diane B. Paul, "Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics", in Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick, eds. the Cambridge Companion to Darwin (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 214–239.

In short: Darwin was on the fence in both cases. He valued his cousin Francis Galton's work primarily because Galton established, as far as Darwin was concerned, that intelligence was as inheritable as stature and skin color. He believed that it was possible, as Galton claimed, that society could be breeding itself into inferiority, but he was not at all sure that society could or should do anything about that. He considered Galton's view of a state that could help regulate breeding as "utopian". Neither he nor Galton believed at all in anything that looked or sounded like even the coercive form of eugenics practiced in the United States, much less under National Socialism.

Darwin's intellectual priority was convincing people that evolution was plausible. He did this by looking for things in animals that he saw in man, as a way of bridging the gap. He was not interested in how human societies should organize themselves, not like Galton and Spencer were.

That being said, he didn't totally disown these ideas either. But eugenics was brand new and not totally formulated; social Darwinism was not yet a coherent set of principles (and certainly not under that name). Did he believe evolution applied to society? Yes, but he and everyone else just called it Darwinism at that point.

But in all things, the most salient aspect of Darwin is his fence-sitting. Read the sections on society in Descent of Man—he goes back and forth, is eugenics sensible, is it moral, does it make sense, over and over again, back and forth. (Origin of Species is written in much the same fashion, he circles around and around.) In the conclusion of that book he gets as close as he ever did to saying that perhaps the state should be keeping track of whether people marry their own cousins (he tried to get his friend Lubbock to pass a law that would mandate an investigation of this—and he himself always felt that his own children's sickly demeanors came from the fact that he had married his own cousin) and that people should give more attention to the heredity of their spouses than they usually did. But it is not very forceful, it is not the cry of what we would today consider a real eugenicist or social Darwinist. He did not denounce the ideas very strongly, but he did not support them very strongly either. They were not major forces on his agenda. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! that was very helpful. --Begantruetwo (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

Le Printemps

To Whom It May Concern,

Can you please help me identify this painting (http://www.dollsofindia.com/product/PH37)

What is the title? Who is the artist?

Hoping for your immediate reply.

Yours sincerely, Mr. Kim Richard V. Unidad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.46.3 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! That is "Le Printemps" (Spring) by the French painter Pierre Auguste Cot. --Taktser 04:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Might the painting have been the inspiration for the Cledus T. Judd song "Swingin'?" Edison (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Allied Aid to Soviet Russia in WW2

How important was the material aid given by the west to the Soviet war effort? There is some information on the kind of things supplied in your Lend Lease page, but what I really want to know is how exactly this-and that given by the British-affected the relative balance of forces on the battle fronts? Western aid used to be downplayed in subsequent official accounts of the Great Patriotic War, though I believe more information has come out since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Can you help? (Before I forget my deep thanks for some really excellent answers to my previous question, that on Karl Marx). Big Sally (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty critical. Essentially, the US provided the vehicles for the entire Soviet logistics tail. The Soviets made their own tanks (and a good thing, too: the T-34 was far superior to any early-war American tank), but the vast majority of the trucks and most train engines were American-built. --Carnildo (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The British and Americans invaded Persia (Iran) and established a supply corridor into the USSR through that country (the Persian Corridor). Polish troops, captured by the Russians in 1939, subsequently formed an army under General Anders, the Anders Army, and came out of southern Russia through Iran, being re-equipped and fighting alongside the British Eighth Army in North Africa and Italy. The British were also supplying the Russians through the infamous arctic convoys, of which the most famous was PQ-17. According to my dear wife, in one convoy the British packed dismantled tanks, turrets in one ship, chassis in another; inevitably, the first ship was sunk. HMS Edinburgh was sunk bringing back Russian gold in payment for the materiel.

Somewhere I've read of an encounter between allied troops and Russians, in which the Russians were boasting about their excellent trucks; the chap pointed out that they were, in fact, American-made, to which the rejoinder came that of course they weren't - they even had a great big white Soviet star painted on the bonnet. You might also be interested in bombing of the Tirpitz, one raid of which took place from a Russian aerodrome. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of the many-winged aircraft bicycle

There was a black and white film of a many-winged aircraft, the pilot rode it like a bicycle, but crashed soon after. Family Guy did a parody of this with Peter being the pilot and Stewie saying "You know, I vaguely recall seeing something exactly like this, which leads me to believe that it won't work." The plane then crashes beside the garage. However I forgot the name of this episode. I'm looking for the name of this "aircraft" or the inventor, maybe there is a wiki page for this and also the black and white film footage. Thanks a bunch! --Taktser 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See if you can find it here [5]--71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems to be this multiplane built in 1923 by W. Frederick Gerhardt called the "Cycloplane". This was parodied in the Family Guy episode "Blind Ambition". Although I still can't find the original video footage. But thanks for the link! --Taktser 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vatican - UFO conspiracy

In 2006, it was reported that a UFO was spotted over Saint-Peter's square. [6]

Now, for the first time, the Vatican has admitted that it used the Jesuits to spy over aliens, with Father Corrado Balducci leading the PR charge. [7] [8]

But get this, the UK government has just released it's own alien archives. [9] Apparently, more and more people believe in UFOs and conspiracies about abductions and landings are becoming very popular.

Within Ufology, what are the most up to date views on the nature of aliens ? Can they be evangelized ? Should we sign an alliance with them, or are they just playing friends with Rome ? 69.157.239.231 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't even know if these aliens believe in God! Adam Bishop (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The British government files you refer to date back to the period 1978-1987 [10] and as such can hardly be quoted as evidence that "more and more people believe in UFOs". And even if they did, the key point here is the one quoted by the government: "there is nothing to indicate that UFOlogy is anything but claptrap...the idea of an 'inter-governmental conspiracy of silence' is the most astonishing and the most flattering claim of all." End of story. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can they be evangelized? Wouldn't that be like the savages converting the missionaries? Seems more likely that they'll convert us to Zarquonism or whatever, by force if necessary. -- BenRG (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the least of the things they might convert us into. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So that explains Father O'Neil. I( never believed he was really Irish. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

UFO is not synonymous with 'alien spaceship', its simply an anagram for 'unidentified flying object', so yes, no doubt the Vatican and Her Majesty's Government believe that there are objects that fly and are unidentifyable - it would be irrational to see an unidentifyable object and insist open identifying it, as many UFOlogists do. The British Government's keeping of UFO files doesn't mean that they believe in alien visitations, its simply that when unidentified flying objects are found in your sky, its prudent to keep a record. Ninebucks (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yunaitedo Suteetsu

Why did Alaska and Hawaii become United States? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. See the opening paragraphs of our articles on Alaska and Hawaii.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Those paragraphs don't seem to explain why, which is what was asked. --LarryMac | Talk 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this at History of Alaska#Statehood and Territory of Hawaii#Statehood. Algebraist 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Restoration in Scotland

Hello again, reference desk. I'm doing some research on the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, particularly as it affected Scotland, but so far have not been able to find the detailed leads I was hoping for in your pages. I'm looking specifically for information on the political climate in the wake of the Restoration. Was there anything, for example, resembling a 'White Reaction' or the trials of the Regicides in England? What were the main areas of conflict in the 1660s and 1670s? Finally, to what degree, if any, did Scottish politics affect the center of political gravity, namely the court of King Charles in London? Some good up-to-date references on these matters would be a great help to me. This, incidentally, is not for class work (I teach) but for a paper I am writing for a history review. I've had great help here in the past with my questions on Scottish history from Clio the Muse and Gwinva, and I was hoping that they might be able, once again, to head me in the right direction. Many thanks. Hamish MacLean (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You honour me with your confidence, Hamish, but I must confess I have only a passing knowledge of that period of history. Clio, unfortunately for us all, has deserted us for greater things (but what can be greater than Wikipedia? we ask), which is a shame in this case particularly, since she is a bit of an expert in the politics of Charles II. However she, and others of great knowledge, have addressed similar issues before at the desks. The archives contain number of responses to Restoration questions, of which the following appear useful at first glance (but it's probably worth investigating them all; one might have just the lead you're looking for): [11] [12] [13] [14] :WP itself is sadly lacking. The English Restoration article is rather Anglo-centric (just marvel at the wonderful title, for a start!) and Charles II does not explore Scottish issues in any great depth. The Covenanter article looks more promising. Of course, the climate in Scotland was quite different to England, and not as simple at Parliamentarianists vs. Royalists. Various factions wrestled for power, over issues of religious freedom as well as issues or rule. Think of Montrose, who was the first to sign the Covenant, and was instrumental in ensuring its acceptance by Charles I; later, when the Covenanters became more interested in rule than preventing the enforcement of episcopalianism, Montrose led the royalists against the new-style Covenanters; after some years and various political developments, he was captured and executed by Argyll for treason: the same Argyll who later welcomed Charles II. The Scots had not been party to the regicide, and declared Charles II king following the execution of his father. Unfortunately, Argyll and the Covenanters did themselves no favours by their treatment of Charles, welcoming him but demanding his support for their cause, and instilling in him a distaste both for them and Scotland, which rebounded sadly later. On Charles's final restortation, Argyll was executed, Montrose's scattered body parts given a state funeral, and the "Killing Times" began: Charles sending in his heavies and bully boys to weed out the covenanters and shape the country anew.

That's the period you're looking at, but it all gets a bit complicated for me to regurgitate off the top of my head. Check out the key players: John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale and his right hand man John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes; Bloody Clavers aka Bonnie Dundee, and, ultimately, James VII who, as Duke of York, imposed his own ambitions on the face of Scotland, and through the Test Act (nope, that links only to English one) Test Act, tried to ensure his succession to the throne as a Catholic, thus throwing Catholicism into the protestant epsicopalian, and presbyterian mix. Also check out the key events: Drunken Parliament (hmm, red link, quick google, try [15] ), Pentland Rising, and probably others but I've run out of inspiration, and now wait for someone else to pick up the baton. (And make any corrections and clarifications required; as I said, my knowledge is not deep, and may have missed the point entirely.) Gwinva (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Locke and politics

How did John locke's philosophical views impact on his politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.84.12 (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

O Clio! If this one doesn't tempt you to descend... I should explain that John Locke was a close chum of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the 'Dorsetshire eel' himself, with whom our own Clio the Muse has lived for some years. Locke wrote Shaftesbury's epitaph - "a vigorous and indefatigable champion of civil and ecclesiastical liberty". But I shall say no more, in the hope... Xn4 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Inquisition

was the Spanish Inquisition as black as traditionally depicted? T e M Da (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition! --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying below Clio the Muse's answer to Tower Raven's question "How accurate is the traditional view of the Spanish Inquisition?" Xn4 13:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of interesting work on this subject, Tower Raven, and I would suggest, depending how deeply you want to go, that you have a look at H. Kamen's Inquisition and Society in Spain, one of the defining modern texts.

I suppose it's impossible to shift a myth once it takes on an independent life, and most people's understanding of the Inquisition will forever be mediated by the wonderful gothic excesses of stories like "The Pit and the Pendulum". But did you know that in the early seventeenth century the Inquisition introduced such a demanding standard of proof in accusations of witchcraft that brought burning for this crime to an end in Catholic Spain more than a century before the Protestant north? Yes, there were horrors attached to the Inquisition, particularly in the pursuit of religious uniformity in Spain; but the country did thereby avoid the equal and greater horrors that followed from the religious wars in France and Germany. After the excesses of the initial campaign against the Conversos, the Inquisition was transformed bit by bit into an arbiter of public morals more than anything else, a little like the rule of the Major Generals in Cromwellian England. As Kamen says "For most of its existence the Inquisition was far from being the juggernaut of death." For example, approximately 100 people were executed as suspected Protestants in the brief campaign against Lutheranism between 1559 and 1562. Contrast this with the 127 priests executed in England between 1570 and 1603. Yes, Catholic Spain was intolerant, but not more so than the rest of Europe at the time.

The Inquisition in Spain also had a unique relationship to the state, answerable to the crown, not to the Pope in Rome. As such it operated a little like a modern secret police force, always alert to the possibility of dissent. Yet, as Charles Petrie points out in his 1963 biography of Phillip II, it was "a very mild affair compared with the NKVD and the Gestapo." We all, I suppose, associate the Inquisition with the most grusome forms of torture. But it employed no unique methods, nothing that was not already in widespread use. Torture, moreover, was only used in a minority of cases, and only for the most serious offences. A doctor was always present on these occasions, and the process was such that no lasting physical damage ensued. Ugly, yes, but a standard better than that set by other practitioners of the art, both then and since. Clio the Muse 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

100 people executed over three years from 1559-1562 equals over 33 a year, while 127 executed over 33 years from 1570-1603 is less than 4 a year, so less severe by an entire order of magnitude. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Black Legend" seems to exist in order to disprove its subject, but the whitewash might be carefully examined. --Wetman (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As Clio points out, it might not have been as cruel as propagandists of the time and subsequent cultural memory has it, but the crucial difference between it and other countries was the unitary structure of church and state, and its unprecendented instrusiveness. From that point of view the Inquisition was indeed the first harbinger of modern totalitarian nightmares. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by "toadstool casserole"? (Not as in food)

What is meant by "toadstool casserole"? (Not as in food) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.78.50 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Googling the phrase brings Harry Potter references; is it from those books? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It also sounds to me rather like something from Harry Potter, but if what you're trying to understand isn't about food, then maybe it's referring to psilocybin mushrooms, that is, ones with psychedelic properties. Oddly enough, many toadstools (a term which isn't clearly distinct from mushrooms) are perfectly edible. I had a headmaster who knew a lot about the matter. I once heard him say "When I find one I'm not quite sure about, I feed it first to the school prefects, and then to my dog, and only after those precautions do I try it on my wife." Xn4 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The context of this question seems to be the phrase's use in a previous Ref desk question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Country of the Blind, Christopher Brookmyre describes criminals on the run disabling their pursuers with a brew made of mushrooms. SaundersW (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I probably have to plead guilty for using that phrase. I hadn't known/remembered it was in the book. The origin is that mushroom casserole is not detrimental to health, if however you happen to have (intentionally or unintentionally) mistaken toadstools for mushrooms the effects can be quite detrimental and not uncommonly lethal. Presumably the person consuming the dish won't have a way of knowing until it's too late. I assume in the original meaning any psychedelic side effects would have been as short lived as the target. I used it above to indicate that one way to impede British troops might be to foul their food-supply. (Also see "scorched earth".)71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

POWs, international law, internment/repatriation

Suppose is it WW2.

I think I am right in saying this:

• If an Allied Airman lands his aeroplane or bails out in neutral Switzerland, his plane is confiscated by the Swiss authorities, and he is held in an internment camp for the duration of the war. He may be able to escape and contact MI6 to bring him home, but if recaught by the Swiss they put him back in the camp.
• If an Allied Airman lands his plane or bails out in Nazi-occupied Europe, he is taken prisoner of war and taken to a POW camp. Suppose he escapes and makes it to Switzerland. He is then repatriated by the Swiss.

This does not seem to me to be consistent.

What articles of the Geneva Convention cover this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiddly pop (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know much about it, but the article Switzerland during the World Wars mentions that "104,000 [foreign soldiers were] held according to the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers outlined in the Hague Conventions." Probably the text you want is Hague V, (Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land) Chapter II, articles 11 and 13:

• Art. 11. A neutral Power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war. [16]
• Art. 13. A neutral Power which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty. If it allows them to remain in its territory it may assign them a place of residence. [17]

-- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The basic idea is that soldiers participating in military activities inside a neutral country endanger that nation's neutrality, and, as such, are arrested by that country. Soldiers who are no longer combatants, like escaped POWs, do not threaten neutrality, so are not arrested. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

renewable and non-renewable natural resources of Canada

Which natural resources are renewable and which natural resources are non-renewable. Your articles doesn't list which natural resources are renewable and non-renewable. I know hydropower is renewable but the rest I don't know. These natural resources i am talking about are in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at our articles on Renewable resources and Nonrenewable resources, you will find some fairly clear definitions and examples with which you can make sense of the information you have for Canada. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Economics: Government Deficit, Output &

Ok, some simple macroeconomics, but I can't figure this question out.

Take a graph with on the vertical axis inflation, and on the horizontal axis output Y. In a simplified model, graph aggregate demand as a straight line with a negative slope. The model is in long term equilibrium with AS as a straight vertical line at Y = Y*.

Question: assume the government runs a budget deficit. What are the long term effects of this, and show your answer in the graph.

This is quite a lot more simplified than what I usually do, but this introductory question of a larger chapter has me pinned down. My answer would be 'nothing, because it's in long term equilibrium'.

User:Krator (t c) 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do they assume the government is going to print money?--71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure the y-axis is inflation? I've encountered price on the y-axis in these circumstances. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if the y-axis is price then consider the following:

• What is your assumption regarding short run aggregate supply? It looks like you may assume that the economy is in short run equillibrium as well.
• If there's a budget deficit, then the government essentially puts more money back into the economy (via spending (G)) than it takes out (via taxes). How will this affect aggregate demand?
• What will this do to short run equillibrium (i.e. price and output)?
• Does the new output imply a recession or an expansion? How does that impact the supply of labour?
• How will the new labour supply affect short run aggregate supply?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's how far I came as well, but my answer to these questions, particularly the second, would be "nothing". Running a deficit doesn't affect aggregate demand because the economy is in long term equilibrium; all 'extra' money put in there is drawn from the savings. This would increase inflation (yes, it was inflation on y) as opposed to a situation without deficit, but that comparison is not made here, it's simply, given a deficit, does anything change? User:Krator (t c) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See this: Aggregate demand#Two Concepts of the "Aggregate Demand Curve"#Aggregate Demand-Aggregate Supply model. Not the best article but it should explain things to you.

Government spending is a component of AD. If it increases then so will AD. Running a deficit does affect AD.

In the short term, this will result in a increase in the price level and (real) output which implies that we're now in a temporary expansion. If you assume that the labour market adjusts quickly, then there will be a decrease in short run AS (assuming short run AS responds quickly to changes in the labour market). Draw the graphs and see that the net effect on the long run equillibrium will be increased prices and unchanged real output.

Not sure what you mean by "all extra money put in there".

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Iron Guard

Was the Romanian Iron Guard influenced more by the Italian Fascists or the German Nazis?86.153.161.144 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

you might want to read Fascism: Comparison and Definition, 1980 by Stanley G. Payne.--Tresckow (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And see Iron Guard. Strawless (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Brown as PM

Hello. Gordon Brown was a good second in command but is proving to be a bad prime minister. Is there any reason for this? Does it prove that one leading position in public life does not readily translate into another, or is it simply that circumstances have changed to Brown's disadvantage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDBM&T (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't prove anything since it's subjective anecdotal evidence. To find cause and effect, it is best to conduct an experiment with controlled variables. --Mark PEA (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can even agree that Brown was 'second in command'. If you mean he was a competent Chancellor of the Exchequer, then there's little doubt that he was. Managing a nation's taxes and spending requires many skills, but, as you suggest, those are different from the skills needed in managing a party and a country. I could mention the words of T. E. Lawrence, writing to The Times in July 1920: "...the art of government wants more character than brains". Xn4 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is partially to do with Brown taking over at a time that many of New Labour's problems have come back to haunt them, at a time of a downturn in the economic outlook, and at a time when the governemnt (after 10 years of rule) are facing a more resurgent opposition. Add in that he does lack the charisma that you got with Blair, negative sentiment from much of the press, and a charismatic leader of the opposition in David Cameron and you have a recipe that makes an already tired-government look positively dead on their feet at times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Controlled experiments are good for investigating many things, but this example isn't one of them - it would be highly unethical to impose a leader on a nation just to satisfy a researcher's curiosity. To find out if seconds-in-command go on to make good or poor leaders, you would have to assemble a large number of examples and then analyse them as impartially as possible. This would be an observational study. It would be a good idea to restrict your study to examples in the past, so that you would have the advantage of hindsight. The consensus assessment of a leader's quality often takes many years to emerge. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said it would be a good/practical idea or ethical, but it is the best known way of finding out these things. Obviously there are limitations, which is why most people just speculate on these kind of things, with extremely limited evidence. --Mark PEA (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Peter Principle at work, perhaps? Rhinoracer (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Was he a good second-in-command, and is he proving to be a bad Prime Minister? If we accept the question as you have posed it, with its suppositions, the answer is probably due to the mismanagement of the economy; since 2000, for example, he has simply poured money into unreformed public services, primarily the NHS, whilst starving the armed forces (it seems increasingly unlikely that the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers will ever be built, and the Royal Navy currently operates its existing aircraft carriers without any Sea Harrier aircraft). But I suspect that you know the answer to your own question anyway! --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Difference between Total Population and Admin. Population

Good afternoon,

I saw two different figures for the population of a council I was interested in and I can`t find out the difference between Total Population and Admin. Population.

Thanks for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.24.88 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't specify, but my guess is that you are asking about English counties. The Local Government Commission for England (1992) and earlier administrative reorganizations split the traditional or ceremonial counties of England into a variety of asymmetrical units. (See Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England and Ceremonial counties of England.) For example, the unitary authority of Medway is now administratively separate from Kent, the county to which it traditionally and until recently belonged. Our articles on English counties that are both ceremonial and administrative counties give the populations both for their ceremonial area (including urban districts or boroughs and unitary authorities that are no longer part of the administrative county) and for the area of the administrative county alone. The "Government" section of the article on each county should specify which parts of the ceremonial (traditional) county are part of the administrative county and which are not. Marco polo (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you say you are looking for the population of a "council", you are probably looking for the population of the area administered by the council, or the administrative population. Marco polo (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you email National Statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk), they will give you a full answer to your query. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fronde

Was the French Fronde influenced at all by the rising against Charles the first in England at the time? Arthur James (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. The Fronde is more like a continuation of the nobles' rebellion embodied in the French Wars of Religion, without that Protestant component. The radical Protestant element in the English Civil War was distasteful to the Frondeurs, who sought to control and direct the monarchy, not eliminate it. --Wetman (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And see Fronde. Strawless (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

List of states that remained independent throughout European colonization

I want to create a new article. Can you help me with the list?

Liberia, Abyssinia, Haiti (out of place?), Qajar, Ottoman, the predecessors of Saudi Arabia, Qing, Japan, Afghanistan (independent enough?)

Can you guys also help me decide the organization for such a list? (What counts and what doesn't)

Lotsofissues 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The greatest problem with this suggested article is probably that the meaning of 'independence' is so vague, but 'European colonization' is also pretty vague (the Greeks, the Romans, the Normans, the Russians, and so forth, were all Europeans), and so is is the question of what is a 'state'. Haiti is certainly out of place in any such list, as its predecessor Saint-Domingue was under French colonial control for more than a hundred years. By Ottoman, you no doubt mean the Ottoman Empire, which throughout its history was often at war with various European powers, but during its long decline parts of it (such as Egypt) had an equivocal status. Arabia, for much of the period you may have in mind, wasn't in any sense independent, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. By Qing, I take it you mean China, which also gets you into deep waters. Afghanistan... take a look at European influence in Afghanistan. "What counts and what doesn't?" - That's exactly your problem, and there isn't a definitive answer to it. Xn4 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Xn4's misgivings are all quite valid, but if there is to be such a list, Thailand deserves mention as much as some of the other countries. Marco polo (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So I suppose I'll just dump these wikilinks into an article and watch the wikiprocess refine it over time? That would be cool. Lotsofissues 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the states that you listed were themselves colonisers, only they weren't based on the European continent. --Taktser 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Most likely lifecycle: long periods of disinterest interspersed with bouts of definition stress and anxiety, before a successful AfD on the grounds of OR. (And would you please fix your signature. I think you well know it is policy that sigs contain a link to the user or talk page of the poster. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What is "throughout"? And "independent of whom"? You mention the Qing, but what about the Ming? Were they colonisers because they sent fleets to subjugate Somalia? Were they colonised when they were conquered by the Manchus? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethiopia.--droptone (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make a list of countries, please use the names of the countries, not the dynasties that ruled them. For example, Persia rather than Qajar, and China rather than Qing. And, as Tagishsimon suggests, you should find sources to back up the inclusion of each country in the list. Marco polo (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys: Don't tell me my question is problematic. I know it is. That's why I asked the question! Instead help me figure out a usable title. I can't imagine this article being tossed for OR. Considering the amount of scholarly material written about European colonization, do you think no one has noted the states that remained independent? Lotsofissues 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As to title, List of non-Western sovereign states during the New Imperialism, i.e. "List of non-Western sovereign states during the New Imperialism (height of European domination)".--Pharos (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Lotsofissues 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Were they colonisers because they sent fleets to subjugate Somalia?" If there isn't an article I encourage you to write one. I love historical events that show improbable contact between distant peoples. Lotsofissues 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Um. Thailand? Can't believe nobody mentioned it. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the countries mentioned (Abyssinia, Saudi Arabia) were sometimes independent in name only ("informal empire"), and with the case of Abyssinia were successfully invaded but were decided by the imperial power (Britain) not to be annexed (but could have been if they had wanted to).--Johnbull (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How was Abyssinia conquered by the UK? Lotsofissues 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See: Tewodros II of Ethiopia#His reign. If you wanted to do something useful you could add these details back into the Abyssinia article! Also see, possibly, the novel 'Flashman on the March'! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

War finished on time

When was the last time a war was over by the time any surviving government involved had initially predicted? Has it ever happened for the United States? NeonMerlin 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course this has happened to the United States. To give the first example that comes to mind, the Gulf War ended in total victory after six weeks. Algebraist 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Huh? Six weeks, eh? My, how time flies!) I think the ending of wars may be a little like being "within budget"; everything hinges on how the terms are defined. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gulf War article says 2 Aug '90 - 30 Nov '95. That's almost five and a half years. The 2003 invasion of Iraq did last about 6 weeks, but five years later soldiers are still dying there almost every day. Astronaut (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the article says "Date: August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991 (officially ended November 30, 1995)" (although I suppose it could have been changed since the above was written). So the 1995 date refers to the date when peace was declared or agreed to or something, like dating the end of World War I as 1919 (and later for the US) instead of 1918. And the US attacks against Iraq did not begin until January 17, 1991. So there is reasonable justification for the "six weeks" statement as regards the US, but it depends on what you count. --Anonymous, 03:57 UTC, May 15, 2008.

We still have military members dying in Germany, Italy, Japan... Of course, they mostly die in alcohol-related accidents, but they are still dying. Perhaps the solution is to completely do away with the military, bring all citizens back into the United States, and build a huge glass dome around the country to nobody can get out and die in some other country. -- kainaw™ 03:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no insurgency against the US military mission in Germany, Italy, Japan... With the ongoing insurgency in Iraq, you can hardly say the Iraq War is over. I think your glass dome idea is unworkable, but bringing the troops home would be a good start. Anyway, what I was trying to say was I couldn't find evidence to support Algebraist's claim that the Gulf War was over in 6 weeks - over as in the time between war being declared and peace being declared again. But like Anonymous says, it depends on what you count.

The coalition attacked on January 17; the fighting ended on February 28. U.S. troops started heading home on March 10 - it is all in the Gulf War article. Rmhermen (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to the OP's question... I strongly suspect that no war has ever gone exactly to plan. For example, WWI wasn't "over by Christmas", I'm sure neither side planned for 2 years of pointless stalemate in the Korean War, and I think everyone was surprised at the speed of Israel's victory in the Six-Day War.

Astronaut (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

About the last sentence, no. When war seemed imminent, the CIA gave Johnson an estimate of one week for complete Israeli victory, and were proud of its accuracy after the war.John Z (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if FDR or Harry Truman ever made any statements as to how long the war with Japan would last, but I know most people not involved in the A-bomb program thought it would go far beyond August 1945. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not actually true to my knowledge—most people were anticipating the war's end quite near to when it actually did end. The question was not whether it would drag on, but what terms on which it would end, and what the final strokes would be. Even before the bomb there was quite a panic domestically about the economic effects the impending peace was going to bring, when suddenly all of those GIs returned. And from another point of view, there was an intense worry on the part of the Manhattan Project participants that they would not be able to finish the bombs in time for actual use during the war. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Before the US knew that the atomic bomb would be usable against Japan, the estimates for when Japan would finally be defeated extended up to the 1950's. If you look at all the aircraft carrier orders that were cancelled by the US in 1945 and subsequent years, you can tell the US was planning on gearing up it's military for a massive and long campaign against Japan. StuRat (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

May 15

Madonna Video With Hot Sweaty Modernist Industrial Men As Cogs / Gears In Factory Setting...

I know this won't take long to find out, but I cannot for the life of me remember the song/video. I was talking about Diego Rivera's Detroit Murals and Chaplin's "Modern Times" today / the body and the factory, and couldn't for the life of me remember the name of the Madonna video that plays with those themes! Thanks in advance. Saudade7 03:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Express Yourself. --Definitely anonymous, 04:00 UTC, May 15.

Thank you so much anonymous person with Madonna information!!Saudade7 04:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Medieval painting identifications

women warriors

Charlemagne & Pope Adrian

Anyone know the source or artists for either of these paintings/illustrations? Currently illustrating Horses in the Middle Ages, and I would like to identify artists in the caption. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For the women: A woman with a sword from a medieval manuscript[18]; and for the other,

Pope Adrian Asks for Charlemagne's Help or Plea for Assistance here[19] with the notes, When Charlemagne's brother Carloman died in 771, his widow took her sons to Lombardy. The King of the Lombards attempted to get Pope Adrian I to anoint Carloman's sons as kings of the Franks. Resisting this pressure, Adrian turned to Charlemagne for help. Here he is depicted asking for aid from the king at a meeting near Rome.

Charlemagne did indeed help the pope, invading Lombardy, besieging the capital city of Pavia, and eventually defeating the Lombard king and claiming that title for himself. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't help identify the original source (indeed, the first one is from a copy of our own history of women in the military). The Charlemagne one looks like it is from the Grandes Chroniques de France, but I must admit, that's my answer for everything... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Charlemagne & Pope Adrian is hosted at Wikipedia Commons where the final note reads "Source: Archivo Iconografico, S.A./CORBIS-BETTMANN". After Googling "Corbis-Bettman" I still can't tell if that is an artist's name, the name of a company that owns image collections, or both. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's an image archive, not an artist. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually two credits there: Archivo Iconografico, S.A. and Corbis-Bettmann. I think Archivo Iconografico are the agents for the Bettmann Archive (part of Corbis) in some other country - Spain? Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Racists in relationships with people of colour

Are there any documented cases of prominent white racists/supremacists being exposed as having had sexual relationships with people of colour? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting question! The only case I can think of off the top of head is the case of Essie Mae Washington-Williams. Washington-Williams was the illegitimate child of former US Senator Strom Thurmond and a black domestic employee in his household. This all came out after Sen. Thurmond died and was a big story for a week. See the articles linked for more details. BTW, this seems to be the first time I've been the first user to answer a Reference Desk question! - Thanks, Hoshie 09:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also from watching Roots certainly it suggests that the then slave-owners would often use the female slaves. No idea how true roots is, but it was an extremely interesting piece of tv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe Thomas Jefferson had children with one of his slaves (not that that makes him a racist). Plus there's also Clayton Bigsby. - Akamad (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the skin tone of the average west African to that of the average African American suggests that it was very common. --Sean 13:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is well known that there has long been intermixture between whites and Blacks in the United States (and, as a general rule, there is always a lot of intermixture between any races that live in close proximity). To me that doesn't really get at the question, and I'm not sure I'd call the rape of slaves (when even in cases of presumed "consent" cannot, in that sort of power structure, be considered wholly voluntary) just a "sexual relationship." It is also well known that white slaveowners often purposefully impregnated female slaves in order to make more property. Let us not pretend this was a wonderful crossing of prejudice, even in the case of national heros. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that comes down to whether you include ongoing non-consensual sexual interaction in the range of things that "sexual relationship" covers. I personally do, as I think it would be misleading to say that Jefferson did not have a sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings, or that this Fritzl fellow didn't have a sexual relationship with his daughter. --Sean 18:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The BNP candidate for the most recent London Mayrol elections was discovered as having sex with a woman from Poland or some such. As the BNP is in favour of paying them to go home it has been seen as hypocrital and just futher proof of how twisted the BNP are. Quidom (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an account I've lost of an Australian pastoralist having sex with an aboriginal servant and the servant's consequent child who turned out to be related to an Aboriginal author but can't find his name and there's no detail in her brief article, Sally Morgan. I think it was a double-barrelled surname. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

annales history

what on earth is it about? so confused.

It is a saying isn't it? I.e. "the annales of history" - as in historic records about history, rather than anything in particular it is just a reference to what history will say (perhaps in the future) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We often hear "That will go down in the annals of history", or words to the same effect, and it's a cliché used for underlining the significance of some event. You're asking about the origin of the expression, which is that annals were an early form of history (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a good example), in which the important events of each year were listed, the events the chroniclers thought posterity should know about. Xn4 11:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps they are referencing the Annales School of history. They use social scientific methods when looking at history, favoring such variables over the usual argument-by-example style of other historians. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I always thought this was "the anus of history", which, in hindsight, ... But I may be wrong. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Or the anneals of history? which it seems to be in many countries at the moment. Don't be confused by this play with words, 194.221, it's just chit chat to get us thinking, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The British economy since 1997

Listening to the Today show on Radio 4 today, Gordon Brown said that over the last 10 years we have decreased debt from 44% of GDP to 38%. Considering that the economy has grown enormously over those 10 years, is that an actual reduction in debt or an increase? Or am I misunderstanding the economics at work? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that it is a % of GDP then as the economy grows so will our GDP, so the % which it takes up will fluctuate as both the amount of debt, and its size in relation to the size of the economy will. At least that's my understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In absolute terms (to answer your question) there's been a whopping increase. To be fair to Brown, though, the debt to GDP ratio is a standard measure of national debt: for instance, it's used in fixing the national debt criterion for the admission of a new country to the Euro and also in our very own list of countries by public debt - a list unsurprisingly headed by Zimbabwe, with an estimated debt to GDP ratio in 2007 of 190 per cent. A fall in the UK figure would be happier than an increase in it, which one suspects most British governments have achieved, but I see there's a mismatch between the figure attributed to Brown (38 per cent) and the figure in our own list (43 per cent, barely a reduction).

Compare this picture, though, with Norway, where over the same period the income from North Sea Oil has been used to pay off a large slice of the national debt. Xn4 11:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK. So basically for a government the prioity isn't neccessarily reducing the debt, but keeping the debt in line with growth/fall in GDP? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's rather too generous. Most of the time, at least in the free world, a government's first priority is keeping enough people happy to win the next general election. If spending is more than revenue, which it usually is, then the national debt goes up. People notice the national debt an awful lot less than they notice the level of taxation, but all debt has a real cost. Xn4 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A weird thought : "Vegetarians kill plants".

Very recently we were having a "debate" as to why vegetarianism should be promoted. One of the participants suddenly said that even vegetarians kill plants to eat. Well is that a worthy comment ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.10.86 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would depend on whether plants feel pain or not. I would say it was unlikely that they do, but who knows? As Douglas Adams (I think it was) once said, some people might go around saying "some of my best friends are pebbles". Where do you draw the line? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people do draw the line at killing or harming living organisms. See, for example, the articles on fruitarianism and ahimsa. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a worthy comment if you consider killing plants to be morally or ethically equivalent to killing animals, but I don't think people really feel that to be true on the whole. In my opinion it would depend on both the animal and the plant to make that particular comment; I don't think there are too many people who would think that killing krill is the moral equivalent to killing a dog or a pig (much less a human), whereas I think killing an old-growth redwood tree, an organism many hundreds of years old, might be seen as considerably worse than killing many small prey animals.

In any case, it's pretty clear that plants don't suffer when you eat them. They have no nervous systems. Most of the ones we eat have actually evolved to be eaten, by something, as a way of spreading their seeds to the next generation. This cannot be said of any animal I can think of (with the exception of parasites). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A small number of vegetarians will not eat any vegetable which requires the killing of a plant. Picking an apple doesn't kill the apple tree; neither does picking an ear of corn or a pea pod. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. But in any case, such an argument isn't an argument against vegetarianism, which is sort of what the poster is implying (if killing plants is required for vegetarianism, then you might as well eat meat... which doesn't at all follow). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Do people really think it matters whether or not the thing being eaten felt pain? This would seem to allow eating animals if you knew that they were killed quickly and painlessly, and I don't know any vegetarians who do that. I suspect for most people it's not an ethical or moral concern, but rather a simple visceral "ick" factor. Killing a pig is ickier than killing a plant because pigs are sort of like us. They squeal and bleed. The simple fact is, for a lot of organisms, living means you have to kill other things to eat them. There are exceptions, of course, but for a great many life forms, there is no getting around it. And even if you're eating some fruit without killing the plant it came from, you still (sometimes) killed the fruit and prevented it from growing into a new plant. Even if you could choose foods that involve the least killing possible, your body is still killing other organisms inside it all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not icky because we can't see it, but intellectually we should understand that it's still going on. If you're alive, you have blood on your hands. That's life. Friday (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the argument for vegetarianism is that they will have no blood on their hands, but less. (Along with other arguments in favor of it relating to use of resources, etc.) And technically plants don't have blood to get on one's hands. ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Breatharianism.--Goon Noot (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Plants not having a nervous system only proves that they don't feel pain the way we do. But if there is a threat that a plant can do something about then it makes sense for the plant to feel some sort of pain, or whatever you want to call it, a negative sensation that needs to be dealt with. Now a plant can't do anything about being cut down by animals, but it can do something about, say, polluted ground, namely grow the roots in the direction where the pollution is smallest. Actually, this is the only example I can think of, but it sounds valid nevertheless. The only other example I can think of is that plants probably like sunbathing. :) In other words, they seek out the sunny spots. Btw, this is similar to the real problem with eating meat. It's not the killing that is a problem, it's the way the animals are kept when they are alive. With plants, however, it seems rather difficult to establish what gives them 'pain'. Maybe too much fertiliser gives them growing pains? :)

Btw, this makes me think of another question: Do the pro-life followers eat? Amrad (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all of you for your insightful comments - Nikhil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.10.86 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You could also take a look at Atwood's The Edible Woman for a fictional view on, among other things, the pain of vegetables about to be consumed. ៛ Bielle (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Banking services as a component of GDP

Since banks provide a service, it seems that loans and savings should increase the GDP. Is there a straightforward way to calculate the component of GDP due to banking services? For a loan, for example, it would be something like the difference between the PDV of the loan and its cost. --MagneticFlux (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Country or government without debt

Is there and has there been a country/government without debt. Is there any benefit from having a national debt other than having more money to spend at the time it is incurred. (I assume "tax break" does not apply :-) --Lisa4edit (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of countries have, at times, ran a surplus and had no debt. The benefit is obviously that their debt is not adding interest, and that they can loan-out to other nations with their surplus/build up wealth for major national spending etc. Well managed-debt is perfectly normal practice and is beneficial because it can provide instant-income, long-term management of resources and can help smooth out peaks and troughs of economic growth/performanc.e I think Norway & Sweden have both ran surplusses and had no debt in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought Monaco would be a good guess, and even found at least one link saying it had none, but the CIA Factobook entry says they do have. I'm guessing the CIA is more reliable than EpicTrip.com. NB for the IP above, having a budget surplus in any given year does not necessarily translate to having no debt; it really depends on how the terms are defined. --LarryMac | Talk 14:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Debt enables a country's central bank to conduct open market operations to manage the money supply. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Debt also allows the costs of major infrastructure to be spread out over multiple years, and, in theory , to be paid for from the economic growth that the infrastructure enables. Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It also provides a long-term low-risk investment for investors with long-term liabilities and with low risk appetites (such as life insurers and pension funds). - Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It must be noted that all these things - finance major infrastructure, bonds or open market operations - can achieved without incurring in debt. A budget surplus doesn't block the government of acting. I personally believe that debt is normally only the result of bad goverment. GoingOnTracks (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I kinda disagree with that. Consider, for example, issuing bonds (thus incurring debt) that cost (say) a million dollars in interest, but allow infrastructure development that generate a million and a half dollars in societal value. It would be bad government not to take advantage of the leverage being a government provides. But we're in opinion mode now. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant all these things can be done without a negative balance. If you issue bonds your are issuing a debt instrument, it does mean that you are indebted, but the governement doesn't need a negative balance for that. It depends in how you define being in debt. GoingOnTracks (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

GoingOnTracks, realistically, what sort of investment would you propose the government hold so that its assets would outweigh its debt? (Hint: don't say equity in private business or precious metals.) Also, what would you propose the Federal Reserve buy and sell to adjust the money supply? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What sort of investment? Oil fields?

Second question: The Federal Reserve can change the money supply with a open market operations, making changes in the reserve ratio, and making changes in the discount rate. Of the three policies the open market is the most common, but not the only one. GoingOnTracks (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The first answer which springs to my mind is Liechtenstein, which has the inverse of a national debt. Its government has to decide (in the words of P. G. Wodehouse) "whether to put the money in the bank or keep it in barrels and roll in it". Xn4 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Who was it who said "A public debt is a public blessing"? Thomas Jefferson? You might have a look at our article on John Maynard Keynes, whose advocacy of government 'pump-priming' a stalled economy would argue in favor of a national debt as an important stimulus. Rhinoracer (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister's Questions - No. 5

I listen to the Guardian podcast of PMQs every week. I know that "Number One, Mr Speaker" is the formula for asking Brown to list his engagements. Occasionally, tho, I've heard someone ask "Number Five", and Brown has answered as if it been a previously submitted question. Does anyone know what exactly "Number Five" means, and any other such codes in PMQs. Thanks, William Quill (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, anyone who wants to ask a question has to submit it some time in advance, and anyone who does ask a question gets a supplementary question after the PM has answered. Some MPs want to be able to ask a question about events or developments that took place after the closing date for submitting questions, or want to surprise the PM by asking him a question he hasn't prepared an answer to, so they submit a "dummy" question about the PM's engagements, and then ask their real question as their supplementary question after the PM has referred them to the reply he gave some moments ago. The numbers are just the running order of questions, I think. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. William Quill (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gambling debts

Why is Charles Barkley in trouble if gambling debts are unenforceable? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the laws of Nevada, such actions are evidently possible. There was a similar claim against Marshall Sylver. Xn4 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are debts to a legally operating casino. Why would they be unenforcable? Rmhermen (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, each of the United States has its own laws on the regulation (or prohibition) of gambling, and in many US states gambling debts aren't enforceable. Indeed, unlawful gambling is a Federal crime, when operated as a business. This whole area of gambling debt is a minefield. For some interesting cases, see Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States and Zarin v. Commissioner. Xn4 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles on those two cases suggest they are about the tax status of debts and say nothing about the legality of gambling debts themselves. Some states may say gambling debts are unenforceable, but those laws wouldn't apply to debts accrued in Nevada or New Jersey in legal casinos. It would defy plausibility if a major corporation like Wynn Resorts would extend $400,000 in credit to an individual without the legal right to recover the debt in court. --D. Monack | talk 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Book on geometry in Islamic art

I recently saw a show that detailed the (re)construction of a minbar. The show was in place to document the event because it had been part of the Prince's Charities, which any UK'er should know relatively well. Now then, the architect behind the minbar cited a book written by an Englishman. In fact, this book was where he was supposed to have discovered many of the secrets to the original construction. What I wish to know is what the book was, and who the author was. Would anyone happen to know? Thank you greatly for your time and help. Scaller (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

May 16

Greek Theatre

Hi. I'm looking for some information about Greek Theatre or to be more to the point information about the drama festival and their religious nature. If you could point me towards a website with some useful information or even provide the infomation yourself that would be very helpful. Any other information about Greek Theatre will also be greatfuly accepted

Many thanks POKEMON RULES (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancient or modern? If ancient, then Theatre of ancient Greece is the best place to start (well...on Wikipedia anyway). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Did Carl Stephenson (Leiningen vs the Ants) actually exist?

Did Carl Stephenson (author), the author of Leiningen Versus the Ants actually exist? Our article has no references, only birth and death dates. These are actually different from imdb, which gives in [20] the dates 1886--1954, not 1893--1954. He is called a German here, but was the short story actually written in German? It seems it has only appeared in English, originally in the December 1938 Esquire (magazine), which seems a bit odd for a short story written by a supposed lifelong German during the Nazi era. And surely "Karl" would be the more likely German spelling for his name. But we don't actually have any reference as to him being German, so that could be pure fabrication.

The other suspicious element is that we only have the word of his agent that he would not publish anything else during his lifetime. I remember reading something like that in my school years, in our literature textbook, at the time I thought since he had not published anything else this meant he was still alive! Not so if the 1954 death date holds. I was a fairly observant child and so I suppose that date was not known to the authors of the textbook, suggesting it may be pure fabrication as well.

I find it so weird that this story is so widely read and the only thing known about the author is this strange statement by his agent. All of this makes me strongly suspect that Carl Stephenson was not a real person, but actually just a one-off pen-name. Is there any actual evidence to the contrary? We could perhaps support this by doing some detective work to figure out who the real author may be. The best way to go about that would be to find the original Esquire issue and compare this work to other authors who published there about that time, and particularly authors appearing in that very issue. (Apparently Ernest Hemingway's short story "The Butterfly and the Tank" first appeared in that issue. Wouldn't it be strange if Carl Stephenson was actually Ernest Hemingway?) If the story was not too out of character for its real author, the use of a pen-name may be just a decision to increase the apparent number of contributing authors, and some statistical word count may give hints to actual authorship.

Let me organize these thoughts in the following list of questions:

1. Did Carl Stephenson (author) actually exist?
2. Where did the birth/death dates come from?
3. Why is he called a German?
4. Do we know anything else about him? Any other stories attributed to him?
5. If "Carl Stephenson" is just a pen-name, who might he be?

Thanks, -- Kevin Saff (68.146.220.249 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

P.S. Aha, note too that Stephenson's death is listed as 1954, the same year as the release of the film The Naked Jungle based on his story. That seems like an all too convenient excuse for Stephenson to be unavailable for interviews at the time. Or am I just reading way too much into all this? KS (68.146.220.249 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

de.wiki seems more convinced that he existed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

he even wrote a sequel to the story: Sendboten der Hölle. Leiningens Kampf mit der Wildnis--Tresckow (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Intriguing. I recall listening to the broadcast on LP in the mid-1970s. I'm starting to feel old. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's no fun, you guys shot down all my conspiracy theories :) But I think there are still some questions left, like who translated the story? And if I interpret the German page correctly, it seems he did publish some other stuff during his lifetime (although still surprisingly little) despite the agent's statements. KS (68.146.220.249 (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

It's possible imdb has a different Carl Stephenson in mind. My library has a few books by Carl Stephenson (1886-1954), but they're all on English medieval history. Algebraist 09:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright question

On the internet there's lots of pictures people send around like image macros, lolcats, and the joke motivational posters. Now in theory everything is supposed to by copyrighted. But if the image isn't watermarked, signed by the artist, noted as coming from a website and also the source is unknown, and I make a website full of those things can I still be sued if someone claims to be the original artist? Of course sometimes these images do take bits from copyrighted sources and then mixed them with content the creator of the image makes, but even if that's not the case then? William Ortiz (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You could be, but it is most unlikely that you would be. The normal procedure would be that you'd be invited to take down the offending image, and that would be an end to the matter. I think - but we do not give legal advice - that the copyright owner would have to prove an economic loss to make a financial claim on you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong on two important points: 1. they don't have to have suffered a real economic loss to have a case, and 2. take-down notices are served to ISPs, not to individual users. The safe-harbor clause of the DMCA is meant for sites that allow users to post data, so, for example, Wikipedia is not immediately sued if one of its users posts something infringing. Does that mean that you as an individual could be sued? I'm not sure, but it looks that way to me. And of course here we are only talking about the USA. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you in the USA, or any country which is a party to the Bern convention? If so, then be warned that images do NOT need to contain watermarks, signatures, notes, whatever, to be copyrighted. You should assume any image you find on the internet is copyrighted unless being told explicitly otherwise by the creator. Could you be sued? It's possible that your ISP could be served a takedown notice and shut down your site. It's also possible that you as an individual could be sued. Would you win or lose the case? That depends on a whole lot of particularities relating to whether or not your use of it constitutes the legal definition of "fair use", which is incredibly legally murky. Is it likely to happen? Well, judge for yourself. The internet is full of copyright infringements. Which ones end up getting taken down? The ones that 1. cost people money, and 2. step on the toes of extremely touchy clients (Scientologists, the Muppets, etc.). Does that mean the others are legally safe? No. Does it mean it should keep you up at night? It's your butt. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do live in the USA. One thing though that makes me wonder is let's say someone takes a funny picture and then puts funny text, sends the picture out of a bit and now it's on 2000 websites so it's hard to actually prove who originally took the picture. Of course my site wouldn't be user-editable so I couldn't hide behind DMCA. William Ortiz (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for you to prove who took the picture. It wouldn't be hard for the author of the picture to prove it (in court)—they probably have the original negative. --140.247.10.1 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Times have changed. What's a negative? --Anon, 21:56 UTC, May 16, 2008.

Need to know who painted this

Alright, well, I'm doing a little project on art history about cubism and related styles, and this painting is my example: http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4126/dsc02166ix4.jpg Here's the dilemma: I can't for the life of me figure out who painted this. Does anyone recognize it? Locke-talk|contribs 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but it looks remarkably Russian. Also, you are not faced with a dilemma on this. :) 213.161.190.228 (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that the work of Francis Bacon - the brushwork looks like something he might have done? Astronaut (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I would place my honour that it isn't Bacon. If it isn't kitsch, it's cubist in style and era, likely to be dated around 1908-1920. The focus on portraiture is one we recognize from Picasso in particular, and quite a few of his works in cubism are not far from this - but the style isn't quite his. One might feel compelled to testify to the impressionistic trend of the brush, but I can't think of any skilled impressionist that wouldn't have included light in a much wider scale. It's evident that the picture can't date before 1900. Anything later than 1950 and we'll end up calling it kitsch. Scaller (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

similarites and differences berween ethics morality and law

what are similarities between the three 'law ethics and morality'--213.55.92.82 (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See Ethics#Morals for some discussion between ethics and morals. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The English Reformation-the Bollocks of Henry VIII

I would hope that at least some of you, those with some degree of knowledge and education, will be familiar with the following lines attributed to Brendan Behan;

"Trust not the alien minister

Nor his creed without reason or faith.

The foundation stone of his temple

Is the bollocks of Henry VIII."

Now my question is this: is this an altogether apt description of the English Reformation? I sincerely hope that this will not be rudely removed by some censorious individual, as it was before.Tim O'Neil (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes, most apt. And perfectly sufficient. No further discussion of the English Reformation is required, Brendan Behan having said it all so completely. --Wetman (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Those lines certainly sound like Behan, who once famously described himself as "a drinker with a writing problem". As invective, it's written from an Irish Roman Catholic point of view, the 'alien minister' meaning the Anglican priest. It's not far off being the religious controversy of the school playground. If there's the appearance of a startling grain of truth in it, it isn't one which tells us anything new or startling. Many things conspired to bring down the old religion in England, and if its only problem had been the need of Henry VIII to put away a wife, then no doubt it would have survived him and the tables would have been turned in the time of his successors. Xn4 12:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hindu Gods

Moved from Help Desk

Dear Wikipedia, I am a very great reader of your esteemed articles. In one of your articles regarding "THE HINDU GOD Narasimha (MAN-LION) AVATAR OF LORD Vishnu", you have written that after killing "THE DEMON KING Hiranyakashipu", Lord Narasimha is so full of rage that no one dare go near him and try to calm him till "Prahalad" takes the courage to do so. Whereas,in your article regarding another "HINDU GOD Shiva", you have written that when the above event took place (ie:-NARASIMHA GETTING TERRIBLE WITH RAGE) the other HINDU GODS pleaded with LORD SHIVA to calm LORD NARASIMHA, LORD SHIVA took the avatar of A HALF-BEAST, HALF-BIRD HALF-HUMAN creature named Sharaba and fought with NARASIMHA anf ultimately calmed him. You can refer the above event under the topic of Lord Sarabhesvara which itself comes under the topic of SHIVA. Kindly let me know as to which of the above Two Events is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.241.87 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to send you on a wild-goose chase around Wikipedia but you might get lucky on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Mythology. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

US army vs the world

Considering that the US spends more money on its army than the rest of the world put together, could they conquer the world if they wished? Of course, they'd be hugely outnumbered, so that makes that unlikely unless they get a lot of local support. But then, I've wondered the same about Nazi Germany, and they managed to conquer quite a bit, albeit at a huge loss of German lives. But, in reverse, if the rest of the world ganged up on the US, could they defeat the country? I suppose having half the world's arsenal won't help the US much here, unless they are prepared to use it on their own territory - they could only be used for a counter-attack, hoping that will stop the invading forces. Any thoughts? Amrad (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If there were a serious war between the US and the rest of the world, most of humanity would die in a nuclear holocaust. Hard to call it a win for anyone. As for the US conquering the world in a conventional war, the amount of trouble they (with allies) are having holding down two countries suggests it might be tricky. Algebraist 09:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, a lot of the military budgets are not correct (or are not accurate), so we can't say for sure if the US spends more than everyone else combined. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the US spends 75% of the world's budget though. They'd still be outnumbered horribly (don't know the exact figures, but I'd say around 40 or 50 to 1?), albeit with slightly older technology (slightly being a key word; note that Cold War Era technology can still be deadly). Then again, as Algebraist says, we'd probably just end up with nuclear war. · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Although it can sometimes be doubted, the US is a rational and self-serving great power. In the words of Pascal, "Caesar was too old, it seems to me, to go off conquering the world. Such larks were all right for Augustus and Alexander, who were young and impetuous, but Caesar should have been more grown up." Xn4 09:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that even handling Iraq is proving pretty difficult for the U.S. military, no, they couldn't. Mobilizing armies is very expensive business, and while the United States certainly has a great technological advantage over many countries, that hardware doesn't come cheap. Germany gained a lot of ground, sure, but not only did they have mandatory military service, their army was also a lot cheaper to run simply because your average German soldier's training and equipment was far, far less expensive than that of a modern soldier. Of course, there were other differences as well. For example, according to the Military of the United States article, "As of May 2007, about 1,426,705 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,400 people in the seven reserve components." Contrast that with the figure given in the Wehrmacht article: "The total number of soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht during its existence from 1935 until 1945 is believed to approach 18.2 million." Of course, that's over a ten-year period and not really a comparable figure as such, but it explains why they could march all over Europe and elsewhere -- they had the manpower to do that. But, as is pertinent to this discussion, not the manpower to really hold the territory they'd taken.

The problem with conquering the world is inevitably that you also need to keep the world afterwards, and in order to do that, you need to occupy the territory you've taken. That takes tremendous manpower and resources, and considering that the people who actually live in those areas tend to be understandably hostile, it's also dangerous and difficult work -- again, as we can see in Iraq now and as we could see in the German military efforts back in WW2. (Not that I'm equating the Nazi Germany with the United States here, I should stress, I'm just saying that they both faced a similar problem, albeit on a wholly different scale. Of course, the Nazis also had military forces external to the territory they'd taken to contend with, which didn't help things any.)

Conversely, if the rest of the world attempted to conquer the United States, they would have a far easier time of it simply because they would have considerable advantage not only in manpower but in the fact that they would be pouring that manpower into a relatively small area instead of stretching themselves thin, and obviously, working with allies has many advantages, such as shared intelligence, resources, logistics, etc. I'm sure the United States would put up a pretty memorable fight, but really, against every armed forces on the planet, they'd simply be completely outnumbered. Bear in mind that many countries have mandatory military service, so the combined pool of trained soldiers would be considerably greater than that in the United States. Also, simple population differences come into play here; the Chinese People's Liberation Army alone, for example, has a pool of 281,240,272 fit males and almost as many females available for military service, more than the population of the entire United States. The comparable figure in the United States is 54,609,050. (Which is not to say that all these people could be armed and mobilized, naturally -- but it illustrates the scale we're talking about, because this is just one country.) If the United States was attacking, it would be spread far too thin to take on the entire world; if it was defending, it'd get swarmed.

Of course, all this depends on your definition of "conquer". If you're not at all concerned about keeping the infrastructure of the territory you're invading intact or sparing civilian lives, or not interested about the negative consequences, things can change very quickly -- as long as you had the technology at your disposal, you could just bomb everyone into the stone age. Or use nuclear weapons and just wipe everyone out. Of course, there's a little thing called mutual assured destruction to think about if you go that way. For a great part, the defensive strategies of the modern superpowers are based on exactly that.

And yes, of course, this response overlooks a kazillion other factors -- but suffice to say that no, the United States couldn't conquer the world, but the rest of the world could gang up and conquer it, as long as we're talking about conventional weapons. This is not to say that the United States couldn't do serious damage on the attack or that the process of taking it wouldn't be extremely costly to the attackers, but in the end, I don't think there'd every be any real doubt of the outcome. And, of course, if nuclear weapons entered the game (as they inevitably would), that's when everyone loses. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

On the conventional war rest-of-world conquering the US front, I agree that we (RoW) would win if we could get our armies there, but I'm not sure we could do that. Naval warfare (unlike occupying hostile territory) is an area where all that high-tech high-cost stuff is actually useful, and I'm not sure we could ship our troops across thousands of miles of ocean against the US navy and air force. The US, for example, has more aircraft carriers than everyone else put together, and they're massively larger. Algebraist 11:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. In a world assult the best bet would be to get as much equipment as possible through to our Canadian and South American allies. Of course things would be a lot easier for us if some of the US residents sympathised with us. Our media departments would be talking about re-unification of Texas with Mexico, and our African allies would be talking about liberating African Americans from their oppressors. At the same time we would have insiders talking to Southern far right groups about reversing the injustices of the civil war and re-introducing segregation. I don't need to mention what an asses the Vatican, Mecca, and Jerusalem would be to us if it really was all of us against the USA. Of course, once the war was over we would have a big problem of bitterness over unrealistic promises we couldn't keep, but the WW2 Alliance of Russia and the West shows that this does happen. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer is easy...Not a chance. There is no way that the US could take over the entire world at all. The technological advancement of an army is nothing compared to the tactics/organisational structure. Whilst not on the same tack I would point you to a very interesting chapter of Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Blink' which discusses a military game they played where a guy managed, with minimal resources, to outwit the huge army much to the embarrassment of the armed-forces/people organising the game. Also the US will rely heavily on international-trade to produce/develop its weaponary, with that closed-off then things change. Add in that the rest of the world does have huge amounts of technological advancement too and you've got yourself a ridiculously tough war. It would be nigh on impossible for them to succeed in any meaningful way (save for the whole nuclear-holocaust root). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, you hint on something that would make more sense. Economic warfare. RoW (which need only be the EU, Japan and China) could start relatively inconspicuously with withdrawing money from the US (the huge debts that the US economy is now based on). Next, they could 'do a Cuba' on the US, stopping all trade. If the first measure didn't bring the US economy to its knees, that would. And certain essential types of technology would have to be re-invented by the US, such as steppers, the machines that make chips. There are only a few companies that make these, with the US playing no major role. So the US would get so far behind in such a crucial technology, while RoW keeps on progressing as usual. Within a decade (or two) RoW would be sotechnologically ahead that that is bound to give a major military edge. Still, the nuclear arsenal would remain a problem, unless information technology could disable those (wouldn't surprise me). But at that point, there would be little reason to invade the US - their role on the world scene would have ended. Sorry, I seem to have asked the wrong question. :) Amrad (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if RoW blockaded the US for 20 years, I'm sure they'd have plenty of time to develop new technology as well. · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The US is big, but not that big. The more people and territory, the better an economy can develop. A large part of our wealth is due to globalisation. RoW would continue to have that advantage, but not the US. The USSR did much better than, say, Cuba, because it's so big that it had all the necessities to 'stay alive'. But it was at a continuous disadvantage to the rest of the world (apart from having started off with a huge disadvantage), and the resulting difference in wealth was getting ever bigger. The US would face the same problem, but bigger, having the same amount of people on a area less than half te size. I don't know what raw materials they would have to do without, though. Don't we have some article where one could look that up? I can't find anything in (or through) Economy of the United States. Amrad (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The US is large enough to have raw materials of all kinds within their borders, if I recall my resource geography correctly. But the raw materials would be much more expensive to extract. DanielDemaret (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy

I am looking for answers to these questions and sources:

How many people in the US have a documented will? (percentage?)

How many who have a will leave something to charity?

When a person dies in the US, the average "equity" they leave is $ ______ ?

Sources for this information?

146.79.254.10 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

These aren't really questions, but requests that someone do your research. The "answers" will reflect the parameters of the search: without doing the work, the figures won't be meaningful to you. --Wetman (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

John Paulson and Henry Paulson

Are John Paulson (hedge fund investor) and Henry Paulson (Secretary of the Treasury) related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.179.83 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No - see this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Landlocked island nations

Has there ever been a landlocked island nation? The closest I could find was the Kingdom of Powys, which only met the sea at the Dyfi estuary, and some of the lordships and kingdoms in Medieval Ireland, but which date back to before borders were properly established and the idea of being landlocked became meaningful. Laïka 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would have to be waterlocked and then landlocked. And I guess it depends on that water being a lake, not a sea, otherwise any island nation could be contrived to qualify. For example, Madagascar is surrounded by water, and beyond the water is land, albeit land that forms part of different continents, and Madagascar is in the Indian Ocean, so it wouldn't qualify. You're talking about an island nation in a lake such as Lake Victoria, or a landlocked sea. The Caspian Sea wouldn't qualify because it has 130 rivers flowing into it and presumably there's ultimately river access to the sea. You're looking for a landlocked sea, or lake, that is connected to no navigable waterways, or no waterways that lead to the sea. I know of no such country currently or in recent historical times, but there may have been in the dim past. But the further back you go, the concept of "nation" becomes more and more fuzzy, so it's not as simple a question as it might appear. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There was the Kingdom of Kandy, which ruled a part of the island of Sri Lanka (then known as Ceylon). During much of its history, European powers controlled the entire coastline of the island, leaving Kandy landlocked. Marco polo (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Kandy qualifies. It was situated on an island, but it itself was not an island, so maybe it depends on one's definition of "island nation". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Saint Martin is a future contender if the Saint Martinese (population 33,000) ever outnumber and surround the Sint Maartenese (pop 30,000) - or vice versa Mhicaoidh (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just noticed that the population figures in our three articles don't square up. I'll be back after more research, in the meantime I wish I knew how to do that nifty scoring a line through your errorful edit trick. Mhicaoidh (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (Answered question on scoring out on Mhicaoidh's talk page. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

For those as fascinated as I am by the wildly fluctuating population figures of St Martin, see that articles talk page Mhicaoidh (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Island Superlatives may be of interest to you as well Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What are Energy Trusts?

There is an investment catagory called Energy Trusts. Each Trust can be purchased on the stock exchange in the form of shares. I own one entitled Tel Offshore Trust and from what little I understand of how it operates, it purchases the rights to sell oil and gas from producing properties (Gulf oil rigs, etc.). That's about all I know!!

How are these Trusts structured? What exactly are they doing? Why are their yields so high? I will await enlightenment. Thanks.--Plizik (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plizik (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See Royalty trust. Here's another explanation and here's one's website. The yields are higher than those of ordinary oil companies because nearly all the profits are passed to unitholders as distributions while the companies would usually keep some profits for growth. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two main flavors of energy trusts (most of this is covered in the royalty trust article, as Zain points out) -- the U.S. and the Canadian. The "Canroys", the Canadian trusts, can be run more like businesses than the ones in the U.S., but there are certain tax disadvantages to them, and they're going to change structure completely in a couple years. The U.S. trusts, unlike the Canadian, cannot add assets once they are formed. The two highest-volume US trusts, last time I looked, were Permian Basin Royalty Trust and BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust (hm, looks like I wrote those). Both U.S. and Canroys tend to pay distributions in the 10-15% annual range. Note that those are "distributions", not "dividends" -- since it's a depleting resource, some of that is return on capital, not a "dividend" per se. Real Estate Investment Trusts are another similar entity. Antandrus (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A trust is a legal mechanism where one person (the trustee) legally holds the property, but must hold it for the benefit of another (the beneficiary). When you buy units in the trust, you are the beneficiary. So when the property generates income (e.g. royalty), the trustee has to give that income to you, subject to some deductions for expenses or fees which they would have told you about before you bought it.

The value of the trust comes from the value of the property that the trustee holds, which comes from the income generated by the property. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

newspaper Canada natural resources

Is there any newspaper that deals with Canadian natural resources issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.226 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives Journal is published by the Environmental Studies Association of Canada. Checkerspot is a Canadian magazine which focusses on climate change matters, with all the religiosity one would expect. I've never seen a copy of North American Wind Power, but from its title I imagine that it deals with wind power in Canada (and, conceivably, Mexico) as well as the US. And I believe I've seen issues of The Green Guide (US) and The Ecologist (UK) which have taken an interest in Canadian environmental issues. Xn4 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Proof

Following from the copyright image question above, with digital imagery, how does a person prove ultimately that they have or shot the original? Besides big business image libraries with their provenance logs, that is. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. In some cases, it's pretty obvious -- if you have a shot from your own living room, for example, it's a safe assumption that people are going to believe that you indeed took the picture. Likewise, if you have taken a picture of a person you know, presumably that person can testify, if need be, that you took a picture of them. Still, in many instances, this doesn't apply. There are other situations: if you can prove that you were at a site when a picture was taken, that'll help. ("I went to New York with my friends last summer, and that's when I took this one. Just ask them.") In practice, perhaps the best proof is that particularly with digital cameras, most people don't go somewhere and take just one picture. They take several, so the image in question is one in a series, and recognizably so. Chances are that the person who stole the image only has that single image, not a bunch of them. And, of course, if the image is posted to an online service like Flickr, that's a pretty solid record right there -- if you're the one with the account password, that's pretty much an open and shut case. Provided, of course, that it's the picture's first public appearance. Still, in the end, it can turn into a situation where it's your word against someone else's -- but I don't think it's that hard to create a solid history for the shots you take. Even if you just kept a log of when and where you've been shooting in a notebook, that would already help a lot -- it's not like that couldn't be forged, of course, but that kind of thing is used as evidence in courts all the time. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This type of question comes up all the time at the deletion discussions at WikiCommons. There was a discussion last week about a photo of Sarah Jessica Parker in New York. Although there is no undisputable evidence that the original uploader is also the photographer, the uploader also had several photos of other celebrities at the same location as well as photos of herself with celebrities. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sarah Jessica Parker 2.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you downsized or cropped the image before uploading it then possession of the original would be pretty convincing evidence. I don't want fear of unauthorized use to drive people to deliberately mangle their images, but a lot of images are improved by cropping anyway, and you can frame with cropping in mind (especially with high-megapixel cameras). Programs like JPEGcrop can crop JPEG images without introducing compression artifacts.

The Exif data could also serve as proof in some cases. If A and B both claim authorship, and B's copy of the image contains the serial number of a camera belonging to A, that would be pretty convincing. But there's nothing to stop B from stripping/forging the Exif data and then claiming that the data in A's copy is forged. -- BenRG (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally there are things like witnesses. If I shot a picture of a model and was taking it to court, it would be trivial to figure out which model it was (if I was the one who contracted with the modeling agency in the first place, for example) even if I hadn't kept good records at the time, and to get them to submit an affidavit, if it was an issue. There could also be circumstantial evidence—I could prove I had gone to Yosemite on this-and-that a day, you could probably figure out that weather conditions in Yosemite matched what I shot, etc. Even though this is imprecise, in the case of person X saying they shot the photo and person Y claiming they shot the photo, in many cases it would be easy to eliminate one person from the possible ownership of the photo, which would probably be enough for a jury. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help -- it looks like context, third party and exit data is the go unless you're a good records keeper, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Stocks

What is a good company too buy cheap stock in? I would prefer an American company, and would really be glad if people know of any in Michigan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stock investing is tricky and risky. What you risk is that the price of a stock, cheap or not, could fall sharply. There are millions of experienced investors trying to pick winning stocks, with the consequence that those that are likely to go up are not cheap. There are few bargains, and professionals who know how to find them can earn millions from rich investors. It is better not to try to outsmart experienced and professional investors, because you are likely to lose. A wiser choice for a new investor would be an index fund, a type of mutual fund that rises and falls with a stock market index (that is, with the market as a whole or with a representative sample of the market). Few professional investors manage to do better than a stock market index, so this is a good bet for the nonprofessional. Unlike other kinds of mutual funds, there are no fund managers taking a big cut of your investment to pay for their multimillion-dollar salaries and bonuses. You can still lose money with an index fund, because the stock market as a whole can fall. But usually some stocks rise when others fall, so investing in the market as a whole is much less risky than investing in an individual stock, because nothing counterbalances that stock when it falls. Here is an article on index funds. It mentions a few that you might consider. Many of them have a low minimum investment of $1,000 or less. Marco polo (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If we were to get a lot of these questions, it would behoove us to add "financial advice" to "medical and legal advice" in the "what we don't do here" list. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

May 17

What if they hadn't refused a title?

So Peter Phillips is in the news because he's getting married, and as it says in his article, he was "the first legitimate grandchild of a monarch to be born a commoner, having not even a courtesy style, for more than 500 years." That was the way his parents, Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, wanted it; and likewise their daughter Zara Phillips carries no title.

My question is, what if they hadn't wanted it that way? Are there particular titles, or courtesy styles or whatever, that based on the practice of the previous 500 years would typically have been granted to Mark, Peter, and/or Zara, or an additional hereditary title that would typically have been granted to Anne? Or was it a random thing depending on how fond each monarch was of their particular children and grandchildren? --Anonymous, 03:08 UTC, May 17, 2008.

• No there are no precedents, although, in the distant past, titles have been created for the illegitimate children of Monarchs. In theory the Queen can create any person she likes to any title. In the past Ladies in Waiting, and friends have even been elevated to fairly meaningless courtesy titles ("the style and dignity of a daugter of an Earl") for instance. There are plenty of Dukedom's not in use at the moment - Cumberland, Clarence, Monmouth etc. And a new one could always have been created Duke of Dorset, or Shropshire for instance. Howver, under British Law titles only very rarely can be passed through the female line. Peter Philip's father (Mark Phillips) declined a peerage on his marriage ([Princess Margaret]]'s husband Anthony Armstrong-Jones accepted and was elevated to become Earl of Snowdon, hence Princess Margaret's children have titles. However, as peter Phillip's father is still alive, Peter would only hold a courtesy title so would still be a commoner, even if his father had accepted. In previous centuries this problem never occurred as British Princesses seldom (if ever) marries outside of foreign Royalty. One of Queen Victoria's daughters married into the titled aristocracy, as did one of Edward VII's and a daughter of George V. I think Princess Margaret was the first child of a monarch to marry outside the aristocracy - so it is a comparatively recent happening to have the sovereign's grandchildren without titles at all. Giano (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You may also be interested in an account of the arrival in the British Isles of the titles 'prince' and 'princess' for the children and some grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the sovereign, and in the later limitations on that custom. See our article British prince. Xn4 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

the first legitimate grandchild of a monarch to be born a commoner, having not even a courtesy style, for more than 500 years - who was the last one? Corvus cornix_talk 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Side question

Side question: should that say "of a British monarch"? The cited news article is from the BBC and could have been assuming a British context. --Anonymous, 03:08 UTC, May 17, 2008.

Yes! :)) SaundersW (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

help

what is a adjudicatory hearing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.78.118 (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A trial process in which a court determines whether or not the allegations contained in a petition are supported by evidence. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It can also refer to a tribunal (many of those aren't courts), to a disciplinary panel of a professional body, and so on. Xn4 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Debate wiki

I once discovered a wiki that was about debate and philosophy, and it had people supply various arguments linked, then those arguments were refuted on the next page, and so on. I bookmarked it a while back but lost it, anyone have any ideas? I appreciate any help. Chris M. (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Could it be philosophy wiki? Seems pretty close to what you described. Or it could be philowiki. Try googling. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

York v. Lancaster

I've been reading your pages on the Wars of the Roses and was wondering why the Yorkists performed so much better than the Lancastrians, at least until the very end? Lancaster seemed to lose battle after battle, though they had the authority of the crown, which usually gives an advantage. I know that Henry Six was nuts but his side could still claim the right to call on the obedience of loyal subjects against rebels.Willow MacGregor (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• It wasn't a matter of established authority vs. rebels; it was a matter of conflicting claims to the throne. The subjects would be loyal first to their lords -- whoever your lord says to fight, you fight. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Classical and Anti hero traits

I'm looking into this myself, but I could use help! I need some background information, published scholarly, on two types of heroes: the classical/epic/tragic hero, and the anti-hero. I will use such sites as research for an English paper I'm writing.Tuesday42 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess you've see the yummy articles Hero and Anti-hero with multiple links and refs? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Those links are less than yummy. I'd prefer.edu stüff, please. Tuesday42 (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Tolstoy and Shakespeare

I was somewhat surprised to see that this topic is not covered in our article on Leo Tolstoy. Question for our literati: why did Tolstoy hate Shakespeare? There is nothing understated in his vituperation; he goes at him with every weapon he has. Look for example at his 1906 essay "Shakespeare and the Drama", which includes bits like this (borrowed from Harold Bloom, The Western Canon): "...having freed themselves from this hypnotic state, men will understand that the trivial and immoral works of Shakespeare and his imitators, aiming merely at the recreation and amusement of the spectators, cannot possibly represent the teaching of life..." Tolstoy reserves his fiercest invective for King Lear. This has bothered me for a long time, having been a life-long fan of both writers. "...Cannot possibly represent the teaching of life..." Really? I know what Bloom says (not Christian enough, and it's partly envy) but I'd be curious to hear some other opinions. Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell you why Tolstoy hated Shakespeare, but he had even greater disdain for the works of his countryman Anton Chekhov. He put it very squarely and bluntly - You know I can't stand Shakespeare's plays, but yours are even worse. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So much for political correctness, diplomacy and no-dissing rules, eh. Where does one find Tolstoy: the Gripes, Jacko'Oz? I want to go on relishing his imperious rudeness, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It pops up on various lists – [21], etc. This says it’s from Karlinsky and Heim, p. 375, which is probably this. Happy reading, Julia. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! Julia Rossi (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

May 18

What happened to the buildings?

The top two photos in Potemkin Stairs show a modern view and a c. 1900 view of the stairs: while only trees are visible in the modern picture, the older one shows buildings. What happened to the buildings? I suppose the trees could be hiding them, but it doesn't look like it. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Credit and supply elasticity

For credit, what will be the main determinant of supply? Flowing on, will supply be inelastic or elastic?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.32.126 (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The main determinants of the supply of credit are factors reflecting economic efficiency. The supply will usually be elastic within set limits, subject to review, the limits largely depending on how long the piece of string is. Xn4 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Integration of foreigners

Is it easier to a foreigner to integrate in a city with a high percentage of foreigners (like London or New York) or in a city with a low percentage of foreigners? GoingOnTracks (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)