Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

August 23

main issues for the political bases

The U.S. Presidential hopefuls in the Republican and Democratic parties are now courting their respective bases, those voters most likely to vote in primaries and in caucuses such as the Iowa caucus. What are the main issues and concerns, in each case, for these party faithful? --Halcatalyst 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of the issues are the same for both parties, such as Iraq, although the positions on each issue will be different for each party. In more general terms, I suspect that candidates from both parties will want to distance themselves from Bush's foreign policy, which has not been a success. How to deal with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians/Isreal will also come up. For Democrats primarily, the future of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the prisoners in them will also come up, as will freedoms given up in the PATRIOT Act and by Bush's executive orders (such as the freedom from having your phones tapped without a warrant). Allowing federal support for stem cell research will also be a likely Democratic issue.

Immigration remains unresolved, as do perennial social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Then there are those "flag-burning issues" (things which won't generate any new law, but which candidates up for election bring up to distract the electorate from the real issues), such as banning gay marriages, banning abortion, requiring school prayer, etc. I would expect these to come mainly from Republicans this election cycle, as they have the most reason to distract voters from the real issues (like their failing to catch Bin Laden when in power). StuRat 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Isreal? I can't resist inserting this: Keats and Chapman were walking through the Jewish neighborhood of Dublin one day, when they met a mutual friend, Paddy O'Cohen.

• All stopped to have a little talk, which turned to the conditions in the Near East. O'Cohen delivered strong opinions on the need for security and expressed his strong support for the policies of Ariel Sharon. Keats and Chapman each offered slightly differing opinions, but all were on cordial terms, and O'Cohen went his way.

• After a moment, Keats commented on the great feeling of isreality which O’Cohen had. But Chapman demurred: "What isreality?" he asked. --Halcatalyst 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is information, and sources aplenty, in Democratic presidential debates, 2008 and Republican presidential debates, 2008. Rockpocket 01:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

TMI. In a nutshell, what turns the partisans on? --Halcatalyst 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center asked voters who self identified as Democrat or Republican (or Democrat- or Republican-leaning) what they considered the most important issue effecting the 2008 Primary vote. The results were as follows:

Most Important Issue	Democrat voters	Republican voters
Iraq War	38%	31%
Economy	16%	12%
Health care	13%	3%
Education	12%	5%
Terrorism	5%	17%
Immigration	3%	12%
Abortion	1%	7%
Foreign policy	8%	8%

-- Rockpocket 05:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Rockpocket. Extrapolating,

Democrat priorities	Republican priorities
Iraq war 38%	Iraq war 31%
Economy 16%	Terrorism 17%
Health care 13%	Immigration 12%
Education 12%	Economy 12%
Foreign policy 8%	Foreign policy 8%
Terrorism 5%	Abortion 7%
Immigration 3%	Education 5%
Abortion 1%	Health care 3%

• These are illuminating but incomplete results. Probably everybody reading this realizes that poll outcomes depend on the questions asked; questions can be worded in such a way that the answers given by well-designated pollees are quite predictable. Reputable organizations like Pew of course do their best to avoid this problem. But some words in the political space are extremely emotionally charged: for example, "terrorism."
• I'd like to know of attempts to encapsulate the issues as they would be viewed and expressed by the two sides. For example, on abortion: (1) Abortion is a moral evil. (2) Abortion is a woman's right. Those diametrically opposed propositions have been bruited continually for over 30 years and have been adopted in the R and D party platforms. But what about the other issues? Anybody care to distinguish between R/D views on foreign policy, for example? Or point to a place where someone else has attempted to summarize the issues for each side? --Halcatalyst 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, your example of abortion is not an example of diametrically opposed statements. That particular debate is one where there can be no progress because the "warrant" of the argument is never stated and cannot be empirically determined. The question is "personhood" and "legal personhood." One side takes a stand that metaphysical personhood begins early (perhaps conception) and that therefore legal personhood should begin at the same point. The other side takes the position that legal personhood depends upon a series of tests (viability outside of the womb, etc.). These are both matters of asserted principle and cannot be proven nor disproven. Both are speaking of a legal definition that depends entirely upon community consent and trying to say what it must be without such community consent, and therefore neither can talk to the other. However, "moral wrong" and "woman's right" are not opposite statements. Smoking is a "moral wrong" and a "woman's right." Getting drunk is both. In other words, morality and rights are not separate matters and do not routinely exist at opposite ends of a single spectrum of licensed action. Utgard Loki 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put. --Halcatalyst 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Despite the illogic, I'd say the way I expressed the two sides of the abortion issue is the way the partisans on each side would describe it, which is what I'm looking for. Would you agree?
• Here's another shot: (1) U.S. foreign policy must be muscular and nationalistic. (Republicans) (2) U.S. foreign policy shoud emphasize diplomacy and international cooperation. (Democrats)
• I could devise more such summaries, but I would like to know what others think: people here and/or what has been published elsewhere. Help? --Halcatalyst 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Summaries such as the one you provided for foreign policy are good, in general, but the parties do vary from time to time. In that example, after a blatant failure of diplomacy, like the Iran Hostage Crisis, even Democrats will tend to favor military action. Conversely, after the failure of militarism, as in Iraq, even Republicans will tend to favor diplomacy. StuRat 05:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to speak for anyone, but I would summarize, for myself, two axes along which the parties in the US split. One is on the issue of collectivism and the individual (one of the oldest of US tensions). If one believes in greater federalism and federated responses to problems, and therefore federal accumulation of income, then one is Democratic. If one believes that only the individual is sovereign, then one is Republican. However, if one is answering "sometimes," then one is Democratic in today's atmosphere. Therefore, "Is there a role for the federal government in the amelioration or solving of social ills?" (not "how much" anymore, I would say, but just "any").

Is the United States special or enjoy a special destiny in the world? If you answer "No," then you pretty much have to be Democratic. If you answer "yes," then you're more likely to be Republican (unless the answer is, "Yes, it is the first nation God means to solve the problems of poverty"). There is an adjunctive position to this. "If the US is divinely or historically special, is the duty of the government to interpret the will of God/History for its people?" If yes to that, you're darn near guaranteed to be Republican. Should foreign policy be determined by the treatment foreign nations give to their own people? If yes, you are definitely Democratic. Should foreign policy be determined by the ideological alignment of a foreign government? If yes, you could be either, but, if "no," you are definitely Democratic.

Does the United States enjoy a corporate right to material wealth? If yes, GOP. If no, either.

Is the world about to end due to God's will? If yes, almost surely GOP. (This is most emphatically not fringe, nor irrelevant, nor merely coincidental. James Watt and George W. Bush have both argued that some of the actions they have favored are commendable because the world is about to end. In Watt's case, he purported to have a dream of a civil war in the US when overseas oil ran out, and so he believed that every domestic drop should be consumed first so that we could then have a foreign war. In Bush's case, he told Woodward that global warming and history's judgment of his presidency did not worry him because of the nearby apocalypse.)

Is the Bible a "literal" guide to both one's personal and one's political life? (The quotation marks should be self-explanatory, because there are no literal interpretations of the Bible.)

Do individuals have a duty to their fellow citizens, or is it merely a virtue to help others? If "duty," more likely to be Democratic.

Is the free market a sovereign determinant of worth, or does the free market inevitably lead to corruption? If "sovereign," then Republican. If "corrupt," Democratic.

Is this the kind of thing you're looking for? Utgard Loki 17:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

An excellent response. Thanks! --Halcatalyst 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, all, for your thoughtful responses. Behind the scenes politicians can be thoughtful too. Would that the public political discourse were also. But that discourse is mediated by television, mostly, and its modus operandi is the production of ideas which can be compressed into 30- or 60-second segments (the "debates"); the politicians, or at least their handlers, believe that repetitious, emotionally-laden "sound bytes" are the means to sway the undecided; and the most likely caucus/primary voters, that is the partisan activists, as a whole, accept this system. The candidates in turn pander to partisan prejudices during the caucus/primary season, only to moderate what they say during the election campaign; and the media seize on and sensationalize trivial "gaffes" to try to excite public interest, but the vast majority of citizens are not that interested and indeed tire easily of these games.
• As an active volunteer for one of the candidates, I say this not cynically but sadly. --Halcatalyst 14:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Late commment, but as to that Pew Study, I could see many people being concerned about both the Iraq war and terrorism and covering both by calling them "Foreign relations", etc. If they weren't explicitly mutually exclusive, I would be wary. 68.39.174.238 03:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning on voting for John Edward. If he can communicate with the dead, he can ask Lincoln what to do ("whatever you do, don't watch any plays"). I think Edward's the best candidate since Paul Simon (even if Garfunkle wasn't his choice for VP). :-) StuRat 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

state caucuses

What states besides Iowa have Presidential caucuses? --Halcatalyst 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

According to United States presidential primary, Nevada and Iowa have caucuses, while all the other early States have primaries. As for the later States, Nebraska is replacing their primary with a caucus for the first time next year. Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 also lists as having caucuses: Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Michigan, Washington and Maine. Rockpocket 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Halcatalyst 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is much discussion in Michigan of an earlier primary, or, as State Sen. McManus puts it in a letter to the editor today: "A semi-open primary, as I proposed in Senate Bill 624, which the Senate passed Wednesday, would maximize participation without compromising party rules." This would be a setback to John Edwards' hopes. Wareh 16:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky or Stalin?

I've read-and heard it said-that it would have been better if Trotsky had suceeded Lenin as Russian leader rather than Stalin. Is there any real reason to suppose that he would have been more humane? Blanco Bassnet 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No one can say what might have been. Given how barbarous and paranoid Stalin was, it's easy to argue that Trotsky wouldn't have been as bad. It's also easy to argue that Trotsky, the general, would have conducted the Russian affairs during WW2 better, but, ultimately, it's impossible to say. The personality-driven massacres of Stalin would not have occurred, but there is no way to be sure that show trials and disappearances wouldn't have happened anyway. Furthermore, given Trotsky's preference for decentralization and anarchism, it's also possible that, had he succeeded, he would have been replaced by someone else. There's no telling. We know what did happen: Stalin was a monster. We cannot know what would have happened. Geogre 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky learnt a lot about how to run a military machine, but remember that he wasn't a soldier, he was a politician in charge of the Red Army. He saw the need (as others didn't) to rely on the advice of professional soldiers. Perhaps because he was driven out and assassinated, we're inclined to see Trotsky now as a victim, more rational, more of an idealist. He had some good qualities (it's hard to say that of the bruiser Stalin!) and was brighter and more capable, but he was also a 'hard man'. The following isn't properly applicable to Trotsky (who was far from 'unselfish'), but here is one of my favourite Joseph Conrad quotations...

“ The scrupulous and the just, the noble, humane, and devoted natures; the unselfish and the intelligent may begin a movement, but it passes away from them. They are not the leaders of a revolution. They are its victims. ”

I offer this as part of the answer to your question because it's arguable that in the Soviet Union of the 1920s and 1930s no humane leader would have survived. Xn4 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(Fantastic Conrad quote. I assume that's from The Secret Agent? Very nice. I almost want to nick it for my commonplace book.) Geogre 13:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Geogre. That's from Under Western Eyes. Xn4 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He would almost certainly have been much too busy raising hell elsewhere to be causing massive famine and organising show trials for old friends at home; Stalin, on the other hand had nothing else to do.Hornplease 14:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

afaik Trotsky was an extremely intelligent bloke, but that doesn't necessarily make a good politician. Perhaps Trotsky would have had Stalin killed in 1946 1940 in Mexico, as opposed to vice versa.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is possible to give a meaningful answer here, based not upon speculation, or counterfactual assumptions, but a reading and an interpretation of Trotsky's record when he was in power, rather than writing about its abuses from the margins of history.

In the early 1920s he was one of the party 'hard-liners', fully behind the oppressive and politically counter-productive policy of War Communism, when the economic justification for this had passed. He was also the man responsible for the destruction of Russia's independent trade union movement, an advocate of the 'militarisation' of labour. It was he, moreover, who in 1921 was behind the brutal supression of the Kronstadt rebellion, a protest against the Bolshevik government's misuse of power. He accepted with some reluctance the partial return to free market economics, ushered in by the New Economic Policy, believing that the peasants should be coerced by a policy of enforced collectivisation, prefiguring Stalin on this issue by some years. In the 1990s, Dimitri Volkogonov, a Russian historian, discovered previously unexamined Russian state papers, showing that Lenin and Trotsky worked together on a policy of deliberate terror, again foreshadowing Stalin. He was later to denounce Stalinism from exile not because it was violent, but because it was violent for the wrong reasons. Secret police, a one party state, show trials, deportations and mass shootings were as much a part of the 'Trotsky system' as they were that of Stalin. We might as well, I think, let the man speak for himself;

Violent revolution was necessary because the undeferrable demands of history proved incapable of clearing a road through the apparatus of parliamentary democracy. Anyone who renounces terrorism in principle must also renounce the political rule of the working class. The extensive recourse, in the Civil War, to execution by shooting is to be explained by this one simple and decisive fact. Intimidation is a powerful instrument of both foreign and domestic policy. The revolution kills individuals and thus intimidates thousands.

Would things have been any better under Trotsky? No, they would not. Clio the Muse 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Having reread some of the contributions made in the above by other editors I would just like to correct one or two small factual inaccuracies. Trotsky most definitely did not have a preference for 'anarchism and decentralisation'. Stalin was as bright, capable, intelligent and as well-read as Trotsky, and a far better political tactician. If any one has any doubt about this I would urge them to read the excellent biographies by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Trotsky's own Stalin is sour, inaccurate and, at points, racist. Clio the Muse 03:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Russia under any form of communism would have been bad, regardless of the virtues of the leader. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with a lot of Clio the Muse's comments above - but I think that the quotation dredged up to 'let him speak for himself' is more than a little disingenuous. Trotsky, like other Bolsheviks, enjoyed being blunt and matter-of-fact about these kind of things. It was necessary to be so, in their view, because if the Bolsheviks and the workers in general absolutely refused to make use of violence or non-legal methods where necessary they would inevitably be defeated by their (less scrupulous) opponents. For all its bluntness, Trotsky is not really doing a great deal more in this passage than renouncing pure pacifism and defending the principle that violence may in some circumstances be both necessary and justified. In this case the circumstances were the need to defend a popular revolution against internal enemies, heavily backed by foreign powers, who were attempting to restore a brutal, authoritarian, and fantastically inegalitarian regime. That regime had denied its citizens any semblance of civil rights and had presided over carnage on a massive scale during Russia's involvement in WWI, which had led to its decisive rejection. The POV that violence was indeed necessary to defend the revolution against reaction can be put quite strongly. But in any case, if we leave the specifics to one side we are left with a principle to which any practical politician would subscribe. It is easy to strip passages like this from their context and present them as an apparently unique endorsement of violence, when in actuality, every war, foreign intervention, or suppression of internal dissent is justified in essentially the same terms, but in less direct and self-conscious language (Iraq, anyone?).

To reiterate though, you had him bang to rights on deeds. The man behind Krondstadt and the militarization was certainly no friend to the Russian workers. 89.243.7.4 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, 89.243, what a lot of value judgements! You will note that the quotation, disingenous or not, was in reference to the essential point of the question. It was selected entirely at random, and I could produce other examples, to confirm that Trotsky was just as brutal and no more 'humane' than any other Bolshevik, including Stalin. There were many decent left-wing politicians who, unlike Trotsky, renounced 'terrorism in principle', and managed to contribute in their own way towards greater concepts of human justice. But, as I have said, Trotsky denounced Stalin, not because he was violent, but because he practiced the 'wrong sort' of violence. I rather suspect that, on the basis of what you have written, that you also have concepts of the right and wrong sort of violence. I have no idea what you mean when you say that Trotsky was 'no friend to the Russian workers'. He was a Bolshevik, was he not, and by your estimation at least, a defender of a 'popular revolution.' Or do I take it that some 'defenders' are more equal than others?

Anyway, more generally, and for the benefit of other readers, let me straighten out a few factual misconceptions. People might think from the above that the Bolsheviks overthrew Tsar Nicholas II, or am I to take it that the 'brutal, authoritarian and fantastically inegalitarian regime' was that headed lattery by Alexander Kerensky? The truth is, of course, that the Bolshevik Coup of October 1917 hijacked the 'popular revolution', that of February 1917. They then went on to establish a 'brutal, authoritarian and fantastically inegalitarian' regime; undermining the independence of the Soviets; dismissing the Constituent Assembly, established by the most democratic franchise in Russian history, because they were in a minority. All power went not to the Soviets, but the the Bolshevik Party, more specifically to the Council of People's Commissars and even more specifically than that to Lenin, and ultimately to Stalin. This monoply was sustained by Cheka, the first Soviet secret police, that practiced forms of torture of Medieval flamboyance. The Bolshevik coup, moreover, was a direct cause of the ensuing Russian Civil War. Although it is certainly true that some of those in the Volunteer Army wanted to see a restoration of the old regime, this was far from general. One of the leading causes of the White defeat was a complete lack of political consensus.

Now for the regime of poor old Tsar Nicholas, the one that 89.243 clearly has in mind when writing of a 'brutal, authoritarian and fantastically inegalitarian regime.' Of course it was nothing of the kind. For all its faults-and there were many-it was positively benign compared with what was to follow. Finally, and though is totally and utterly beside the point, I would ask people to consider if Nicholas should be charged alone for standing by his friends and allies in 1914, and for defending the territory of Russia? Yes, the carnage of the Great War was terrible; but the 'crime' of Tsar Nicholas was no greater than that of Herbert Asquith or Raymond Poincare. And, yes, before I forget-Long Live Holy Russia, remembering always the Blessed Martyrs! Well, I'm only human, and have to permit myself at least one value judgement. Clio the Muse 01:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For all his faults, Nicholas has long struck me as a more decent and honourable man than any of the other significant monarchs of the Great War. He fumbled his abdication (as he did so many other things), but he did little to deserve the hatred that came his way from much of a defeated nation. Since I realized what the tune was when I was about thirteen, I have always found the hymn God the Omnipotent (sung in the Church of England to Prince Lvov's tune for God Save the Tsar! rather thrilling. Hear it here. Xn4 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is thrilling, and beautiful. Thanks for that link, Xn4. Clio the Muse 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A US base in the USSR

After seeing so many interesting discussions on the subject of World War II, I decided to ask another question.Can you give me any information about Western military bases in the Soviet Union (Poltava, Murmansk) and about the Soviet air base in Bari? Thanks, Jacobstry 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know of no western bases, either at Poltava in the Ukraine, or at Murmansk. The Yugoslav Partisan Air Force had the use of several bases in Italy from 1944, including one at Bari in the south. I know of no Soviet presence. Clio the Muse 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, two US airbases were established in former Soviet republics of Central Asia and used for operations in Afghanistan - one (now closed) was at Karshi-Khanabad in Uzbekistan, the other (still open) is at Manas in Kyrgyzstan. Xn4 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On Poltava, there was a book written: Infield, The Poltava Affair. I'm not aware of anything other than passing mentions of the Soviet Air Force detachment at Bari with the Balkan Air Force, or the RAF squadrons in north Russia in 1941 and 1942. Murmansk was not a "western base" in any real sense. Merchant ships and warships spent time there, sometimes several months between convoys, but contact between the ships and the city was prevented. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please follow this link. I 'm not sure what the "Poltava Affair" was about, however. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Murmansk was a Western base in World War I. See also the Polar Bear Expedition. Rmhermen 14:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

communications pre-telegraph

I was thinking about The Shootist, in which John Wayne's character rides into town and buys a newspaper reporting the death of Queen Victoria, and that made me curious: when her uncle died 64 years earlier, how long did it take to get word to all the colonies? —Tamfang 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By 1833 the introduction of steamships had reduced the Atlantic crossing to 22 days. You will find somre details here [1]. The passage to Australia was probably three times as long. Clio the Muse 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can British Tourist become a criminal?

The Office of Foreign Asset Control, the entity which enforces the embargo against Cuba, has promulgated regulations (at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) that "prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba."

You are a British tourist, you go to Cuba, buy a Cuban cigar and then travel to Mexico and enters USA. Would you be a criminal when you enter USA even if you are already consumed the cigar in Mexico.

Second question, the law states "merchandise", is that only physical goods or does it also cover services like prostitution or health care services. What is you did not pay for the services, aka receive the services for free, are you still a criminal? Is Michael Moore and a bunch of SICKO americans criminals?

202.168.50.40 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the "services" of a prostitute is illegal regardless, at least in the US and UK it is. Furthermore, I would image that people under the "jurisdiction of the United States" include anyone travelling through it. However please remember that wikipedia cannot and will not give you legal adivce SGGH ^speak! 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong about the UK - if a consenting adult pays another consenting adult for 'sex' here, that isn't unlawful in itself. Subject to the usual age limits, a man or woman working alone, not in a brothel, not on the street, not advertising such services, is not committing any offense, nor is the person who pays. Xn4 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine US authorities would try to prosecute a non-American for going to Cuba; in fact, they rarely take action against Americans who do so as tourists. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do US customs officials balk at allowing people into the US if they have stamped Cuban visas in their passports? Corvus cornix 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have three in mine and they have never stopped me! But quite frankly, Corvus cornix, Cuban visa stamps are pathetic; small and easy to overlook. Clio the Muse 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the US "ban" on travel to Cuba is aimed at businesses wanting to do business there, not individuals looking to travel. Technically, an American who buys even a candy bar in Cuba is breaking the law, but the law's intention is to prevent people from buying a million Cuban candy bars (or cigars). -- Mwalcoff 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

God and nuclear war

Any religious people here? What's the current thinking on what God's reaction to a full-scale, planetwide nuclear war would be (i.e. one that threatens to destroy all life on earth)? Would God intervene to prevent this 'unauthorized armageddon', as it would be contrary to his grand design for humanity, as written in the Bible? --62.136.226.208 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think He would prevent it... but that doesn't mean we should be presumptuous and test that theory either. Prophecy has a history of being conditional. ◄Zahakiel► 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would he do such a thing? Man's fate is man's own doing, if I understand the Bible correctly (and not being a believer, frankly). That's what free will is all about. God doesn't intervene directly (in any measurable way) in every other stupid thing man does, no matter how much harm it causes, I don't know why this would be anything more special. --24.147.86.187 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that's why the question was directed to those who do believe that He has a plan. He may not intervene always on an individual scale, but there's no such thing as unbounded free will either. Humans have all kinds of limitations, natural and (as in this case) otherwise. ◄Zahakiel► 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He has a plan, but he gave man the free will to do himself in (as an individual and as a group), last time I checked. It's not free will if you can't make the wrong choice. --24.147.86.187 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No the christian god concept removes free-well when he feels like it. "Exodus 7:13: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them;" and "Exodus 10:20: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart,". Since from reading the christians bible I can only conclude their god is a sick and twisted creature of evil, then who knows what he'd done about a nuclear war - he might enjoy it. --Fredrick day 13:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

God supposedly has a plan for the redemption of humanity. Humans unleashing something that would destroy all humans (and end his 'experiment') would throw a big spanner in the works as far as God is concerned. I think I saw this theory mentioned here before - but look at WWII. God saw that things were starting to get 'out of hand' WRT the 'Final Solution' and he intervened to cloud Adolf Hitler's judgment, strike him with insanity, deliver the Aryans into the hands of their enemies and scatter their people to the four corners of the earth, never to be a threat to anyone ever again. It's an interesting interpretation. --62.136.226.208 23:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So now God gets credit for Hitler losing the war? Funny how he waited for 6 million to die first! And amazing that he ordained that Stalin should have control over all of Eastern Europe. And etc. etc. etc. I think this business of assigning God "credit" for things like this is a bit far-fetched. The Bible is pretty explicit that the works of man are the works of man alone — if man does evil, he does it by his own hand, not by God's. If he does good, he does it by his own hand. God tells man what he'd like man to do, God provides a way for man to attain immortality, but God does not intervene when man makes bad choices. Hitler's insanity was purely pathological (caused by a virus he contracted years before he took power), not divine, and in any case had very little to do with the downfall of Nazi Germany on its own. Yes, you can interpret all of history through a "God is responsible for good things" lens but it is an epistemologically silly approach, and belittles any true nature of religion, in my opinion. --24.147.86.187 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not find this current, but C. S. Lewis did suggest God would stop an all-out nuclear war. Try the last two verses of his poem On the Atomic Bomb... Xn4 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As if your puny gadget

Could dodge the terrible logic

Of history! No, the tragic

Road will go on, new generations trudge it.

Narrow and long it stretches

Wretched for one who marches

Eyes front. He never catches

A glimpse of the fields each side, the happy orchards.

I don't really see that poem as implying that God would stop nuclear war at all. It looks to me like Lewis is just arguing that the atomic bomb, despite all the hype about it being some new power, is really just a new form of the same sort of power that people have always had, and that despite its apparent monumentality history will march on. There were a number of intellectuals who took the position just after the end of World War II that the bomb was not as significant as it was being made out to be by scientists (Gertrude Stein famously said that she "had not been able to take any interest in it" and that it was "not any more interesting than any other machine"). That's the light I read Lewis's poem in; I don't really seem him implying that there would be divine intervention in the case of nuclear war. --24.147.86.187 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Free will does not mean that God left humans and doesn't care about what they do. In the past, God certainly has intervened to save both individuals and groups and to punish the wicked (e.g. the Flood). In any case, the Bible says that the Lord "will remember [his] covenant between ... all living creatures of every kind." In other words, because God created life, he has the power to take it, but if his whole creation is at stake, he's not going to just watch us kill everybody. There are things that our finite mind cannot comprehend in the field of morality, but we should do our best to exert the free will we have and to not destroy our whole race. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 03:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• The subject of history as God's will in a nuclear age was addressed several ways. Lewis's statement, above, is in contrast to T. S. Eliot's Little Gidding, where the London Blitz reminds Eliot of the vanity of human wishes. This is a subject he returns to, in a way that is more in concord with Lewis's lines, in Choruses from The Rock. In it, he imagines a barren waste (a waste land?) and the Holy Spirit (as "the wind") commenting on humanity's concerns: "And the wind shall say,/ Here were decent, godless people,/ Their only monument the asphalt road and a thousand lost golf balls." For Eliot, the human losses of even a nuclear war were neither confirmation nor denial of spiritual reality, because the bomb would be God's bomb, or not, but the true waste, true apocalypse, was that of reality. (Elsewhere, in East Coker, Eliot makes this clear, with "Go, go, said the bird, mankind/ cannot bear very much reality.") W. H. Auden seems like a more hardbitten and worldly thinker, but he argues that divine history and human history only sometimes intersect, so the apocalypse occurs "in the fullness of time," and that fullness is not ours to know. In other words, he thinks that the nuclear war might occur because it is the right time by God's schedule and that it simply couldn't occur otherwise.
• The problem of free will and history is similarly...assuaged?...by suggesting that when the time is right the right things arise on their own will. By this view, and I believe it's pretty orthodox, Hitler didn't have to become Hitler, but someone did and Hitler willed it. Judas Iscariot is the classical focus for the question, because theologians have wondered since the beginning of Christianity whether he was damned. The general view is that Judas didn't have to betray Christ, but someone did, and Judas willed it. Getting back to The Bomb, though, it would appear, to humanity like this: if God does not will it, it simply would not happen, and if God does will it, then someone will desire it and commit the act. God would not need to "intervene," because no one would try it. Geogre 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the C. S. Lewis poem, as 24.147.86.187 thinks. It has struck me that in his The Magician's Nephew, Jadis finds herself alone in the desolate world of Charn after using the Deplorable Word, a device which killed all living things except herself. The book came out in 1955, so there's a parallel with nuclear war. His poem On the Atomic Bomb appeared in 1964, after Lewis's death. In Mere Christianity, he wrote: "Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love of goodness, or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines - would hardly be worth creating." Henry Margenau quoted this and added to it: "It is of course our free-will which permits the pursuit of evil. One might ask, why would God create a world in which evil is allowed? ...It is through this act of divine grace that God allows us to accept or reject him, or to seek knowledge or remain ignorant. Yet, all of this in no way diminishes his universal power and knowledge." Xn4 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've always been fascinated that people who claim to support a "culture of life" can at the same time accept the existence of nuclear weapons. The NNPT obliges the "nuclear haves" to work towards the elimination of these weapons, but no mainstream politician (in the US at least) supports that notion. During the Cold War there were frequent ecumenical conferences on what should be the Christian response to the threat of nuclear war. I've read the transcripts of a number of those assemblies. The anti-nuke clergy generally took an "it's an affront to all Creation" view, while the pro-nuke folks espoused a "better dead than Red" view dressed up in religious language. It's mind-boggling to me that the elimination of these weapons isn't the #1 political issue for people of all political stripes; it's like ignoring a rattlesnake under the baby's crib. --Sean 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I may be be only 14 but I've read the bible from cover to cover and there is no "grand design for humanity". The bible is more like a history book-- Phoenix 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Che!

Slightly related to the question above about Trotsky. What would the world be like now if Che Guevara had survived and was still alive now? --62.136.226.208 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Alberto Korda would likely be more obscure. —Tamfang 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not go to Cuba and find out for yourself? For I have seen the future and it creaks! Sorry; I'm being facetious. In what way would the world be different? Why, the Cuban government would be making periodic announcements about the health-or lack of it-of two geriatrics, as opposed to one. Clio the Muse 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bolivia and Venezuela have popular, populist leaders currently. The stability of that oil revenue and the like brought was insufficient for an indigenous population convinced that the oligarchic structure of power would not change. I have no idea what things would have been like in Cuba if Che had survived, but it doesn't really matter, because he almost certainly would not have been there. South America, now: I cannot imagine it being unchanged if Che had survived into the 1980s. Hornplease 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Che-led 'Union of South and Central American Socialist Republics (USCASR)'? Regan wouldn't have liked that much, would he? On the other hand, maybe Che would have eventually grown up to become just another pompous, corrupt, power-hungry, self-serving leader of exactly the same type that had oppressed him in his youth and first turned him into an 'angry young man'. This seems to happen to most of them, despite the best of intentions before and immediately following the revolution, when the ideology and the reality finally collide. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

US Coins

Why do US coins have the word "Liberty" on them? Belinda12.207.111.70 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Liberty? Liberty is really what America is (soem may argue was) about. It's jsut too much to put in an answer. Read History of the United States, Liberty, Lady Liberty, and Statue of Liberty. If you still have any questions after that, ask again and a little more elaborately. schyler 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Could also take a look at Give me liberty or give me death, Liberty Bell, and Liberty pole. A key phrase from the Declaration of Independence, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is also in the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights. The United States Constitution uses the word in its first sentence: We the People of the United States, in Order to ... secure the Blessing of Liberty .... There are numerous other uses of liberty as, in modern lingo, a "buzzword" during the founding era of the US. Pfly 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

August 24

Counties of Iran

I am confused. I was reading about the counties of Iran and the articles of each provinces of Iran. 9 articles of each provinces of Iran had different numbers from the articles Counties of Iran. These 9 provinces are Qazvin, Kermanshah, Khuzestan, Fars, Hormozgan, Kerman, North Khorasan, Razavi Khorasan and South Khorasan. Please, take a look at these articles and the article "Counties of Iran" and please tell me, which one is right about the number of Iran in each provinces? Thank you.

As in Bangladesh mentioned above, perhaps some counties were divided or merged recently, so that all the articles were accurate when they were written. I wonder whether the CIA website would have good data on this. —Tamfang 06:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

a good source for Iran could be the Iranian National Portal of Statistics. But the system is so messy, I gave up trying to understand it in detail... Fabienkhan | talk page 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is science Infinite?

Will we ever run out of things to discover in physics or mathematics? Is science infinite? And what about Art and other stuff will we ever run out of ideas for films, painting, plays, books etc? 89.243.215.246 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Einstein said that the only 2 infinite things were the universe and human stupidity, and he wasn't even sure about the universe. That leaves human stupidity as the only definitely infinite thing. But I reason that with all that stupidity (aleph-null), there must be at least an aleph-1 amount of science, art, creativity as well. Or, at the very least, a very great number of stupid scientists, stupid artists, stupid writers etc. Maybe this very post is a perfect demonstration of that.  :) -- JackofOz 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Einstein made such a mediocre statement. In Wikiquote it is just attributed, but not sourced. For the OP: not directly related to your question, but maybe technological singularity can provide some useful information for your purposes. --Taraborn 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious question in the philosophy of science. How you answer it will depend on what you ultimately believe science is, what you believe are the limits of human comprehension (if there are any), and whether or not you believe science is truly progressive or not. One of my favorite essays on just this question is Ludwik Fleck, "Problems of the Science of Science" (1946) which is unfortunately a little hard to come by these days. In any case, there's no simple answer to this, and the deeper you probe into it the more difficult the entire problem becomes, largely because in the end it rests on the ever-tricky of how exactly one relates ontology (what the world is) and epistemology (how we know). (And JackofOz, Einstein did fundamentally believe that the all aspects of the universe were in theory graspable by the human mind, unlike, say, Niels Bohr, who believed that representations were all one could have and that our language would in the end limit our understanding. Just a nitpick!) --24.147.86.187 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics is definitely not finite - we will never run out of things to discover and/or invent in mathematics. As far as physics and the rest of the natural sciences are concerned, most scientists would say we are nowhere reaching the limits of what can be discovered or understood by the human mind - see unsolved problems in physics, unsolved problems in chemistry and unsolved problems in neuroscience. However, a contrarian view was taken by John Horgan in his 1996 book The End of Science. Gandalf61 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that whenever science answers one question, it opens up several others. For instance, the word "atom" means "uncuttable" or "irreducible," but more than 100 years after the establishment of atomic theory, scientists realized atoms were made up of subatomic particles. The behavior of subatomic particles completely messed up established theories of physics, leading to the creation of quantum mechanics theory. Then they discovered quarks, and for the past 40 years have been figuring out what they're all about. There are now all kinds of unsolved problems with the Standard Model of particle physics. And they all come from further investigation of a problem thought to have been solved 200 years ago: What is the basic unit of matter? The more that question was investigated, the more questions arose. The same can be said about just about any area of science. -- Mwalcoff 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Click on "Random article" nuff sed ;) Perry-mankster 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In the late 20th century, quite a few pop science books came out predicting the end of science. Hubris! I like the Isaac Asimov quote, thought frustratingly can't find it right now - he says that knowledge is fractal: the more one knows, the more there is to know - each solution opens a new universe of questions. Adambrowne666 22:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Around 1900 there was also this sentiment that in the field of theory (almost) everything was discovered and all that needed to be done was fill in the gaps of factual knowledge, which would be simple administrative work. However, there were still some nasty issues like the particle/wave duality of light, some of which were solved by Einstein in a way that raised even more questions - Mwalcoff's point. DirkvdM 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Gandalf, since mathematics is the language of science and the way we view the world scientifically, if mathematics is infinite, then isn't science also? DirkvdM 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - I wonder too if the lacunae in mathematics discovered by Godel - the definitively insoluble problems - are matched by the lacunae in the physical universe - the singularities. Adambrowne666

Has there never been a full-length bigraphy of Tristan Tzara?

Has there never been a full-length bigraphy of Tristan Tzara? If not, why not? He may not be a household name, but he founded Dadaism, and everybody has heard of that. And he led such an intersting life. I'm a screenwriter who's had some success with bio-pics, and I'd love to have Tzara for my next subject, but I can't do all the legwork of a biography. 64.131.162.63 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Matt Bird

There is none written in English. One has recently been translated from French; I have heard that another is in the works. I cannot remember the name of the translated work, but I did remember reading about it approximately two years ago in the TLS or the NYRB; it seemed to be somewhat unsatisfactory. Hornplease 05:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not in English, but there are several works in French.[2][3][4] You can buy a 1930-word biography for $9.95.[5] I've no idea of the quality.  --Lambiam 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What piece of classical music is this?

It starts off the Word for the Wise broadcast at Merriam Webster. It can be found here. Thanks! Baseballfan 05:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's from a symphony by Josef Haydn. But which one, I don't know. -- JackofOz 05:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article finder?

I try to stay as informed as possible, so I subscribe to The New York Times, The LA Times, The New Yorker, Harper's, and various other periodicals. And if that wasn't enough I go to a newspaper stand fairly regularly, and pick up a whole bunch of magazines and newspapers there. I didn't know where to ask this, so I decided to ask it here. Does anybody know of a website that gives me good articles, interesting editorials, or controversial columns in various publications? I've looked all over the internet for a media guide, but I can't seem to find one. If anyone can help me out it would be great.--Bobpalloona 06:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)BobPalloona

Proquest comes to mind, as one can search numerous journals and publications. However unless it is accessed at a library that has it, you'd need a login, such as with a student ID. There are plenty of other periodical indexes out there too. Hope that is of some assistance. Baseballfan 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like what you want is some sort of editorial service that will cull the "interesting" (in your tastes) from the rest. Blogs often serve such a function these days, serving as specialized collections of links and commentary about certain types of media. --24.147.86.187 11:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens of clipping services. Without knowing anything specific about your interests, I can tell you that I use Google News and then go to Slashdot for a supplement. I let my bloggers, like DailyKos alert me to some other things, and I'll check in on Salon.com and The Nation online. However, the really specialized news aggregators are subscription, and I am poor. Geogre 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

United States to invade Iran?

I asked my contacts in Iran, and they tell me:

"Not at all! The United States won't attack or make war on Persia, because they don't want to change the regime here. It's all talk and no action, so that ordinary people in the world and especially in the US will continue to support the US. The United States profit enormously from Persia's oil and strongly want to maintain the status quo, but this is all hidden. Did you know that the United States and the UK caused the Islamic Revolution in Persia in 1979? This was an entirely American plan in my country!"

Is this accurate?--Sonjaaa 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no! The CIA were involved in the rise to power of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, helping him in his arguments with the prime minister in 1953 for example. When he was overthrown by the Islamic revolution in 1979, the US froze Iranian assets. They also, along with many other countries, backed the secular dictator Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. I fail to see how the US benefits from having an islamic theocracy in Iran as opposed to a secular government, who would be more likely to support the US and less hostile to the US and its favourite ally Israel. Now I would expect some Iranians to have been told a few lies by their government, but I doubt the successors of the revolution would claim American influence. And while people exist who blame the US for absolutely everything in the world, this sounds a very strange claim to me. Cyta 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "helping him in his arguments with the prime minister in 1953 for example"—that's understating a bit. I mean, they helped stage a coup. --24.147.86.187 00:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was more than that, my choice of words was poor. Cyta 07:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the Iran hostage crisis must, by this odd contention, have been part of Jimmy Carter's deep-laid plan? Scepticism, Sonjaaa, is, as Napoleon said, a virtue in history as well as philosophy! Clio the Muse 00:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything can happen when Commander Koookoo-bananas is president. Gzuckier 13:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Subquestion:

Do Iranians call their country "Persia" instead of Iran as we do? --Taraborn 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The article at iran says it's called "Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān". Corvus cornix 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And as usual Wikipedia have an article, Iran_naming_dispute. Cyta 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooops... sorry for not searching. Thank you very much to both. --Taraborn 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Art versus science

Can anyone point me to any essays or quotes - if such exist - on the virtues of art over science from 17th or pre-17th century philosophers? I realise this is an obscure one - any help at all would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 09:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is going to be that "science" isn't science in the 17th century. It's mostly "natural philosophy," but the general line taken is Aristotle's. In Poetics, Aristotle argued the superiority of "poetry" (any fiction) over "history," for history tells us merely what has happened, while poetry tells us what "must" (by logic) or "should" (by morality) happen. Because morality and logic are from a superior position in the universals, poetry is superior to the mundane recording of the actual. Ok, well, that's poetry, except that Philip Sidney, in Defense of Poetry, extended that to what you might call "art" in general. In fact, the general attitude throughout is that the universals and divine are more ennobling than the grubby reals, and therefore more appropriate to communicate. Do you want to tell your people about a tyrant being overthrown? Yes. Do you want to tell them of a frenzied mob killing a good king? No. The duty is to communicate. Otherwise, there isn't an opposition really between "investigating the natural world by philosophy and by art."

If you believe Jonathan Swift's A Tale of a Tub is 17th century, you can find some ridicule of the Royal Academy -- though nothing like what he would unleash in the 3rd book of Gulliver's Travels. Geogre 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful answer, thanks Geogre Adambrowne666 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You will also find the articles 17th century philosophy and History of science helpful.

As Geogre says, in and before the 17th century people saw 'art' and 'science' in classical terms. I should put it more simply: in Latin, ars is 'skill' and scientia is knowledge, and the two are complementary. I can't think of any early modern philosophers who took a view on knowledge (sciences) having less virtue than skills (arts). Indeed, if we focus on the general nature of the centuries leading up to the 17th (the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Scientific Revolution), they developed (especially in Northern Europe) Aristoteleian natural philosophy into what we now know as physics, astronomy, chemistry, botany, biology and so forth. Men with classical educations like Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz began to lay the foundations of the modern world. If you have time to look at the work of the philosophers, you should perhaps concentrate on the most significant ones. A key man of the period, René Descartes, was himself important to the scientific revolution. Francis Bacon developed the Baconian method, a form of scientific inquiry. Baruch Spinoza, apart from being a rationalist, was a lens-grinder and saw the benefits of science as an aspect of philosophy. And so on... read the articles on them and others! Xn4 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The critical distinction or friction was probably one of logos vs. praxis. "Projectors" and what we would call experimental philosophy was open for satire (Swift, above), but it's not just satire. Some natural philosophers worked from universals to particulars, in the deductive method, and this was "pure" and classically ordained. Others poked and prodded and worked from experiment to figure out laws (inductive method). All of them were obeying the Baconian method, in England, but the scientific method only tells you what to do after you have the hypothesis, and some people seemed to have no hypothesis. This group (what we would now call experimentalists) was opposed by those who wanted to have the pure idea first. However, I'm simplifying, for it was not merely being an experimenter that was a 'problem' for discussion. After all, people like John Arbuthnot (got to point at one I wrote) attacked Woodward's "principle means practice" attitude in medicine.

Descartes, as we all know, famously had to do the Method and therefore the rationalist set of principles before the exploration. Newton, too, had the idea and then investigated it. On the other hand, there were people who seemed to be blowing up dogs (yes, they did) just to see what would happen. Others did, in fact, think they could get sunlight out of a cucumber. From Thomas Shadwell's The Virtuoso to book 3 of Gulliver's Travels and onward (and the examples there came from Arbuthnot), there is a two track argument going on (too dedicated to universals, and you're Woodward; too free of them, and you're a Projector), the art vs. science is really Nature (understood in an Aristotelian and Christian sense) vs. Actual. At least that's how it seems to me. Geogre 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more shout out for what I consider to be a simply great as well as fascinating bit of philosophy from a contemporary German thinker. "Indicted and Unburdened Man in Eighteenth-Century Philosophy," from Odo Marquard's Farewell to Matters of Principle, Wallace, Robert M. and Susan Bernstein, James I. Porter, transl., OUP, 1989 (got it with an Odeon imprint), 38-64, is really, really cool. He wrote on the same subject in In Praise of the Accidental, and it's interesting both in terms of its discussion of theodicy and the origins of social science in the 18th century and what it says about the post-war moment in German thought. Way, way neat. Geogre 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Okay, thanks again - thanks too Xn - I'm gonna print this out and read it at my leisure. Adambrowne666 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical customs, England

(moved from WP:HD by 69.118.235.97)

Can you describe for me the history and the mechanics of "a living" in 19th-c. England, as alluded to in novels by George Eliot, Jane Austen, and others? I surmise that a "living" is a sort of endowment established at a given church for the support and salary of the rector, and I take it to be a rural or provincial custom. But how is it established, and who administers it?

One phrase that I have repeatedly encountered is "The living was in his gift." How does it come to be in anyone's gift?

Thank you for your help.

209.247.23.5 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Anne Lunt, Temple, NH -- [[email redacted to prevent abuse by spammers etc..]]

Some ecclesiastical posts were (and are) in the hands of temporal appointers. Notably, many rural rectors (etc) of the type your authors delight in describing, would have been appointed by their local great land-owner. --Dweller 11:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio will fill this in comprehensively, I'm sure, but the 'living' of a parish was usually the small income that was attached to the position of the rector. The income came from tithes or the endowment of glebe lands. For reasons usually to do with the original gift of land to the parish and the organisation of local feudal system, the right of advowson was usually vested in a local landowner. He could appoint the rector who would then either conduct services himself or appoint a less well-connected clergyman as the vicar. The right of advowson was hereditary, but the income from tithes and glebe lands was like any other asset, and could be impounded or used as collateral.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia says "The right of presentation which, originally, was conferred on a person building or endowing a church, appears to have become, by degrees, appendant to the manor in which it was built."

The right of presentation is covered here.

This system actually continued until all glebe lands were centralized sometime in the 1970s. Hornplease 11:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio can make little improvement on the information and links that you and other editors have supplied here, Hornplease! I have only one small addition to make on the question of advowsons. Over time the English monasteries gathered a great many of these, most often by some form of grant or bequest. At the time of the Dissolution in the sixteenth century the right of parish nominations, along with the lands, passed to lay benefactors. Clio the Muse 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevant stuff includes Advowson, Patronage#Canon_law and Parish#Church_of_England. Whoever had the living in their gift could select the priest for that parish when the incumbent dies or retires. Vicar#Anglican might be useful too (vicars, rectors and curates being different things). Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this sense of living is the origin of the phrase eke out a living: eke is an obsolete word meaning also, and to eke [something] out is to supplement it. —Tamfang 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

german violent videogames ban

I read today that violent videogames may be banned in germany.. Can someone provide a link etc giving more infomation on what constitutes 'violent' in this context etc. Plus is there a relevent page? Thanks87.102.79.29 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're thinking of is more concentrated. They're not banning violent video games in general, just the hyper violent Manhunt 2 which Rockstar is currently toning down and re-issuing. Even the US banned the original version. Beekone 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Not what I meant - Gears of war, and dead rising were unrated and as such never got an official release.

I wanted to know what the policy was - most computer games invlove 'killing things' don't they.?87.102.75.201 15:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably to do with the degree of slaughter and torture, but you're right. Mario's been killing goomba's with 8-bit fire balls for almost twenty years. Beekone 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

StGB#.C2.A7_131:_Representation_of_violence might be of some interest. --24.147.86.187 12:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes thanks - if anyone is interested there is also Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien - relating to things that 'corrupt young people'.87.102.84.56 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

it is not about violence itself its about either showing nazi symbols (thats why Wolfenstein was banned) or depiction of the death or killing of humans. Some games just make them Zombies with green blood to pass that requirement. Its not about violence itself.--Tresckow 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Eastern European Fashion

Does anybody know of any quirky fashion trends in and around Prague in the late 1800's, early 1900's? Did the standard attire for the rest of Europe apply there or did they adopt a more Russian image? What kinds of mixtures were happening? Even if you know of a good book I should checkout, that would be helpful. Thank you! Beekone 15:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On the question of fashions, Beekone, I can only make an educated guess here, but my hunch is that Czechs, among the most advanced of the people of the old Austrian Empire, would dress little differently in Prague, as they would in Vienna. If you wish I could point you in the direction of some good reading on Czech history in general, and the history of Prague in particular. No prêt-à-porter, though! Clio the Muse 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You would get a to some degree differng fashion in hungary were hungarian style ornaments were on uniforms and some civilian suits. At this time many people would still have worn their folcoristic traditional costumes. But generally and especially in the upper class and middle class just normal. Same for Russia id say.--Tresckow 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wi, prêt-à-porter! Everything is helpful. I'm not looking for a glossed over definition of the clothing styles. Little quirks will help maintain realism. Pedestrian fashion is important for illustrating the time line in an obvious way, but the exaggerated trends of high fashion would be like icing on a cake. Thank you, Clio and Tresckow! Beekone 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dog tags of Jewish soldiers in the Allied armies during World War II

Dear Sir/Madam,

Assuming the notion that Jewish soldiers serving in the Allied armies during World War II could possibly be (and were probably) captured by German forces, was the information of their religious affiliation encrypted considering antisemitism was quite prevalent amongst the population of the previously mentioned nationality ? I'm not trying to say that all Germans would have lynched the first Jew in sight, but I'm skeptical that they would have received the same treatment than the other prisoners and even less if the antagonists would have been part of the Waffen SS.

Sincerely, Matt714 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources http://www.fathom.com/course/21701756/session2.html http://books.google.com/books?id=6dExD3wChyMC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=jews+american+army+wwii+dog+tag&source=web&ots=BjtL-9LH3l&sig=-2c56Ew3bKqh9zGtyi5lwUF99aA say that american jews had an 'H' on their dog tags signifying 'hebrew'87.102.75.201 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This reference http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq70-1.htm suggest's that having a religion included was optional - see

Markings consisted of name; officer file number, or enlisted service number; blood type; date of tetanus inoculation; service; and religion, if desired by the service member: Catholic (C), Protestant (P), or "Hebrew" (H).

As for the actual german treatment of jewish prisoners that is another question - which you could ask if you wish.87.102.75.201 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The treatment accorded to Jewish prisoners of war was determined, in large measure, by their national origins. Those from Britain and the United States were afforded some degree of protection under the terms of the Geneva Convention; those from Russia had no protection whatsoever. In general the Germans behaved atrociously towards Soviet prisoners of war. For example, it was captured Soviet soldiers who were the subject of the first test gassings at Auschwitz in early 1942, regardless of religion or of race. Of the 100,000 or so Russian Jewish soldiers who fell into Nazi hands almost none survived. The western allies, as I have said, generally fared better, though even here there were exceptions. If you are particularly interested in the American case I would refer you to Given Up for Dead: American POWs in the Nazi Concentration Camp at Berga by Flint Whitlock. Some 350 soldiers, mostly Jewish, taken by the Germans in the Ardennes offensive of 1944, were separated from the other prisoners and taken to the slave labour camp at Berga south of Leipzig, in the only known case where Americans were subject to 'special treatment.' Clio the Muse 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The users of the Wikipedia reference desks have again amazed me by their prompt and concise replies. My sincere remerciments to everyone who replied, this was exactly the information and even more that I was searching for. Matt714 08:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would the US opt for H/Hebrew, rather than the more obvious J/Jew? Was J already taken by Jains, Jehovah's Witnesses or some other group I can't think of? --Dweller 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Using "Jew" as an adjective has been offensive since at least the late 19th century. See Jew (word). FiggyBee 04:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that remarkably irrelevant point. If it makes you happier, read the question as: "why not J for Jewish"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Shias in Lebanon

I would like to know something of the history of the Shia community in Lebanon. Philip the Arab 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no certainty as to when the Shi'a community first established itself in Lebanon, though they were well settled across the Levant by the tenth century. Later still Shi'a emirates were establlished in Tyre and Tripoli, though these collapsed at the time of the First Crusade in 1099. After the fall of the Crusader kingdoms, the Shi'a peoples, who had withdrawn to the hinterland of Lebanon, were persecuted by the new conquerors, the Sunni Mamelukes. People were forced out of the mountainous areas of Kisrawan where they had taken refuge in the wake of the Crusaders, moving through the Beqaa plain, to new strongholds in Jezzanine and Jabal Amil, in what is now the south and east of Lebanon. During the time of the Ottoman Empire the Shi'a were largely ignored, though they found themselves competing for scarce resources with the expanding community of Maronite Christians.

During most of the Ottoman period the Shi'a largely maintained themselves as 'a state apart', though they maintained contact with the Safavid dynysty, which established Shi'a Islam as the state religion of Persia. These contacts made them all the more suspect to the Ottoman Sultan, who was frequently at war with the Persians, as well as being, in the role of Caliph, the leader of the majority Sunni community Shi'a Lebanon, when not subject to political repression, was generally neglected, sinking further and further into the economic background.

Towards the end of the eighteenth century the Comte de Volmy was to describe the Shi'a as a distict society, outside the main currents of Lebanese life; and so they were perceived by their Sunni, Druze and Maronite neighbours, right into the twentieth century. It was by default that they found themselves as part of the new state of Grand Liban, created by the French in September 1920.

Interestingly, the Shi'a were among the first to take advantage of the new political realities. The Sunni had attempted to resist the French mandate; and when they were defeated, refused to participate in the administration of what they considered to be an artificial political entity. Sunni opposition had aimed at the creation of a 'greater Syria', where the Shia would have been a permanent minority. But in the new state of Lebanon they acquired both an independence and a far greater political significance in relation to the size of their community. This was further emphasised by French colonial policy, which sought to reach out to the Shi'a, with the intention of preventing a possible alliance with the Sunni.

After independence in 1943, although the Shi'a remained part of Lebanon's delicate confessional and political balancing act, their homelands were still economically among the most backward areas. Many of them gravitated towards the slums of Beruit, progressively becoming more radicalised in the process; they also became deeply resentful at the affluence of the Sunni and Christian middle classes, prospering in the liberal atmosphere of the 1950s. In 1959 the Shi'a acquired a more determined and unique voice, when Musa al-Sadr arrived from Qom to take up the position of Mufti. In 1967 he established a Supreme Islamic Shi'a Council, regulating the affairs of the community, and giving it as high a profile in the state as the corporate bodies set up by the Maronite, Sunni and Druze. People who had been carried along by left-wing and secular currents were slowly drawn back into a reinvigorated Islam, many joining Amal, the militia founded by Sadr in 1974. Although Sadr disappeared under mysterious circumstances in 1978, his influence, and his radical message, lived on, contributing later to the rise of Hezbollah. The Lebanese Civil War, and Israeli intervention in southern Lebanon, also went a long way towards consolidataing a new and more radical Shi'a identity. Clio the Muse 03:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I copied Clio's reply to Islam in Lebanon. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to you for all of this information, Clio the Muse.Philip the Arab 22:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Since haitians are just of West African descent, does include all the countries of west africa?

Let Me List Them:

Benin Burkina Faso Côte d'Ivoire Cape Verde The Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Liberia Mali Mauritania Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Togo

Even though they too have Central, South and SouthEast african ancestry, but still does it include all countries of west africa?--arab 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing geographical terms referring to broad movements of populations with the precision required by political boundaries. It means "West Africa" in a hazy way, and should not be taken to refer to specifically 21st century political entities (or even biological populations, necessarily—a lot of time has passed since then). --24.147.86.187 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, "95%" does not mean "all", and "predominantly" does not mean "fully". The ancestry of the large majority of current Haitians goes back for the larger part on ancestors who came from West Africa, in particular the Slave Coast and the Gold Coast. These are geographic indications. The local kingdoms from that time no longer exist, and the present republics there have no historic relationship with these kingdoms and have different boundaries.  --Lambiam 03:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that slaving was a business for Africans as well as Europeans and the supplied slaves came from a wide area. Rmhermen 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

August 25

Recent NYtimes Article

ON green CEO or executive directors. Does anyone remember seeing this? I read it and put it aside but now cant find it!! Lots of googling to new avail. If anyone remembers this article, or something similar can you point me in the right direction? (or help me brainstorm more search terms, I have used green, environment, CEO, executive director, officer...)

Thanks

Ebenbayer 02:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How long ago was this? Last week? Last year?  --Lambiam 03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one about the Energy Security Leadership Council, a group of CEO's supporting alternative energy: [6] --Sean 03:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one, "Companies Giving Green an Office", from July 2007. [7]. Search for "global warming managers" and you'll find more related articles. --24.147.86.187 04:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

property rights on banned things

Hi. I wonder if a person still enjoys certain property rights on things which are banned. For example, if person X breaks into person Y's house, and steals all his millions of dollars in narcotics and unnecessarily powerful weapons, would person X faces theft charges, or possession of stolen property in addition to the possession of illegal banned things? --Duomillia 05:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether they would actually face such charges is one thing, but sure, it is theft and illegal, even if the person originally enjoying the goods was possessing them in contravention of the law.  --Lambiam 11:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Person X would be charged with breaking and entering, as well as possession of narcotics. I don't think a DA would try to get them charged with possession of stolen property; it would be conceptually confusing for a jury. Person Y would probably be liable to be charged for narcotics as well if they reported the theft. This is one reason why illegal things are often stolen—they can't be reported as stolen without self-incrimination on behalf of the person reporting it. --24.147.86.187 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OKAY im confused ,please answer this!!

The slaves came from the Gold Coast which is Ghana and the Slave Coast. (togo benin and western nigeria) The people who settled in Benin came from Niger because the Edo people came from Niger Area(so they have Nigerien ancestry) and the 1st people that settled in Togo came from both Ghana and Benin. So they both have Ghanaian and Beninese descent. Just read the history of Benin and Togo you know what im talking about. I just confusing about togo and benin, So the people of benin have nigerien descent and the togolese have beninese and ghanian descent. it's just confusing so help!!!!!!--arab 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Everybody everywhere came from somewhere else. Not only in Africa; look for plenty of examples in Europe. There is a constant stream of migrations going on, like billiard balls caroming on a pool table. It is mainly meaningful to ask for someone's ancestry with respect to a specific migration. As you move back in history it gets more and more diffuse, through migrations and through intermarriages. Also, do not confuse geographical designations with political entities. It is not as if the area that is Togo was deserted before the Portuguese came, upon which people from the areas that today are Ghana and Benin moved in. It is rather meaningless to say that these people were of "Beninese and Ghanian descent". Was Hannibal of Tunisian descent, Archimedes of Italian descent, Euclid of Egyptian descent, and Heraclitus of Turkish descent? Togo has quite arbitrary geographical boundaries that have no ethnic or tribal relevance, and no relevance in any sense at all in the period you're interested in.  --Lambiam 11:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Iran

How have America's military and political actions in the Middle East region helped or hindered Iran? --Longhornsg 07:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Ajax--Funnyguy555 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the better question might be how have America's actions in the Middle East helped or hindered America?! They have certainly aided Iran by no direct process; they have, however, indirectly and unintentionaly, provided the political context for the the victory of Shi'a radicalism and a militant form of Iranian nationalism. Even more seriously, by knocking out the regime of Saddam Hussein the United States has removed the one effective political counter to Iran in the whole region, adding greatly to the power and prestige of the present regime, headed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What follows, I have to sresss, is a brief essay on realpolitik as it is applied to international relations. It is not an attack on the United States, a defence of Saddam Hussein, or a justification of Islamic militancy. Insofar as Clio has a view it is this: the history, the politics and the religious tensions in the Persian Gulf region are enormously complex. It is, or should be, the one place on earth where all wise men fear to tread.

First, a brief word or two on the nature of Shi'a Islam and how it applies to Iranian politics. Iran is the one country in the world where attitudes and outlooks are dominated by millenarian form of Islam, known as the Twelver School. Central to this is the idea of a Mahdi, a messiah to come at the end of time and rule the world with justice. Muhammad al-Mahdi, by Shia tradition the twelvth Iman, was withdrawn from the visable world in the ninth century, though he remains poised to return, transmitting his wishes in the meantime to the faithful through deputies. In practical terms this has meant that all temporal authority is viewed as illegitimate, except when endorsed, as part of a temporary arrangement, by Shi'a theologians. This need for a balance between secular of theocratic rule was recognised in 1503 by the Safavids, though in practice it has been difficult to achieve. Even so, the Iranian constitution of 1906 made provision for clerics to oversee parliamentary enactments. Though this was never implemented the idea remained latent and powerful. It gave Shi'ism a powerful political and revolutionary focus that simply did not exist in Sunni Islam. In helping to overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the CIA not only destroyed a legitimate and democratically elected government, but it also encouraged a counter-response, with an outcome in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

With the support of the United States, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, emerged from the 1953 coup more absolute than ever. He began a programme of westernisation and modernisation, aiming, in his own words, for 'the Great Civilization.' For most Iranians, though, he was little better than a foreign-sponsored puppet, whose oppressive and brutal security apparatus, SAVAK, was built up with American and Israeli aid. The secular political opposition, including the Communist Party, was destroyed. In the end only the Muslim clerics were left as a channel for national discontent, a discontent expressed in the most uncompromising form by Ruhollah Khomeini.

It was the writing of the man we now know as Ayatolla Khomeini that led in 1963 to the first great public protest against the Shah. Sent into exile, Kohmeini continued his criticism, drawing on all of the established Shi'a traditions, theology and scholarship. His interpretation of how government should be conducted in the absence of the Iman was to provide the political and theological basis for the Islamic Revolution. The Shah was ignoring both the clergy and the Constitution of 1906. His government was therefore not merely wrong; it was blasphemous. The only government that could be relied upon to be truly Islamic was that under the supervision of the ulema, the general body of the Muslim clergy.

The success of the Revolution, and the return of Kohomeini, saw a clear deterioration of the American position in the region. The whole event was carried forward on an explosion of anger, directed fist at the westernising practices of the Shah, and second against the United States for sustaining his regime for so long. This found early expression in the Iranian hostage crisis, which served to demonstrate the military and political impotence of Jimmy Carter's presidency. The political chaos within Iran also provided the opportunity for Saddam to to begin the Iran-Iraq War in 1980, an act of opportunist aggression. Here the United States initially maintained a position of neutrality, though this changed when the Iraqi offensive faltered. Fears over an Iranian advance was to lead to U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, including the supply of chemicals, which were used in attacking Iranian troops. Support did not stop when it was discovered that Saddam was also using chemical weapons against parts of his own population.

The war stopped with an uneasy peace, a militant Islamic state on one side of the divide, and a secular Arab dictator on the other. But Saddam was an unpredictable Frankenstein monster, as the United States discovered during the First Gulf War. Saddam's aggression against Kuwait, the cause of the war, had been helped on its way by previous massive U. S. arms sales to Iraq. The war concluded with the 1991 uprisings, when the Iraqi Shi'a in the south rose in revolt, although this was suppressed because George H. W. Bush and his coalition partners offered no support.

Thereafter American policy in the region, and Iran-United States relations was characterised by a deep sense of confusion, perhaps nowhere more evident than in George W. Bush's Axis of evil speech, which failed to draw any distinction between the different degrees of 'threat' presented by Iran and Iraq. As I have already indicated, thses two powers, with deep mutual hostilities, held one another in check. The game was changed out of all recognition by the Second Gulf War, conceivably one of the most misguided steps in the whole War on Terror strategy pursued by the White House. With Saddam gone Iran is immesurably stronger, with support across the region; from the Shi'a militias in Iraq to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The weak Iraqi democracy is in no position to withstand Iranian pressure, and any American withdrawal will only make the position worse. President Bush now has the wolf by the ears: he does not want to hold on, but he dare not left go. It's impossible to predict what may come. Clio the Muse 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The reaction to US support for the shah seems like a good example of one extreme leading to the other. If you push people too hard in one direction, you'll likely see them move in the opposite direction. I've heard the suggestion that the present Iranian movement should run its course. It will start to disgust people, which will cause increasing support for the countermovements (which there must be - Iran is a fairly 'modern' society). Most importantly, this will come from the inside and will therefore stick. This is a very important lesson for the US. Btw it's too late for Iraq. Both the US leaving and staying will have unacceptable consequences. So in retrospect (?) they should not have gone there in the first place. Then again, a solution from within may take a long time. No easy answers. DirkvdM 08:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not directly addressing the question, but the thread somehow led me to the article on Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the puppetmaster behind Mossadegh's overthrow. I had listened to a radio segment on him a couple of years ago, and was now delighted to find the bit on how he nearly blew his cover at the Turkish embassy in Tehran:

"When playing tennis and making some frustrating mistake he would cry out, "Oh Roosevelt!" Puzzled by this, his friends asked him about this interesting way of expressing his annoyance with his game. He explained that as loyal member of the Republican party back in the States, that every Republican had nothing but scorn and hatred for Franklin Delano Roosevelt and that he despised the man so much that he took to using FDR's name as a curse."

---Sluzzelin talk 11:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange to hear Kermit described as the puppet master rather than the puppet! I am sure his girlfriend is the sort of strong woman Clio would respect as well. Cyta 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Adorable Miss Piggy, Evita to Kermit's Peron! Clio the Muse 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

21 grams

Does the life force in humans have a discernible weight? - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No.

This appears to be a science question, not humanities. --Anonymous, August 25, 2007, 10:50 (UTC).

Not until ghosts can haz cheezburger.hotclaws 10:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The expression "life force in humans" sounds hardly scientific to me. It's a fine folklore or ancient traditions question, so it fits perfectly here. --Taraborn 15:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The 21 grams is supposed to be the weight of the final breath. Many, many, many cultures have associated the breath with the life force, from ancient Hebrews to the Romans ("spirit" = "breath"). The film 21 grams explains, I think, that that is the amount of weight a body loses at the moment of death. Well, that is bogus, as each particular body would have to vary, and other things are lost besides breath. Geogre 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This goes back to actual zany experiments by one Dr. Duncan MacDougall, who believed he was measuring the weight of the human soul (not breath or life force) leaving the body as the patient was dying. Different patients gave different results, but for the first reported on the measured weight loss was "ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce". Another conclusion of the good doctor was that "this substance ... weighs about one and one-fourth ounces per cubic foot".  --Lambiam 13:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just saying what is lost at death. Air is heavy, as we all know from our own nation's Mr. Wizard (even humanities geeks). One's weight loss at the flicker of death would be air volume, but then other things could go out after the loss of muscular control. Geogre 13:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's very delicately put, Geogre! I've seen a little death, and the passing of water happens as often as not. Xn4 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this. -- JackofOz 12:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward Office in Japan

What is a Ward Office in Japan? What sort of a directory is kept there? I read in a handbook on Japan that the directory is now available in Korean as well. Something to do with census? Thanks for any clarification. Chakkshusravana 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The wards of Japan are the administrative subdivisions where local administrative issues are handled, including family registration (which implies Japanese citizenship and includes registration of residence). Possibly the directory refers to that, but the wards also maintain a second separate "stand alone" residence registration for Japanese citizens, and furthermore an alien registration. Without further context I can't be sure.  --Lambiam 17:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. With that article you linked, things at once became clear. Regards. Chakkshusravana 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mozart's laughter

Some people say his laughter was rather... well... ridiculous. Do we have any solid evidence for that fact or is it just an urban legend? --Taraborn 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The giggle produced by the persona Mozart (played by Tom Hulce) in the movie Amadeus was rather... well... ridiculous. As it is generally accepted that movies portraying historical characters meticulously stick to well-researched and well-established historical fact, and that no self-respecting director would even move an inch away from that under the guise of artistic freedom, this must be equally true as the historical fact that Salieri caused Mozart's death.  --Lambiam 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall, and someone else can recall better, I'm sure, Schaffer got that from a letter from one of the people offended by Mozart, but it was a single line. He was supposed to have a grating laugh. Well, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Geogre 21:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More actually, it's a sad commentary on modern life that, for most people, the sum total of their "knowledge" about Mozart is the film Amadeus. Schaffer never intended the play as an accurate biography of Mozart. He knew as well as anyone else that there is no evidence that Salieri poisoned Mozart, or even tried to. Who knows what other historical inaccuracies he introduced? And who knows how far Forman's film diverged from Schaffer's play? (these are rhetorical questions, btw). My suggestion is to love the movie (as I do), but please look elsewhere for the truth about Mozart. -- JackofOz 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

By no means that applies to me, of course, since I have not even watched the film. That's why I asked whether it was or wasn't an urban legend. only because many ordinary people said that but I couldn't find any reference in more serious sources, such as Wikipedia. Thank you to all for confirming my thoughts. --Taraborn 13:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you read the subsection Mozart#Rumours_and_controversies, particularly the sentence beginning with "Shaffer's play attracted criticism for portraying Mozart as vulgar and loutish, a characterization felt by many to be unfairly exaggerated, but in fact frequently confirmed by the composer's letters and other memorabilia." The paragraph then mentions two canons with coprolalic lyrics. I've seen at least two other ones ("Beym Arsch ist's finster" and "Difficile lectu mihi Mars" - allographic word play on "leck Du mi im Arsch") And I've seen letters to his friends and relatives ending with vulgar and puerile valedictions. Geogre's suggestion sounds possible, perhaps Mozart's laughter was remarkable enough to find its way in a letter or two, and if I ever find anything, I will certainly let you know. Without going out on the highly speculative Tourette limb, and only judging from my own experience with humans, it is certainly not difficult to imagine an annoying laugh following the reported compulsion to address bodily taboos in speech and writing. But of course we'll never know what it sounded like. What we do know, is the sound of laughter and merriment as expressed in his compositions. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Taraborn 08:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I still strongly recommend that you see the movie when you get the chance - but for its cinematic merits (after all, it didn't win the Best Picture Oscar for nothing; and neither did F Murray Abraham, who won the Best Actor award) and as a source of great music played beautifully, rather than as a source of historical accuracy. -- JackofOz 12:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Weddings

If my nephew is getting married by a justice fo the peace on Monday, and we just found out yesterday (8/25/07) what is the proper amount of money to give as a gift?

Thanks,

regalbobg

Regalbobg 16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your income and closeness dictate. If you have a lot of nephews and not much money, not much. If you have a small number of nephews and nieces, and you're rich, some more. JP weddings are normally a sign that the couple don't expect much ado. There is no correct answer to this question, however. Utgard Loki 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A book named "THE GENIE"-a reply

Hello Somebody had answered my question which i had posted here earlier. sorry for this late reply. you have asked whether i remember any character or place i am searching for. i know this sounds stupid but i dont remember a single place or name but i only remember that the book was a work of fiction in which there was a genie having a sexual relation with a human female almost as a ritual. please somebody say the author. thank u.

Searches for books with "Genie" in the title show no possible match. I suspect the title was different, which leaves us little to search on.  --Lambiam 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro just died?

I have just heard that Fidel Castro has died - is this true or a rumour?? --AlexSuricata 19:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No one here can say for sure at this moment, but probably it's a rumor. See Fidel_Castro#Premature_death_rumors and [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21299581.shtml here]. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool section. A.Z. 20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Muslims of Spain

I would like to know something of the impact on the Muslims of Spain of the completion of the Reconquista in 1492.Philip the Arab 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Philip, this question badly needs the Clio treatment. Although it's Saturday night, she may drop in. I can say briefly that the Reconquista of Andalusia (see also Al-Andalus) had a huge impact for those Muslims who failed to convert to Christianity. Despite some initial promises of tolerance, their position got more and more painful and because they couldn't practise their religion, those who wanted to do so had to leave. No doubt if young most such migrants had more adventurous lives than they would have had at home in Andalusia, but especially for the older ones it must have been as heartbreaking as every such mass migration is. In Alan Whicker's words, "If you're twenty, there's a good life waiting for you somewhere. If you're sixty, weep."

You'll also find a little useful material in the articles Granada, Alhambra decree and Caliph of Córdoba. I can add that even today, more than five hundred years on, in the mosques of Andalusia which were converted to churches Muslims are still prevented from saying prayers after their own religion. If that impact can still be seen now, think back five hundred years to a more violent age. Xn4 23:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Two more articles which will help you: Moors and Spanish Inquisition. Xn4 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula is also informative, as is Francisco Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio's getting tired, Xn4, but how can she possibly avoid giving this question at least a little of her 'treatment' after your fanfare!

It's an interesting topic, Philip, one that uncovers what might be considered as the first serious act of 'ethnic cleansing' in all of European history. The Moors of Spain were to be the victims of a state policy that had as many racist as religious overtones.

As Xn4 has indicated, the surrender of Granada in 1492 was accompanied by a treaty, allowing the Spanish crown's new Muslim subjects a large measure of religious toleration. They were also allowed the continuing use of their own language, schools, laws and customs. But the interpretation of the royal edict was largely left to the local Christian authorities. Hernando de Talavera, the first archbishop of Granada after its fall, took a fairly tolerant view. This changed when he was replaced by Cardinal Cisneros, who immediately organised a drive for mass conversions and burned all texts in Arabic. Outraged by this breach of faith, in 1499 the Mudejar rose in the First Rebellion of Alpujarras, which only had the effect of giving Ferdinand and Isabella the excuse to revoke the promise of toleration. That same year the Muslim leaders of Granada were ordered to hand over almost all of the remaining books in Arabic, most of which were burned. Beginning in Valencia in 1502 Muslims were offerd the choice of baptism or exile. The majority decided to accept this, becoming 'New Christians', of very great interest to the newly-established Spanish Inquisition, authorised by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478.

It is important to understand that the Converts, though outwardly Christian, continued to to adhere to their old beliefs in private, a conduct allowed for by some Islamic authorities when the faithful are under duress or threat of life, a practice known as taqiyyah or precaution. Responding to a plea from his co-religionists in Spain, in 1504 the Grand Mufti of Oran issued a decree saying that Muslims may drink wine, eat pork and other forbidden things, if they were under compulsion. There were good reasons for this; for abstinence from wine or pork could, and did, cause people to be denounced to the Inquisition. But no matter how closely they observed all of the correct forms, the 'Morisco' or Little Moors, a term of disparagement, were little better than second-class citizens, tainted, it might be said, by blood rather than by actions.

Despite all of these pressures some people continued to observe Moorish forms, and practice as Muslims, well into the sixteenth century. In 1567 Philip II finally made the use of Arabic illegal, forbidding the Islamic religion, dress and customs, a step which led to the Second Rebellion of Alpujarras. This was suppressed with considerable brutality. In one incident troops commanded by Don John of Austria destroyed the town of Galera east of Granada, after slaughtering the entire population. The Moriscos of Granada were rounded up and dispersed across Spain. Edicts of expulsion were finally issued by Philip III in 1609, against people who were now perceived to be a threat to the 'purity' of the Spanish race. Clio the Muse 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio's reply goes to Islam in Spain. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

August 26

Video footage of communal exercise

In old videos of life in totalitarian or collective regimes (Nazi Germany, China, former USSR, etc.), a common theme shown was communal exercising - a large field of people all doing calisthenics, for example. I've always wondered about the purpose of those scenes, and the facts behind them. Was the general population required to participate in communal exercise programs or were these just the more health-conscious people getting together to exercise? Did the local governments release that footage to show how healthy and happy their people were, or did opposing governments use that footage to imply how extensively the other governments intruded upon and controlled their citizens' lives? 152.16.188.107 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Nazi Parades? --1ws1 06:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, these videos showed what appeared to be regular folks (not soldiers) performing directed, organized exercise. I've seen it in old videos of other nations as well. 152.16.188.107 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It happened in the US and UK, as well. There was a craze for calisthenics, and both children in schools and factory workers could be found doing their jumping jacks in the open air. Geogre 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they are usually shown to show how happy and healthy people are. You can find the same thing in US and UK footage from the period as well. In the early 20th century physical education and so forth became seen as part of the way to a better, stronger society, and synchronized movements of any form (education included) have long been symbols of a vigorous, unified state. The latter makes them especially salient images for communalist societies, which love to show that everybody is singing to the same tune. In the US and UK this national improvement drive also had connections to quasi-eugenic beliefs. --24.147.86.187 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Socrates Vs. Solomon 44 and Solomon 49

These are two exerpts from wikipedia's article on Socrates:

1. Socrates stressed that "virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know." (Solomon 44)

2. It was not only Athenian democracy: Socrates objected to any form of government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by philosophers (Solomon 49),

My question is, "What are Solomon 44 and Solomon 49? I know for a fact that they aren't books in the Bible or Platonic writings. But do they somehow relate to the Solomon in the Bible? And where exactly can the documents or books titled Solomon 44 and Solomon 49 be found? My search has come up entirely empty and I'm thinking whoever authored the Socrates article must have provided an innacurate source.

Aug 26, 2007

--anon.

• They're attempts at MLA citation/"Harvard notation," apparently, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude that the author used inaccurate notes. First, Wikipedia's featured articles have been the subject of gloriously stupid wars over notes, where one side just gives notes and the other demands that everything be a footnote, specifically. The footnoting formatting changed. In fact, some articles had the popcorn of notes all over and then had it all "disappear" when the format fiends changed their stuff. (Go into the Edit mode of the paragraph and look to see if notes are embedded in the text but not displaying. It happens.) Other people have been excitedly cutting out "references" that aren't footnotes, too.
• Now, in that case, it's probably to Robert C. Solomon. I don't know if it's to Introducing Philosophy: A Text with integrated Readings or one of the many others he edited/published. The point is that this is what happens when the foolish little battles happen, and not a sign of bad editing or writing. Geogre 12:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Solomons" were introduced in an edit that left no clue about which Solomon what. The same edit introduced a "(Gross 2)". I suspect these paragraphs were copied and pasted from another source. In googling for a possible source, I came across the following howler: a "free term paper" entitled "An analysis of Socrates' Oedipus Rex".[8]  --Lambiam 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ah. Well, it's probably someone copying from his/her own paper, let's hope, rather than trying to incorporate a copyright violation. I found the Solomon, but the thing is...it's such an absolutely obvious statement (first one) and then such an obviously wrong one (or overstatement, really, because it's Plato who "objects," but not "object" like revolutionary) that I hope they're not circulating lies on the web.
• By the way, I have seen the most astonishing garbage handed in that had been downloaded. The people doing so had gotten every bit of what they had paid for: an F. Geogre 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had people print out a bunch of web pages and turn that in as a writing assignment. That's the sort of thing that made me change the project for my math for liberal arts majors class from a paper to a presentation. It was just too depressing to contemplate the inability of my college students to write. Thank God I wasn't in the English department. Donald Hosek 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the 8th ed. of Solomon's textbook, page 44 is completely blank, so much so that it doesn't even say "this page has been left blank intentionally." The Mad Echidna 15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited (and the provenance of these paragraphs) are clarified here: Talk:Socrates/Archive 1#Beliefs Section.  --Lambiam 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and GIGO strikes again. It's sad. All I can say is that I flatly turn around any paper any student gives me that has citations which never required the student to stand up or move about. I allow web sources, but only just, and only as adjuncts. That's some poor research. (Senior paper... in college?) Geogre 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Three of the six references mention Newark High School Library, so this may have been a high-school project.  --Lambiam 21:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dixon-Yates contract -- 1950's controversy

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspires an article to be created or enhanced: Dixon-Yates contract Please consider contributing

What was the Dixon-Yates contract - 1950's controversy? Please reply with references. Or just redirect the red link to the appropriate article I am supposed to be in. Thanks. --1ws1 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Googling "Dixon-Yates" turns up a good number of relevant hits. By restricting the search to en.wikipedia.org, I found that it is mentioned three times: once as a requested article, once in Aaron Wildavsky (who did his thesis on the controversy), and once on User:The stuart/Class Notes/Recent American History (1945-1975), where it is summarized as "TVA announces that it dosn't have enough power to power the new atomic facilities in Kentucky, asks for millions from congress to build a new power plant Admin instead supports a project from two private companys, headed by Dixon and yates hence the name "Dixon Yates controversy" congress investigates, Dixon Yates contract given with out competition Becomes Dixon Yates scandal Admin drops the whole thing when Memphis says that its going to build its own power plant." 152.16.188.107 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[History] The Righteous and Harmonious Society Movement: The Boxer Rebellion

Why did the The Righteous and Harmonious Society Movement become known as The Boxer Rebellion? Why the term "boxer"? 207.69.139.141 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See the second paragraph of Righteous Harmony Society. 152.16.188.107 07:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Dali Lamas Sex Life

Has the Dali Lama ever had sex? Does he have any children? If he doesn't have any children is he allowed to have them? Is he allowed to have a wife? 207.69.139.137 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Most Dalai Lamas, including the current, 14th Dalai Lama, were reared and raised entirely by males, and celibacy is taken seriously during their entire lifetime. Tsangyang Gyatso, the 6th Dalai Lama was the exception confirming the rule in the cases not excepted. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on Tsangyang Gyatso states that he is also the only Dalai Lama ever to have been deposed and exiled, which was done 'in response to his uncivil lifestyle'. One supposes that this has rather encouraged all his successors to stick with celibacy! Xn4 21:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

song id

Hi guys, I recently heard a song that i've heard many times before, and just couldn't think who it was by or what it was called. It's an electronic/dance song, from around the year 2000, and contains a piano part that i think was featured in the film American Beauty . The song is quite well-known i think. Any help would be appreciated. Dylan-t 11:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but we do have American Beauty: Original Motion Picture Score and American Beauty (soundtrack). Adam Bishop 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

Could somebody please write an article on the documentary Zeitgeist released in 2007. I do not have the knowledge to create a page, or one of the calibre this movie/documentary deserves. This is an amazing film, which is free to watch at zeitgeistmovie.com, and is a mind blowing presentation of how governments use fear and panic to manipulate the populace. I believe it is essential viewing for any free thinking cultured human being and needs a page to further knowledge about it as well as create a base for discussion. I am using this area because i believe i may be able to contact like minded people who believe that truth should be taken as the authority, not authority taken as the truth Gerald121 12:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not really a question for the Reference desk. Try Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. Cheers, Skarioffszky 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in question has already been written once, and deleted for not providing any evidence it is notable. The page has since been protected, due to attempts to bring the article back without satisfying the notability guideline. Any new article would need to be written in a sandbox first, and a request made to unprotect the page, before moving the content there. -- 68.156.149.62 15:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all ye know on Earth and all ye need to know. But, alas, Gerald, it is not; for truth is both nebulous and elusive. Clio the Muse 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Life expectancy in South Dakota

Could someone help me understand this: According to this list, the life expectancy in South Dakota is 66,6 years - http://www.aneki.com/cities_lowest_life_expectancy.html . Why is this? Colorado tops the list in the oposite side of the scale: http://www.aneki.com/city_life_expectancies.html . Could anyone explain these large variations, despite the fact that they're only separated by one state (Nebraska) geographically.
--Petteroes 18:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What is terribly fishy is that these lists claim to be per city, but give 6 cities all the lowest value of 66.6, all in South Dakota, after which there is a jump to 68.6. Whatever the source, that can't be right.  --Lambiam 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This overview per state of the life expectancy gives 78.0 for South Dakota and 78.4 for Colorado, based on the 2000 census data. Lowest is District of Columbia with 72.6, followed by Mississippi with 73.7. Highest is Hawaii with 79.8. Aloha!  --Lambiam 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lambiam! All this probably prove (once again) that researching on the internet is a risky affair :) --Petteroes 19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep.

If you look at the aneki.com pages again, you will see that although the page titles say "cities" with the highest/lowest life expectancy, the column headings on those pages say "counties". If you look up the six counties, you will find that two of them were merged in 1979, which suggests strongly that the data in the table is seriously out of date. Notice that the page does not give a date.

The other thing you will find out is that the five remaining counties (i.e. originally all six) are all adjacent. Since there are only about 30,000 people (as of the 2000 census) living in all five counties put together, it makes sense that whoever tabulated the statistics would have processed them as a group. (In more populous states or districts they would not have done that.) Then whoever produced the stupid table on aneki.com must have failed to realize this and assumed that the average life expectancy applied to all the counties individually.

--Anonymous, August 26, 2007, 19:53 (UTC).

Nice work. The last census in Washabaugh County, South Dakota was in 1970, so the aneki data is at least 37 years old. The earliest available census data appear to be from 1920, so the aneki lists are probably at most 87 years out of date.  --Lambiam 20:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more to life expectancy than meets the eye. We all know that it's higher for women than for men. It's easy to forget that at birth it's lower than at any other age. There are endless factors other than geography, but if you look only at geography the picture is never clear. For instance, male life expectancy at birth in Scotland (74.2 years) is lower than in England (76.9 years). However, there are huge variations within Scotland - from 77.7 years in East Dunbartonshire down to 69.9 years in Glasgow... but in the richest areas of Glasgow all life expectancy is higher than in the poorest neighbourhoods of East Dunbartonshire. So read all such statistics with caution! Xn4 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note about these South Dakota counties: Todd is almost entirely within the Rosebud Indian Reservation and its population is 85.6% Native American. Shannon is entirely within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, pop 94.2% Native American. Mellette is 52.4% Native American. Bennett is 52.07% Native American. These counties are among the very poorest in the United States. Pfly 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Joke

i don't get the joke, anyone to explain?

• Why did the Canadian cross the street? To get to the middle.

If you smiled at that joke, you are probably a Canadian, in "The U.S. and us: why Canada became a nation in 1776", The Gazette (Montreal), July 4, 1992, Saturday, Pg. A2 -- 172.173.208.123 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's always a mistake to try to explain a joke, especially this one, as I am English, not Canadian. Anyway, here goes. 'Middle of the road' is an expression used to denote moderation, or to describe people who have no pronounced tastes, either one way or the other. Whether this is true of Canadians or not I could not possibly say, which is a very 'middle of the road' answer! Clio the Muse 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio is likely right. Canada is known to be a country of the the middle, with very few extremists (religious, political, academic, or what-have-you), and even fewer enshrined extremes. This is also a take-off on the classic "Why did the chicken cross the road?" "To get to the other side." I am a Canadian, and I did laugh. Bielle 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadians are also known for being very nice and slow to anger, slow to amuse, slow to ... Therefore, it's also a personal attribution. I.e. a Canadian would like to be in the middle personally, as well as politically -- not too hot or cold. Sort of like, "How can you tell a Finnish extrovert?" "He stares at your shoes" (from Garrison Keillor). (Yes, though, a political joke.) Geogre 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of some ancient joke I heard once, about how every Canadian kitchen contains a small appliance called a blander. Gzuckier 15:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, guys and gals. While I take full responsibility for my contributions to the expansion of this thread, let's close the door on ethnic jokes before we get into unkind territory. Bielle 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but, so far, these have all been cultural or political satires, and they've generally been Horatian satire rather than Juvenalian. There is a big difference between an ethnic joke and political satire. (My own religion has "How many Episcopalians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Three: one to screw it in, one to mix martinis, and one to say how much better the old one was." The idea there is, of course, not only a bit of Episcopalians being wealthy, but also the argument over the 1970 Book of Common Prayer revision and the ire it drew. Those who conform to the satirized population can laugh at their own excesses, and those who do not can laugh at how they were pushed/prodded by their co-religionists. The same is true of the light cultural satire in the Canadian moderation joke.) Geogre 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On the same theme as the original joke... you may have heard the expression "As American as apple pie". In 1972 Peter Gzowski held a contest for a corresponding phrase, "As Canadian as _____". It was won by a 17-year-old student (since deceased) with the marvelously apt answer... oh, think about it yourself for a minute and then follow the link to see. --Anonymous, August 27, 2007, 22:18 (UTC).

August 27

The Problem with Interconnectivity

Hello, and in case this is the wrong section to post please correct me.

I was watching on the news about the so-called "China food product scare" when a startling thought came to me and it deals wih interconnectivity. As the United States is a major consumer of reasources on a global scale and China (another major power) is the main distributor of reasources to other nations my question is this: If China's "product problems" kill people, are a threat to others, etc... Then people would (hypothetically speaking of course) stop buying products from China for various reasons. But, because of the China-United States interconnectivity the market sourrounding China and all Chinese related product would diminish significantly and sooner or later: Major trade between China and United States would cease. The problem with this would be that the United States economy would lose a lot of money via stock and the market would crash (well in theory anyways). Is this realistically possible? Or are China and the United States too connected to be able to cease trade? Would this scenario be possible with other major powers? (e.g oil in the Middle East or technology from Japan) If so what are the possible consequences from an event? Thank you for your time and answers! User: ECH3LON

There has been foreign trade loss in the past at a scale high enough to cause major problems with the U.S. economy. Just think about the gas shortage of the 70's for a simple example. However, I do not see that happening with China. For example, the head of China's equivalent of the U.S. FDA, Zheng Xiaoyu, was recently executed for allowing bad drugs to be distributed (usually after taking bribes from the manufacturers). Perhaps to avoid a similar fate, Zhang Shuhong (head of toy manufacturing) committed suicide after a recent recall of toys from his factories. The way I see it is from the complete opposite view of most economics. The U.S. is "the" consumer. If it collapses, there's no consumer. Factories around the world will shut down. So, it is the best interest of countries like China to ensure that the U.S. remains stable enough to continue being a massive consumer that they can ship endless amounts of goods to. In other words, my opinion is that China is dependent on the U.S. to keep consuming just as much as the U.S. is dependent on China to keep producing. -- Kainaw^(what?) 00:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Crecy

I was reading about the battle of Crecy (today is an anniversary!) and would like to know more about the tactical background. Your page explains that it demonstrated the significance of battlefield fire power, but does not explain how the English came to devise this technique. So what caused Edward the third to abandon the accepted practice of the day, using heavy cavalry as a strike force, and rely upon archers? Jubal Early 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

According to our article English longbow, the longbow actually originated in Wales, and the English learned from losses they suffered from the Welsh that trained bowmen were very effective militarily. It was actually Edward I who began training a corps of longbowmen based on this experience. Now, this is pure speculation on my part, but the English may have chosen this tactic partly because they knew that the French did not have a force of longbowmen, because the tactic would have the advantage of surprising the French the first time it was used, and perhaps because longbows were easier to transport by ship than a comparable number of horses. I hope that those who know more than I do (e.g., Clio) will correct me. Marco polo 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it unlikely the longbow was used as a 'surprise weapon' against the French, they were well aware of it after the first encounter, but it seems failed to adapt their tactics appropriately. An army of longbowmen is not something you can simply choose, the English had had compulsory longbow practice since the reign of Edward I. The tactics used had shown success both for and against England in the wars with Scotland, in fact I believe that although the longbows were inspired by the Welsh (who also fought for the English in France) the tactics were inspired by battles against the Scots. I can't point to particular battles, I am sure Clio will, in fact I remember a similar question before. Cyta 08:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Cyta, I do remember a similar question back in May, concerned, I believe, with the lessons of the Anglo-Scottish Wars, highly relevant to the present matter. Anyway, Jubal, a good question deserves a good answer, so I will do my best to draw out the roots of the great English victory at Crecy.

Those who specialise in these matters will be aware of just how much intellectual energy has been expended on the so-called Military Revolution, brought about, so it is argued, by the introduction of gunpowder. But military revolutions have been occuring, in one form or another, throughout history. The defeat of the Emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378AD saw the beginning of the long domination of cavalry over infantry on the battlefields of Europe. By the Middle Ages, in the form of the armoured knight, heavy cavalry had reached the peak of its development, and battles were often won by the sheer force of the charge. Infantry was often no more than an afterthough, made up, for the most part, of poor quality support troops. But by the opening of the fourteenth century it was becoming clear that the old practices were no longer as effective as they once were, as infantry develped effective ways of countering a cavalry charge. The fist clear signs of this were shown on the Continent at the Battle of Courtrai in 1302 and again at the Battle of Morgarten in 1315. But it was the English who were to learn most from this evolution in warfare as a result of their experience in Scottish Wars of Independence, which began in 1296.

This war opened in classic style, when the English cavalry swept aside an ill-disciplined Scottish army at the Battle of Dunbar. But the Scots learned quickly from their defeat. Unable to match the English in heavy cavalry they focused on the development of infantry, armed with long spears and fighting in close formation. This had the effect of producing a thicket that knights were unable to penetrate. It enjoyed an early success at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297, the first infantry victory of the war. The following year at the Battle of Falkirk it looked for a time as if the success was going to be repeated, as Edward I's armoured knights were completely unable to penetrate William Wallace's schiltrons, dense phalanxes of spearmen. But Edward drew off his cavalry and ordererd his ground troops, cross-bowmen and long-bowmen, to fire on the Scots, thinning out their ranks until such time as the knights were able advance and finish the job. Unfortunately for the English, the lessons of this encounter were not properly absorbed, with the result that they later suffered a devastating defeat at the Battle of Bannockburn.

It was after this that things really began to change, as those who had particular experience of the northern wars began to devise new methods of response. The prototype of the technique later used at Crecy was first shown in 1322, when Andrew Harclay used dismounted archers and spearmen to defeat a force of knights at the Battle of Boroughbridge. Later still, a group of Anglo-Norman adventurers, headed by Edward Balliol and Henry de Beaumont, defeated a far larger Scottish army at the Battle of Dupplin Moor. Here the English placed infantry and dismounted knights in the middle, supported on the flanks by wings of archers. all armed with longbows, to create an effective cross-fire. The long-bow, it should be stressed, was a superb weapon, far superior to the slow and cumbersome cross-bow. A trained archer could maintain a rate of fire that would not be equalled and exceeded for centuries, with a punch that could penetrate both chain and plate armour.

The year after Dupplin the young Edward III went to war with the Scots. Learning from the example of Dupplin, he won the Battle of Halidon Hill in 1333, using essentially the same techniques, though with far greater numbers of archers, deployed in wedge-shaped formations. The fire-power was such that the Scottish army was almost completely destroyed before closing with the English ranks. Now the French would have been fully aware of what happened here, as news of the battle spread across Europe; but they still did not appreciate the full significance. Edward had created his own military revolution; and in 1346 his peasant archers, English and Welsh, were to destroy the mounted chivalry of France. Clio the Muse 01:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The questioner would be better asking why the French had not yet adopted the technique. It should not be overlooked that "excessive" use of archers was somewhat looked down on by some, as unchivalrous. A humble peasant equipped with little more than a cheap bit of yew could bring down a trained and expensively equipped knight or even (shockingly) a king. Such a prospect was horrifying... even, to some, contrary to God's natural order. Presumably, the French were less practical and more traditional... to their cost. --Dweller 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that the side which used the longbow lost the Hundred Years' War. Anyway, the French did eventually try to emulate the English, see fr:Franc-archer, although that wasn't until 1448. Not that the Francs-Archers were ever very effective anyway, unlike the other parts of Charles VII's highly professional army. James IV's effort to make archery a national sport in Scotland wasn't a success either. So, why did archery become so popular in England and Wales, but not much elsewhere? I've got no idea, but there must be a paper or two waiting to be written about it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. As the Crusaders had already found out by this time, winning a war is a lot more complex than winning a battle, lol. Especially a war as complex as the so-called Hundred Years' War. You could make a sound argument that the French should have won an awful lot sooner. Then again, historians being the way they are, you could probably flip it on its head and find some half-decent reasons why England should have won, lol. --Dweller 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Grand Muftis and Ayatollahs

Which Muslim countries have their own official Grand Mufti and Ayatollah e.g. Lebanon's is Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah?

See List of Grand Ayatollahs for a start. I dunno about official ones. --Sean 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Grand Mufti gives a list of officials bearing that title. Marco polo 20:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranian surnamnes differences

Which Iranian surnames are meant for Shi'ite Muslims, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Jews and Christianity?

What makes you think Iranian surnames are apportioned according to religion? If a surname ends in -ian, the bearer is most likely of Armenian descent, and if they still self-identify as Armenian probably a Christian. Other names are for example recognizably Azeri, but while most are Shi'a Muslim, various other religions are found among Iranian Azeri, quite similar to the situation among ethnic Persians, so you can derive no useful information from this.  --Lambiam 08:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

the reason I ask this question because I met this Iranian girl and she said her surname is Hosseini, and she is a Bahai. Usually, Muslim have this surname, Hosseini. How could you explain?

Lambiam did just explain. The surname alone is no guarantee of a specfic religion. The girl herself, her parents, her grandparents might have converted to Baha'i from any of the the other religions, or from none at all. Bielle 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bahá'í faith has its religious background in Shi'a Islam, just like Christianity has a religious background in Judaism. There is nothing strange about a Christian having a given name like Abraham or David, or a surname like Abrahams or Davids; why would Hossein be a strange given name for a Bahá'í, and Hosseini a strange surname? In view of the persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran, I would not expect Iranian Bahá'ís to have a surname flaunting their religion.  --Lambiam 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There are given names that are more common amongst Baha'is, because they were the names of Baha'i martyrs (possibly with a gender change, eg. Anisa from Anis). I don't know how common they are for Baha'is born in Iran. Lambiam is correct about the surnames (I'm a Baha'i, and I know many Iranians). 203.221.126.236 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture identification

This seems like a longshot, but can anyone identify the gentlemen pictured in this album cover? I'm posting this here instead of the entertainment section because I suspect it may be real person, possibly a Nazi due to the lyrical content of the title song. Is anyone aware of any Nazis that suffered from facial paralysis or a stroke, as this man seems to have? The liner notes identify the picture as Yellow Head, by Harvey Stafford, but nothing came up on a google search. --Joelmills 01:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks vaguely like a young Simon Wiesenthal. But he was no Nazi - in fact, precisely the opposite. -- JackofOz 01:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A little more thorough searching reveals that the artist's full name is Harvey Bennett Stafford, and he also did the cover of The Melvins' Night Goat. He's also edited a book on death in Mexican popular culture, so it seems less likely that the man on the cover is a Nazi and more that it is just an odd drawing. --Joelmills 01:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a younger Charles de Gaulle? It is something of an ambiguous drawing—anyone with a broad nose, thin head, and thin moustache looks pretty similar. --24.147.86.187 01:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The more I stare at that picture I become convinced that he has Horner's syndrome as well. --Joelmills 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, who's using my picture?Gzuckier 15:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

who was tien B

I am interested in any informationn regarding a philosopher of the last centuary named TIEN B (SPELLING MAY BE INCORRECT).

The Category:20th century philosophers does not list anyone with a vaguely similar name. The closest I see is Tyler Burge. Do you have any further information or context? The name sounds like Tien Pei, but I can only find Tien Pei Chun, who is a politician (and garment merchant), not a philosopher. Tien is Wade-Giles transcription for what in Pinyin is Diǎn, but expanding the search accordingly gave no results.  --Lambiam 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Arnold J. Toynbee? -Arch dude 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent insight, Arch dude. I bet that's it. Wareh 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

Philosophical question on another desk. A.Z. 04:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The last time I heard a tree fall in the woods, it did make a sound. Something like uh-oh. Maybe it was an ent.  --Lambiam 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That was funny. A.Z. 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if someone is around to hear it is the obvious question, for how can there be a sound if no one hears it? The even more obvious answer is yes, of course it does. SGGH ^speak! 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what this is doing here, as it has been exhaustively explored elsewhere, with a proper link given at the very outset. Or does the downward trajectory face the same problem as Achillies and the tortoise? There can be no sound until it hits the ground! Clio the Muse 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is here, I surmise, because AZ was not satisfied with the science-based answers that were being given elsewhere, and wanted it addressed philosophically, proper link notwithstanding. --LarryMac | Talk 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless, of course, it falls onto another tree and gets lodged there. -- JackofOz 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If a Mime artist is shot with a silenced gun, in a wood, does anybody care? :) Perry-mankster 12:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

<old joke alert> If one man talks in a wood and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong? --Dweller 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• cough* If a tree falls in a forest. Wikipedia is great :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Third French Republic

It is often said that the Third Republic was one of the weakest and most devisive in French history yet it is also the one that survived the longest, lasting from 1870 until the Fall of France in 1940. What I would be interested to know is how it managed to survive the early challenges from the left and, in particular, from the right? Pere Duchesne 05:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Pere Duchesne, the Third Republic was weak. It's opponents, though, were weaker still. The main challenge, as you seem to have detected, came from the political right, powerful but divided. Although the anti-republican forces had the support of significant interest groups and institutions, from big business to the Catholic church, they lacked unity and coherence; strong enough to defeat the left in the Paris Commune, but not to agree a common political destiny. By 1870 the right was divided between Bourbonists, Orleanists and Bonapartists, who hated each other more than they hated the republic. It might very well have been possible for the monarchy to have been restored in the very early days, for in the National Assembly elections of February 1871 monarchists controlled 400 of the 650 seats; but they could not agree who should wear the crown; so the republic survived, by default rather than design. Although Adolphe Thiers was to lose the support of his right-wing friends when he declared that the Republic was the "form of government that divides us least", it was an essential and abiding truth. Clio the Muse 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tax increase penalty

Can the court order a person to pay higher income, sales and property taxes as a penalty for some violation of the law for which they have been found guilty? Clem 08:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt it, as in general the judicial system is completely separate from the many and various tax systems. Unless, of course, the law violation was in respect of not paying enough tax. Did you have an example in mind of why they should want to do this rather than simply impose a fine?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an example really. This idea originates with a modified version of the Fair tax proposal in which instead of a 25% or 30% flat sales tax rate for each person the sales tax would be adjusted to match each individual's income, assists and liabilities at the point of sale as facilitated by the growing capability of data transmission and processing electronics. Since a fine is a liability one might then receive a sales tax deduction if the system did not have a corresponding rule to prevent it and if a rule were included then it would also be possible to increase the sales tax to include a portion of the fine. Hope that makes sense.

Courts can do any damn thing, but a higher court might well reverse it. this sounds like something that could well be reversed. Gzuckier 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Courts do strange things, but they can't lawfully do any damn thing if the damn thing is unlawful. Even when a court wants to go beyond its powers, it needs to be able to explain itself, if challenged. While this discourages foolishness, it's astonishing how many bad judges there are - in lower courts, especially. One reason for this is that in many (if not most) countries a good lawyer can make more money as a practising lawyer than as a judge. Xn4 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

After death, Does everything goes back to the way it was like before u were born?

You know, same thing what we have experienced before we were born, think about it back then u didnt exist u werent alive and after death it is going to be the same thing, you dont exist anymore. we came from nothingness and we go back to nothingess after our body functions stop.--arab 08:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs)

is this a question? It's like this for everybody except you. Once you die, the entire Universe will spontaneously collapse. dab (𒁳) 09:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Myes, good old metaphysics and whatnot. It makes for interesting discussions, but *not* in My Universe. So please, go discuss it in your Universe with My Alternate Self.

But to answer the question, it seems likely that there won't even be nothingness. Pain as you're dying, quite likely, and then, who knows.Nimlhûg 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What you will experience after DEATH is exactly what you had experienced before both your parents were born. 211.28.129.251 10:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the undiscovered country, whose travellers never return from its borne. (Some thing that we fall off the face of the earth on the journey. Others describe the far shore exactly.) Geogre 10:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question has to be 'no'. The world changes in many ways during your lifetime and it doesn't return to its state before you were born when you die. Your actions change the world around you while you live. You touch people while you live in many ways great and small. Your deeds live on in the world you inhabited and your spirit lives on at least in the minds and hearts of those who knew you and those whom you encountered. Your body and spirit merge again with the earth and the human community that gave rise to them. Whether your spirit continues in some other form we cannot know. Marco polo 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions to Wikipedia will live on, at least in the edit history.. Edison 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In the words of Addison... Xn4 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whence then this pleasing hope, this fond desire

This longing after immortality?

Or whence this secret dread and inward horror

Of falling into nought?

'Tis the divinity that stirs within us

'Tis Heaven itself that points out an hereafter

And intimates eternity to man.

To the OP: In the words of dr.ef.tymac ... Uhh, how do you know what things were/are/will be like before you were born? Just because you don't remember it here doesn't mean you aren't/weren't/won't be there. dr.ef.tymac 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When you figure out what it was like before you were born, please improve the Original face page; it could use it. Pfly 18:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, write some books SGGH ^speak! 19:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure some of you will understand when I say that the image that jumped from my mind on reading this question was that of the sparrow flying through a mead hall. Here is the full passage from Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum;

The present life of man, O king, seems to me, in comparison of that time which is unknown to us, like to the swift flight of a sparrow through the room wherein you sit at supper in winter, with your commanders and ministers, and a good fire in the midst, whilst the storms of rain and snow prevail abroad; the sparrow, I say, flying in at one door, and immediately out at another, whilst he is within, is safe from the wintry storm; but after a short space of fair weather, he immediately vanishes out of your sight, into the dark winter from which he had emerged. So this life of man appears for a short space, but of what went before, or what is to follow, we are utterly ignorant. If, therefore, this new doctrine contains something more certain, it seems justly to deserve to be followed.

You will find this in Book II Chapter XIII, the words of a thain at the court of Edwin of Northumbria, arguing for the adoption of Christianity. Clio the Muse 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

my wayfaring friend, i would steer your thoughts on these. multiple worlds,multiple dimensions where past,present and future co-exist.that which has passed by cannot be undone and that which is to come takes care of itself, what needs be done and what matters is the now and the choices we make will fate us to repeating nothingness or somethingelse. the only guide is truth and it is incorrigible,it is neither aye nor naye, its both! yet dwells it does inbetwixt for those that truly seek it. clio, i did'nt mean to intrude into your space, but his caption caught my eye—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.11.65 (talk) 14:59, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It's not my space, 59.94, and you are quite welcome to make a contribution, here or wherever. Clio the Muse 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Safety in Enugu, Nigeria

What is the level of safety for an American citizen traveling to Enugu, Nigeria?

I first read the Wikipedia article on Enugu, Nigeria and read: "The city's economy has diversified in recent years and is largely dominated by trading, commerce, and small-scale industry. Flying into Enugu today brings no reminders of the capital city that bore the brunt of the military activities in the Nigerian civil war. Enugu is indeed a lovely place. The array of fine resorts and hotels that have sprung up around the city, the natural serenity of its environment, and a near absence of violent crimes have made Enugu a first choice destination for tourists from within and outside Nigeria." However, I then read the U.S. Department of State's Travel Warning issued January 19, 2007 and still current as of today, August 27, 2007. The report is very alarming and can be found at http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_928.html. I then visited Enugu's own web page on safety in Enugu (http://www.enuguweb.com/safety.htm) and that report was alarming as well! I'm wondering if the Wikipedia article on Enugu needs to be edited or if there is information that I am not aware of. Please advise. Thank you. Briandgleason 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

US embassy in Nigeria may help you? SGGH ^speak! 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The State Department's travel advisories and these messages from the U.S. embassy in Nigeria are more reliable than the Wikipedia article on Enugu, which may have been written by a local hotel owner in Enugu, for all I know. I personally considered traveling to Nigeria two or three years ago. I am a somewhat intrepid traveler who does not shy away from countries with some scattered unrest. However, what I learned about Nigeria alarmed me. Regardless of the security situation in Enugu, which may be safer than areas in the Niger Delta to the south or than Lagos, travel within Nigeria is hazardous. You risk being carjacked or kidnapped for ransom in some areas. The road from Lagos airport into the city is supposed to be especially hazardous. My understanding is that it is unwise to travel within Nigeria without a bodyguard and/or a knowledgeable local guide, particularly if you are visibly a foreigner. The country is ridden with violent crime, political unrest, and police corruption. If you have a local contact in Enugu who can meet you at the airport, and if you can fly to Lagos or Kano and catch a connecting flight directly to Enugu without leaving the airport (though Nigerian air safety is also somewhat dubious), you might be okay, but I would email or phone the Lagos consulate (which covers the Enugu area) for updated local information before planning a trip. The contact info is here. Marco polo 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you decide to go, the State Department advises against using most Nigerian domestic air carriers but suggests Aero and Virgin Nigeria as relatively safe carriers. Of these, only Aero offers service to Enugu, departing from Lagos. Marco polo 20:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Put a Canadian flag on your backpack. Plasticup ^T/C 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Nigeria is much safer for Canadians or any visible foreigners. The danger to Americans is not due to anti-Americanism; it is due to lawlessness and the perception by criminals that foreigners are rich and potentially lucrative targets. Marco polo 13:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

License

Evidently my driver's license was supsended. It turns out the incompotent government officials sent a letter about a license hearing to the right address, but wrong city--a city I've never lived in.

As such, I missed the hearing (being unaware of it and all), and apparently it will cost a $100 reinstatement fee...a fee I wouldnt have had to incurr if the letter had been sent to the right address. Furthermore, I now have a ticket for "Driving on a suspended license"...whatever that means, which wouldn't have occured if the government had sent the letter to the proper address.

I have no intention of paying for the incompotence of the government on this issue. How can a government agenecy screw up like this and then demand payment from a citizen because of it. In actuality, they are being rewarded for then incompotence with larger fine payments. Can I get out of the ticket & reinstamtent fee by argueing this?

Also, how do I get my license unsuspended? I live in the Arkansas, United States. XM 19:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• As I see it, you have three options.
  • Ask the Arkansas Office of Motor Vehicle to help you. They will expect you to abide by the results of whatever their review process is (which means, you'll probably have to pay) -- or they may even say there is no review, and just ask you to pay. Either way, be prepared to be frustrated.
  • Take the matter to court yourself. Just remember the old proverb that "one who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client."
  • Hire a lawyer who specializes in Arkansas administrative law. The Arkansas State Bar will help you find one.

--M@rēino 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, can't hurt to write a letter to your state legislator, who they are more likely to listen to. Also maybe some kind of 'consumer's corner', ombudsman, etc. in the newspaper or tv or some such. The electric company in CT is now reforming their former 'screw you' approach to consumers complaining of ridiculous bills (5,000 kwh a month for a house?) as a result of the newspaper's airing of one consumer's complaint that launched into a whole avalanche of complaints. Gzuckier 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you knew the hearing date? Weren't you telling us last time around? Anyway, if you'd been polite and nice, I suspect you might have been able to convince them to rectify their mistake without fuss. However given your attitude on the talk pages, I'm somewhat doubtful anyone is likely to be willing doing you favours so I suspect your only hope is to actually challenge them which is liable to mean you coming out worse then you are now. BTW I know absolutely nothing about Arkansas or US law but I don't see any reason why you'd be able to get out of the ticket. At most you'll get a rescheduleded hearing. Nil Einne 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, you only need a licence to drive motor vehicles, so you can lawfully drive a horse-drawn or pedal vehicle after losing your driving licence. This is sometimes convenient for drunk drivers. A friend of mine couldn't control her drinking and spent years getting about in a pony and trap. I have no idea whether this is also possible anywhere in the US? Xn4 00:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

----

Can a resident with a suspended driver's license in one state, move to another state and get a new valid driver's license, then move back to the original state? In the US. XM 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Probably not. I am no expert on Arkansas law, but most states will still consider you to be driving on a suspended license. In general, states don't look kindly on other states trying to overrule them. --M@rēino 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• No and yes. There may be states that are not yet sharing data, but most are now. What you can't do is go trade in your suspended license for a valid in the other state. You can go to the other state, say that you're trying for a new license, get a learner's permit, wait a year, and then get a new one, but you're likely to get flagged even then. So, invest a full year with a learner's permit and then hope, or just pay the danged fines in your home state and wait the allotted time. The state that suspends might, or might not, have an additional fee to pay for having had a suspended license. If it does, you can get around that one thing by going to another state. When I faced this, I lived in a state that did the suspension and then made one pay a very, very high fee to show how sorry one was ($240). When I moved, I only had to pay the original fine ($38) and no "I'm really sorry" fine. Other than that, take your lumps, ride the bus, and pay up. There is no way around it, really. Geogre 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This all sounds like legal advice to me. I suggest that XM see a lawyer about his driving-licence problems. Bielle 20:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• No. In my case, the "advice" is to ride the bus and take his lumps. However, whether states are blind to scoff laws crossing borders is more a simple matter of fact, and the fact is, "No, they are not blind." Geogre 11:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor XM, first he's being unjustly target for speeding while disbelieving in God and now, for no reason at all his license was suspended. My suspicion is that the law says that the mailed notice is merely a courtesy and he's on the hook for it. Perhaps the solution is for XM to sell his car and consider a car-free lifestyle. Donald Hosek 21:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrible things seems to happen to him, alright, and all because of the fundamental injustice of the universe. It's just terrible how the nation, at least, has it in for him. Geogre 11:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that when I moved from California to Illinois in 1997, I had an unpaid fine that caused the state of California to suspend my license. I was unable to get an Illinois license until I paid the fine. I think I missed the notice about the fine because of the move, but, since I wanted to be able to do things like write checks and drive cars, I paid the fine, got proof that it was resolved and got an Illinois driver's license. Without the interstate move, it becomes a lot easier to do. Donald Hosek 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Novel discourses

I am trying to find critiques about novels and discourses presented in novels. My aim is to compare or contrast two discourses in two different novels. i need a critique by any valuable or respectable author about this topic (discourses in novels).

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.89.205 (talk) 23:23, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

This questions was asked in a total of 4 different pages including this one. I originally responded to one asking not to crosspost but ended up removing all the other 3 when I realised the author had posted it to 4 pages. (I had considered removing this one too but I decided against it although I won't care if someone else does.) I've informed the author that it is not polite to cross post and also recommended they read the header so they realise we don't do homework. Nil Einne 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of good literary critiques, but it might suit your purpose best if you begin with The Language of Fiction: Essays in Criticism and Verbal Analysis in the English Novel by David Lodge, and possibly Ways of Reading: Advanced Reading Skills for Students of English Literature by Martin Montgomery et al. Clio the Muse 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What definition of "discourse" are you using here? I don't ask to be nit-picky, but it is a term with more than a few meanings when applied to things like literature, and knowing what exactly you mean by it will greatly help in recommending anything to you. Do you mean it in a generic way, like "language"? Or do you have something more specific in mind? --24.147.86.187 03:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It sounds derived from Bakhtin, but, if we're going to recommend how-to texts, I'd recommend I. A. Richards's Principles of Practical Literary Criticism and Ezra Pound's ABC of Reading. Otherwise, I'd recommend that the questioner stop looking on the web for readymade comparisons. What she or he will find will be unusable, at best. Geogre 11:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

August 28

Porn

Who and what culture was the first to invent porn and what other technological advances is it comparable to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.133.23 (talk) 00:47, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

See pornography. You have to define what you are talking about before you can ask such a question because there are far too many definitions of "porn". -- Kainaw^(what?) 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cave man. When cave men first drawn er, cave woman on cave wall, porn was born. 202.168.50.40 01:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In general terms, we know what we mean by 'pornography'. Any definition of it must be simply to do with setting some parameters for how bad the work and its intention need to be to qualify: viz., where does bad art end and 'pornography' begin? Perhaps it takes the modern mind and advanced moral philosophy to separate them, but at the end of the day it can still only be done subjectively, based on the judgements of a particular society on what is immoral. At a more practical level, the farther back you go, the less of everything survives, and it's likely that generations of people separating the wheat from the chaff have tended to destroy the pornography of the past, meaning that we lack most of the information the question requires. So perhaps it's one of those which looks as if it ought to have an answer but in fact doesn't. (Anyway, you may be too harsh on troglodytes, 202.168.50.40.) Xn4 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the bonobo could be of some interest to you — porn as simian diplomacy. --24.147.86.187 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the depiction of sexual activities is very, very old. I'd probably venture to say it is a universal of any culture with any sort of complex representational abilities. It is often the first thing done with new representational mediums ("Hey, a pencil! Let's draw boobies! Hey, a camera! Let's photograph boobies! Hey, a moving picture! Let's film boobies! Hey, a computer network! Let's distribute films of boobies!"). --24.147.86.187 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Boobies? DuncanHill 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please turn to the next page, milud. Xn4 12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pornography may not be so very, very old, because a good deal of what seems to us to be pornographic was hieratic. There was temple prostitution in the Assyrian societies and throughout the ancient world. The phallic processions and overly "fertile" female depictions, the "holy" copulation of the king with a priestess, etc., all demonstrate that a certain explicit sexual depiction was at least tinged with religion. To get to pornography, you have to have lust-only graphic depictions of sexuality, primarily designed to be useful rather than anything else (useful in producing sexual arousal), so that may be hard to demonstrate clearly before the Romans. It was probably going on everywhere all the time, but it's hard to document before them. (Yes, there are Egyptian carvings that show the overseer being penetrated by another man, but one would be inclined to see that as satire and graphic revenge rather than pornography designed to titillate any party.) Utgard Loki 14:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's old, it's not pornography, it's a "fertility cult" or "fertility idol" or some such. Nowadays Big Religion keeps the competitors down by calling it pornography and making you stand in the corner. Gzuckier 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I simply cannot resist adding a comment I read a year or so ago in the letters page of the Sunday Times, published in London. It was in response to an article in the previous week's edition about some ancient Babylonian texts uncovered by archaeologists. One line they could make nothing of read in translation 'He put a hot fish in her navel.' The letter writer's response was, "It is time that some in the archaeological profession learned to be a little less literal minded. He put a hot fish in her navel, did he? Ho, Ho, Ho." Clio the Muse 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ho ho. In any case, it's probably anachronistic to apply our modern concepts of pornography to the works of previous ages. Even if drawings etc were primarily designed to produce sexual arousal or titillation, that fact alone did not necessarily have the negative connotation we tend to place on it these days. What defines "pornography", as distinct from artistic endeavour or mere graphic representation of natural functions, varies tremendously from culture to culture and from age to age. -- JackofOz 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We do not know what the creators or viewers of it thought of it, if it was an object of reverence or merely porn, but consider the Venus of Willendorf , created from 24,000 to 26,000 years ago. It had been imported to the area (non-native stone) and decorated with red pigment. See also Venus of Dolní Věstonice from 27,000 to 31,000 years ago, and the other Venus figurines. Edison 02:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Slander/ defamation of character

if a person or group of people in an organisation make allegations towards another that are untrue, and the head of this organisation takes their word and outcasts the individual without evidence or allows the individual to express their story, could this be considered slander?

or quite simply, is there a law that protects individuals from being unfairly treated in clubs/ societies, and can prevent/ compensate unfair dismissal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.199.130 (talk) 04:13, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Two points: 1) We on Wikipedia are not permitted to provide legal advice. 2) Laws vary widely around the world. (Your IP address indicates you are in Scotland). Edison 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[Disclaimer: I'm answering your question academically: if there's a real person concerned, good legal advice is needed from a specialist lawyer on the spot]. Could this be "considered slander"? Perhaps, depending on where it is. In the UK England, the threshold for defamation is higher for slander than for libel, but it (slander) includes damage caused to someone in the way of his or her office. In the case you describe, the defamation would generally be a side issue, unless the relevant framework (it might be the country's employment law or the organisation's own constitution) gave no redress to the person cast out. Frankly, all organizations have constant gossip running around them, a lot of which is slanderous: the crunch issue in this case is not really the possible slander, it's the behaviour of the 'head of the organization', who has had no regard to the rules of natural justice. Xn4 13:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Slander and libel do not exist in Scots Law. There is simply defamation. For actaul legal advice, the Citizens Advice Bureau legal advice website is a good place to start. Lurker (said · done) 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to trace Hamilton heritage between American and Scotland/Ireland/England

Hi,

I am searching for a person who is extremely knowledgeable about the Hamilton genealogy. Want to retain this person to help me track my family history. Can you suggest someone or give me several candidates that I can contact. Would be much appreciated.

Larry A. Hamilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryHamilton (talk • contribs) 04:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

If you want to find just one person to help you, then you need to decide which of the countries you mention is the focus of the work you want to get done. There are a lot of genealogists in the world. In the UK, there are professional bodies you could contact for advice, such as AGRA. Xn4 13:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• You might also want to find scholarly-written biographies of Alexander Hamilton that detail his family. See what sources the biographer used to document the family members; it's quite likely that the biographer has drawn upon a genealogist. Of course, that assumes that you're from the same Hamilton branch as him. --M@rēino 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dire Straits Song

So, I've been thinking of this one song for a while, and for the life of me I can't figure out who it's by or what it's name is...I would venture a guess it was on the same cassette as Dire Strait's take on the song "The Bug" (sometimes you're the windshield...), but I'm not sure if it's even by them. It was a sort of 12/8 shuffle feel, and the only lyrics I recall were about walking a girl up to the door, delivered in a Yes-style male harmony, and then the isolated lyric "He farts." Anyone have any ideas? It's driving me batty. 72.219.143.150 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be an excellent question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here's the Dire Straits album with "The Bug" on it. Might be a misheard lyric. --M@rēino 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the Entertainment desk has nothing about music listed, while this desk does...that's why I asked here. I agree, though, it might get more answers there. I'll ask over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.143.150 (talk) 19:42, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Who called the shots?

I'm trying to create a chronological list of the leaders of Spain throughout the 19th century but I'm having a problem understanding who actually held the power. Of course, today the Prime Minister is in charge while the king is the figure head. Was this true in the 19th century and, whether or not, was there a change at any point in that century? Here are some relevant links: Prime Minister of Spain and List of Spanish monarchs. It seems that through the early part of the century the equivalent to a prime minister was the first secretary of state which might indicate a lower status but I don't know for sure. - Pyro19 06:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than a temporary blip during the Spanish Civil War of 1820-1823, I believe that the king held real power up until the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939. And, if the pattern holds, this situation should continue until the Spanish Civil War of 2052-2055. :-) StuRat 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, Pyro, let's put the matter under some consideration. First, by way of comparison, you might care to have a look at the List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. For the whole of the nineteenth century, and not counting more than one term in office, there were nineteen in all. Now compare that with the Spanish list! Yes, I know, the political processes were different, but the essential point remains that Spanish politics were notoriously unstable over virtually the whole course of the century; torn between liberalism and reaction; constitutional rule and military dictatorship; construction and chaos. There were also several dynastic wars, which complicated the picture still further. I realise this all takes you well away from the point of your question; I would just ask you to hold in mind that what follows is, for practical reasons, a simple re-sketching of a highly complex mosaic.

Strictly speaking Ferdinand VII was the last monarch to rule in the old absolutist style, at least when he was able. The real change in Spanish constitutional politics comes during the reign of his daughter, Isabella II, who was only three years old when she came to the throne in 1833. Power in the first period of regency was held by the traditionally minded queen-mother, Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies. On her downfall in 1840 she was replaced by Baldomero Espartero, Prince of Vergara, closely associted with the liberal wing of Spanish politics. It was during his period that the liberal Constitution of 1837 took definite shape, replacing the age-old forms of royal absolutism. In a sense Espartero, soldier and politician, a kind of 'liberal dictator', was the first modern Spanish Caudillo, or 'strong man', a feature that was to appear time and again.

Espartero was overthrown in a coup in 1843, the leaders of which declared that the thirteen-year-old Isabella had come of age. Isabella was to 'rule' until 1868, during which time Spain descended deeper and deeper into political chaos. Isabella tended to favour the more reactionary elements, which made her widely unpopular across the country, leading to the Revolution of 1868. The Queen went into permanent exile, leaving the throne vacant for a period of two years. Revolution, chaos and anarchy followed, one hard upon the other, until 1870 when the Cortes offered the crown to Amadeo of Savoy, an Italian prince, who agreed to abide by the liberal constitution; but he was immediately drawn into the impossible morass of Spanish politics. His main backer, Juan Prim, yet another caudillo, was assassinated soon after Amadeo's appointment. Amadeo himself only lasted until 1873, when he left the country, declaring Spain to be ungovernable. The First Spanish Republic was then declared, which was to last for a year, under siege by its political enemies from all sides.

On the fall of the republic the Bourbons returned in the shape of Alfonso XII, Isabella's son. Alfonso largely slipped into the political background, leaving government to a variety of prime ministers, the most noteable of whom were Práxedes Mateo Sagasta and Antonio Cánovas del Castillo. Overall the period of Alfonso XII was one of reasonable stability, which ended with his death in 1885. His successor, Alfonso XIII, was born posthumously, which meant another long minority.

This goes beyond the tems of your question, but Alfonso was later to give his support to Miguel Primo de Rivera, the first modern Spanish dictator. Deeply compromised by this partnership, Alfonso was forced into exile in 1931, after Primo de Rivera's death, which led to the creation of the Second Spanish Republic, which was to last until 1939, destroyed in the Spanish Civil War. Clio the Muse 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf-a reading

Help, please! I'm reading Mein Kampf as part of a forthcoming course on political theory, and quite honestly I'm finding it really hard going. I need to understand the main background and themes. Your page on the book covers some of the themes identified in my course work, though not all. Could one of you please walk me very slowly through the labyrinth? Thanks ever so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swallow the Amazon (talk • contribs) 11:18, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're finding it such a struggle... ;-) --24.147.86.187 12:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The tireless editors here at Wikipedia have struggled many days and nights, just for you, and have produced an article on just about every topic. All that they ask is that you type what you are looking for, such as Mein Kampf, in the Search box and click "Go". Then, you could, for example, read about the contents and topics of the book. -- Kainaw^(what?) 12:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First, he did say he has looked at our page. So tone down the condescension please. Secondly, to the Original Poster: We don’t do your homework for you, but if you have looked at the article on Mein Kampf and still have some questions about it, you need to be more specific about which themes you still do not understand.--Czmtzc 12:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was writing in the style of Mein Kampf. I assumed that a person who is currently struggling with reading the book would get it. -- Kainaw^(what?) 12:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. I get it now, but you kind of have to admit that when one writes in the style of Hitler, they do sound like a condecending blowhard. --Czmtzc 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Heehee! I agree. It would be difficult to write like Hitler and not sound like a condescending blowhard... "Administrators, editors of the great Wikipedia! Another year of anonymous edits is drawing to an end. A year of great decisions lies ahead..." Yep - condescending. -- Kainaw^(what?) 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's partly autobiography and partly Hitler's manifesto. I was surprised to find it so boring, I was expecting terrifying delusions of a mad-man, but it's largely just a record of various jobs he held, etc. StuRat 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Our articles Völkisch movement and Master race might help you to make sense of Hitler's twisted ramblings. Marco polo 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another useful article is Dolchstosslegende. Marco polo 13:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If its the ideas that are confusing you, Nazism and race (and the respective other articles under the title "Nazi ideology" on the template on that page) may help.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 14:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to take a look at Adolf Hitler - specifically his life before writing the book - that should give you a good idea of the background to the book.87.102.90.8 14:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Remember that the book only really gives insight into his life before writing it, as well as the various bees in his bonnet - It shouldn't be used as a bible with which to interpret the entire course of the third reich (though perhaps it does represent just that) - no doubt it often is taken as a primary source for analysing Hitler. (It does look like Hitler had no change of heart after writing it though - perhaps it could be described as an honest work)87.102.90.8 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I will say this much, 87.102; Mein Kampf is conceivably one of the most honest political manifestos ever written, so much so that after Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 he was discomforted enough to claim initially, when his regime was still militarily weak, that it represented "merely a fantasy written behind bars." But in the course of his political life he was to work towards all of the goals set out in the book, from racial policy to the quest for Lebensraum. His final testement in 1945 did little more that rehash some of the central themes of Mein Kampf.

So, questioner, you are looking for a thread through the labyrinth? Well, read it, first of all, as a form of political biography, which has a tendency to spill over at points into outright pathology. The Weltanschauung Hitler develops during his time in Vienna in particular is crucial in understanding his later political actions. At the most basic level it is a crude mixture of Social Darwinism, eugenics, and popular science; ideas half-digested and badly understood. It is in Vienna, moreover, where Hitler becomes both a committed German nationalist and an anti-semite, drawing his ideas from the racist pamphlets freely available at the time.

Moving beyond the autobiographical element, the main themes to look for are hostility to the Treaty of Versailles, hostility to the Weimar Republic, and hostility to Communism. These are all united by his overriding hostility to the Jews, who threaten Germany from all angles, either as Marxists or as plutocrats. Germany, he believes, has to strive for a super popwer status, by breaking the bonds of Versailles, and surging eastwards at the expense of the Slavs. Democracy he regards with disdain; for "...as practiced in Western Europe today, it is the forerunner of Marxism." He has little respect for ordinary voters, even the people who later would help carry him to poweer, describing them as 'stupid' or as 'cattle'.

The theme of anti-Communism is also one of considerable importance, again unting his hatred of left-wing ideologies and the Jews. Russia was not only the seat of Commmunism, but it was also dominated by the Jews who were aiming at the destruction of Germany. It was also, by fortunate coincidence, the area that was to provide the chief outlet for German expansionism-"When we speak of new territory in Europe today we must principally think of Russia and the border states subject to her...The struggle against the Jewish Bolshevization of the world demands that we should declare our position towards Soviet Russia."

You should also read the passages on propaganda with some care; because it is here that the book is often at its most informative and revealing, a useful guide to the effective techniques adopted by the Nazi Party. For example, he writes "We chose red for our posters, our intention being to irritate the left so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings." He is particularly good in his descriptions of politics and mass mobilisation as a form of collective drama, and the need for simplicity and again simplicity. And if you intend to tell a lie make sure its a big one, to be repeated continuously until it becomes the truth and truth the lie.

But in the end I do have to say to you there is really no shortcut to your own reading and your own understanding. Clio the Muse 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw a documentary in which a contemporary of Martin Bormann told how Bormann's son amazed his father (after years of immersion in propaganda/indoctrination) by asking him, "What is National Socialism?" Bormann replied (after regaining his composure), "National Socialism is whatever the Fuhrer says it is." I think that's a very informative principle to draw upon when dealing with this whole epoch.Retarius | Talk 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jane Eyre (2006 TV serial) Soundtrack listing

Hi, I'm trying to find a listing for the above miniseries from the BBC. There are soundtracks for the three or so of the other film versions, as well as the musical and operas, but I cannot for the life of me find a listing for this particular adaptation. Any help? Many thanks. Zidel333 14:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the one with Ruth Wilson as Jane. I couldn't find a soundtrack, but there's a DVD which you can take a look at here. Xn4 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely ordered the DVD from Amazon, but the end credits do not list any info regarding the music. Zidel333 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Greatest Radio dramas

What is the single best-known and greatest(General supremacy ,actually most people can communicate with ,a perfect style ,powerful inteligence and creativity in whole layers and excellent technical characteristics, and no matter what it's genre is anyway its expressive and impressive.)episodes of radio dramas of all time?(for example I know Orson Welles-directed adaptation of The War of the Worlds)Flakture 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are including real-life drama, but the crash of the Hindenburg was covered on newsreel and played on radio later: "Oh, the humanity !". There were also some rather dramatic speeches given over the radio, such as FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" and Churchill's "we shall fight on the beaches...". StuRat 15:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. You might think different things to what I might. I suppose it depends on country as well. Can you tell us where you are?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, "greatest", anyway, if not "best known".martianlostinspace ^{email me} 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The main idea is a general supremacy. its great because most people can communicate with, a perfect style ,powerful inteligence and creativity in whole layers and excellent technical characteristics,and no matter what it's genre is anyway its expressive and impressive.Flakture 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical Politics Question

If the United States Senate passed a law to re-organize the government from a democracy into an empire, would that be taken seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 15:05, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It would require numerous Constitutional Amendments, each of which require 2/3 of both houses of Congress to vote to support them. If Congress just passed a simple law, then, no, it would be immediately overturned by the US Supreme Court and probably ignored until that happened. The Senate alone can't pass laws, but could pass a resolution, which has no force of law, and would also be ignored. StuRat 15:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I wonder what you mean by an empire, which I've never heard used to describe a specific type of government, but rather one possible outcome or goal of a government. jeffjon 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Four, Section Four of the United States Constitution requires that the federal government guarantee a republican form of government. Overturning that would require a Constitutional Amendment, which would require approval of the states. Corvus cornix 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The constitutional amendments would require not only a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress but also approval by three fourths (38) of the states. Furthermore, empire is not necessarily inconsistent with formal democracy or republicanism. The United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands maintained empires while following democratic forms of government at home during the 19th and early 20th centuries. France was a republic during that time. The United States became something of an empire after the Spanish American War when it conquered most of Spain's overseas possessions. Arguably, the present-day U.S. maintenance of military bases and deployment of forces on nearly every continent and its dominance of international finance mean that it is a kind of empire today. Marco polo 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A much more likely scenario would be a (hopefully temporary) power-grab by the Executive Branch in the wake of a serious attack on the US. General Tommy Franks has publicly fretted over such an outcome. See also Continuity of Operations Plan. --Sean 17:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If "empire" simply means the possession of colonies (which I will call a country subject to the government of another country, but not represented in their government), then could you say Territories of the USA comprise a form of colony? There is nothing in the Constitution permitting, for example, Guam to send electors to a Presidential election, and the delegates which are sent to Congress do not mean the full representation which the Constitution grants to States. I suppose in theory, a major foreign country could be annexed by law, yet not granted representation in government.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC) There is also an article on "American Empire". In any case, a law passed by the Senate would be ignored until the assent of the House of Representatives and the President, unless of course, there was a veto override.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be of some interest for people to note that the Roman Empire, as political institution, 'evolved', so to speak, over a lengthy period of time. The early emperors, from Augustus onwards, maintained the outward forms of the old Roman Republic. It was not really until the time of Diocletian that all pretence was dropped in favour of new forms of political absolutism. As for the United States, there were very real fears in the nineteenth that the Presidency was developing into a 'monarchy'. Andrew Jackson, in particular, was often draped in royal robes by hostile political cartoonists. As for the future, Buzz Windrip waits in the wings! Clio the Muse 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sean that the most likely scenario for an end to democratic forms in the United States would be for the president, in his constitutional role as commander in chief, to declare martial law, suspend the constitution, and be confirmed in these actions by an authoritarian Supreme Court. (May such a thing never come to pass.) Marco polo 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the constitutional technicalities, which have been intelligently discussed above, if a majority can be achieved for any measure in the US Senate, that has to be "taken seriously".

On the suggestion in your question that empires aren't democratic, I can't help remembering this thought of George Orwell's - "It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning." Marco polo has pointed out above a few facts about recent empires. He doesn't mention the world's only surviving empire, Japan, which strikes me as pretty democratic (largely, of course, due to the reforms agreed between the Japanese and the US after the Second World War). Clio the Muse reminds us of how the Romans saw Imperium. In that light, it must be arguable that the government of the US is already more imperial than that of Japan! Xn4 02:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's already happened... and we have a featured article on The Emperor of the United States. --Dweller 10:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To follow from Marco Polo's scenario, that would also result in an Emperor in the form of the President. Imperial Presidency sound familiar? Though, I don't think he would be able to suspend the Constitution - wouldn't the Supreme Court be more likely to strike that down? Certainly, he constitutionally has the right to suspend Habeas Corpus. And the judiciary generally does permit the President to erode freedom to a certain extent under wartime.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 10:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Civil service illustration

The illustration of the Virgin Mary registering is linked as being during the Byzantine Empire, but that empire didn't arise until hundreds of years later, I believe. So, is that illustration mislabeled ? StuRat 15:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire was around way before the 11th century and into, what, the 15th? This label seems accurate to me. Beekone 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the Virgin Mary long dead by then ? Or is this supposed to be her spirit, not the actual woman ? StuRat 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Appears mislabeled to me. While the mosaic dates to the Byzantine, identifying Quirinius suggests to me that it's a full-out depiction of the Roman administration, not a symbolic transportation of Mary to the Byzantine administration. — Lomn 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm brain dead this morning. That label is way off. While the Byzantine empire was a product of Rome's dissolution, it's certainly not synonymous with the Romans. Good eye, StuRat. Beekone 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No prob, I'll go make the fix while you have your morning coffee. :-) StuRat 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I made the fix, but we now have the complication that the Roman Empire is listed as lasting from 44 BC – 1453 AD, meaning they consider the Byzantine Empire to be a mere subset, not a separate empire. I guess I'll avoid getting involved in that can of worms, though. StuRat 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Music in Youtube video

What is the music in this video? [9] I searched but could not find the right composer for the piece. Mozart? --Blue387 15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The theme is La Folia, but I don't know which version. It sounds like the soundtrack from Barry Lyndon.

Handel's sarabande from Keyboard suite Vol.2, No.4 in D minor HWV 437. (Not La folia but very similar.) Skarioffszky 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This piece, identified by Karioffszky, was in Barry Lyndon. I was able to call up a quick score by searching this limited preview for the word "courante" and choosing p. 39, then for the string "____" and choosing p. 40. Wareh 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Economics and Business

What is the difference between Economics studies and Business studies. For me they both deal with money and income. But what subjects and concepts each one deals with? Thank you. CG 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Business is studying how to make money. Economics is studying how other people make money. -- Миборовский 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice answer; it made me laugh. Bielle 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Economics is theoretical, talking about history, modelling of flows of money, mathematics and statistics. It can talk about the economies of nations and continents. Business Studies is more practical and applied to running a business, with a bit of Economics, plus some Law, Management, Marketing and other ideas. Nobody ever referred to Business Studies as a "dismal science". SaundersW 11:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cobweb Theory

Kindly explain your understanding of Cobweb theory in relations to stable and unstable cobweb. Thanks. Oli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.125.50 (talk) 16:54, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see cobweb theory. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. .--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad checks

First there was stop payment and then insufficient funds. Now a new technique is being used to deny the recipient payment by means of check. The issuer simply makes a change and then fails to initial it. Banks refuse to print warnings on the check so where can someone find a list of things to be careful of when accepting payment by check? Clem 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct date (not postdated)

Words and figures agree

Correct signature

Initials next to a correction are not sufficient for my bank. They require a full signature. Of course, this still won't guarantee funds. For that you need their check card guarantee number written on the back of the check. If you can get them to add their name and address, su much the better.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely this has always been the case? I would be shocked if banks had been moving money between accounts when an unsigned change was clear in a cheque. £5001600 paid to my mumBob Joseph? Certainly... Skittle 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"outed" politicians

In the last year or so I seem to remember two different politicians at the local level who were "outed" (allegedely revealed to be homosexual) . One of them was chatting to young men on gay.com and promised some of them jobs at his office. I also think there was a different local politician who was outed but then later publicly embraced his homsexuality. I cannot seem to rememeber the names of these two local (i think) politicians. I am not thinking of Larry Craig or Mark Foley. Can someone remind me of the names I am looking for? Thanks. -- Diletante 17:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed Schrock? --LarryMac | Talk 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks but thats not one of the guys I am thinking of, IIRC there was solid proof in both of these cases brought by mainstream media. -- Diletante 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• What "local level" are you talking about? Do you mean local politicians anywhere in the United States, or just in the city that you live in? --M@rēino 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I mean local as in the municipal level in the United States, but not any particular locality, I think these were both mayors of major cities. -- Diletante

OK, i found one James E. West (politician), I still think there is a very similar politician who has now embraced his homosexuality that I can't remember. -- Diletante 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a mayor, and still probably not who you're thinking of, but the chairman of the Richmond, VA School Board was discovered on Manhunt.net by a Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter. He never really denied his homosexuality. One thing's for sure, there seems to be no shortage of gay politicians, closeted or otherwise. --LarryMac | Talk 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking through List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people I now realize that this is true. I have found several gay mayors and other politicians. I realize how broad my question is, I am not sure if I can clarify well enough except to say that this "outing" happened in the past few years and involved a "secret life", and I know that is still to broad. -- Diletante 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Americablog specializes in Schadenfreude over outed Republicans with a history of supporting anti-gay legislation, so if your goal is to compile the names of many such, you may find it useful. Wareh 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be lying if I said I wasn't engaging in a little schadenfreude. I believe that some of the most vociferous anti-gay sentiment s are result of psychological projection. Thanks for the link. -- Diletante 18:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There's former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey. I imagine it happens all the time at the local level, with little national news coverage. The mind really boggles at some of the Roy Cohn-types who actively oppose gay rights while themselves in the closet. --Sean 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that was who I was thinking of. Thanks! I think we can consider this question fully answered. -- Diletante 22:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Guerrillas

Another Spanish question for you, girls and guys. Just how effective were the guerrillas in helping defeat the French during the Peninsular War? Admiratio 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, one way to consider things is to look at the way the French deployed their armies in Spain. In the spring of 1813 - because that's when I could find numbers for - there were two armies watching Allied forces in Portugal and southern Spain, Reille's in the north with 35-40,000 men, and Gazan's in the south, about the same size. The presence of the remaining armies was at least partly linked to the guerilla problem. These other forces were Clausel's army, which had around 40,000 men watching the roads back to France in the north-west of Spain, Suchet's army in Catalonia and the north-east with over 60,000 men, and Drouet d'Erlon's force of around 15,000 men in Madrid and central Spain. That's an awful lot of soldiers to guard supply lines and garrison places, so the guerillas probably tied down tens of thousands of soldiers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that, while the guerrillas performed some valuable functions, there is a long-established tendency among historians to perceive them as the only effective form of Spanish resistence to the French. They were not. More than that, they often caused more trouble than they were worth. Here is an account by a soldier in the regular Spanish army (yes, there was one) of the actions of the guerrillas during the siege of Zaragossa;

The guerrillas who go by the name of 'patriots' should be exterminated: they are gangs of thieves with carte blanche to rob on the roads and in the villages. If some of them have brought benefits, the damage that others have wrought is a thousand times greater...Those who believe these bands...to be useful are many, but if they meditate on the desertion from the enemy that has not occured through fear of being murdered...the burnings and other disasters suffered by the villages...the many highwaymen and bandits who carry out their crimes under this pretext, and finally the manner in which their disorder and their independence has caused all kinds of evil, they will understand how far the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

The overestimation of the guerrillas, and the underestimation of the regular army, has its source in the politics of the day; for the Spanish liberals were always stressing the importance of the 'popular' rising, even when the popularity was little better than robbery and murder. The guerrillas were a useful way initially of rousing the people against the occupier; but in the end the Spanish authorities were at pains to bring them under proper military discipline. It is almost certain that the French would have been able to suppress the unruly irregular forces with ease, if they had not also faced Anglo-Portuguese and Spanish armies. Clio the Muse 03:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

for Clios point about the regular Spanish Army see Battle of Bailén, as an example.--Tresckow 09:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tresckow! Clio the Muse 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Palace of Peace

I've just read "Fighting for Peace" by Henry Van Dyke In it, he states that the US promised a statue representing "Peace through Justice" to be given to the "Palace of Peace" and it was supposed to have been placed on the central landing of the great "Stairway of Honor" I have not been able to find out if it is there or was ever given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.78.77 (talk) 18:23, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's right there: Image:Peacepalaceinside.jpg. This source confirms it is the Peace through Justice statue.  --Lambiam 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another anthropology question

I helf-remember reading, a long time ago, about a society that once existed with a peculiar family structure. Siblings lived together, chose whatever sexual partners they wanted, and the children would be brought up by the mother and her siblings and inherit from the mother's brothers (men being the ones who had property and status), so men brought up their sisters' children, not their own. I think it was in pre-British India somewhere. Did I imagine it, or did it really exist, and if so, where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicknack009 (talk • contribs) 19:23, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to sign, sorry! --Nicknack009 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds somewhat like the common kinship and descent system that existed among Native Americans. Generally speaking one had to marry outside one's clan, and the children became part of the mother's clan. Often one's mother's brother took more of a father role. This is a kind of matrilineality, but perhaps Native American societies are not what you are thinking about -- if nothing else, property and status were not held by men only. But the basic idea of a system in which children are raised by their mother and her siblings is not all that unusual. Pfly 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Marx and Engels describe something like this in one of their works on the family. I don't remember the specifics, but family structures like this were apparently not uncommon in early societies. Donald Hosek 21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in one of my books on the Blackfeet is a description of the Kainah practice of children being raised with their grandmother as the mother-figure and their uncles as a join father-figure. Their biological mother/father were not directly involved in raising them. This was described in detail in one chapter and then debunked in the next as an option when the mother died or married out (usually traded) to a distant tribe - which is pretty much what Pfly stated. If absolutely necessary, I can try to find time to dig out the books from the back of my closet and see which one it was. -- Kainaw^(what?) 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The classic anthropological case of this (cited in many textbooks) are the Nayars of Kerala.... AnonMoos 22:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a term for paying off loans with new loans?

When someone takes out a loan to pay off an older loan, and keeps paying off loans with new loans, what is the term for that? Also, is there an article on it? Can someone wikilink it, please? --70.179.175.240 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Debt consolidation is about paying off old loans with a new loan. DuncanHill 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's when you transfer all your existing loans into one other loan, and pay it off. I think the questioner is asking about an ongoing series of loans, each one paying off the former one, never reaching the end ... -- JackofOz 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rob Peter to pay Paul? --24.147.86.187 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Check kiting?? - Eron ^Talk 01:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. That is illegal. The question appear to be along the lines of: You buy a house with a loan. You then refinance with a different company to get a new loan (which pays off the original loan). You refinance again with another company, paying off the previous loan. You refinance again, paying off the previous loan. I don't know of a name for doing this over and over and over. -- Kainaw^(what?) 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that this is possible as the new lender will want to know what outstanding debts he/she has.--88.110.215.190 08:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the general term is refinancing. The new lender is unlikely to turn down a refinancing opportunity, as long as the borrower has a good credit history - if the borrower has been meeting their payments to the old lender, there is no reason why they shouldn't continue to do so to the new lender. The old lender might offer better terms to persuade the borrower to refinance with themselves rather than go to a new lender. Lenders sometimes try to protect themselves against refinancing by attaching penalties for early repayment - there might be an "administrative charge", for example. It is always a good idea to check what early repayment might cost, and make sure that the savings made by refinancing cover this cost. Gandalf61 08:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been common practice in recent years to do this to make payments on a mortgage that one can't actually afford. A series of cash-out refinancings against increasing equity in a home. I would offer the term autoponzification as a possible description of the practice. Donald Hosek 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as a debtor maintains a reasonably good credit rating, by having an income and by making payments on time, credit card companies in the U.S. have tended to offer new credit cards on attractive terms, such as 0% or very low interest for some introductory period. In the best case, it might be 3% interest until the refinanced debt is paid off, or 0% for a year. It may be possible, if not advisable, to refinance consumer debt which is at 14% on a credit card, down to these lower rates, greatly reducing the amount of monthly finance charges. Of course if outgo exceeds income, the amount of consumer (unsecured) debt will continue to increase each month, until the debtor is unable to or accidentally fails to make the minimum payment on time some month, or until the limit on a credit card is exceeded, in which case the whole autoponzificated (thanks to User:Donald Hosek) house of cards collapses. Then the credit card company pronounces the debtor to be in default and raises the rate from 0% or 3% to as much as 30% (without explicitly notifying the debtor), as they perhaps expected to do in the first place when they dropped the baited hook in front of the consumer fish. Then the debtor has little choice but to take such extreme measures as decreasing their level of consumption by cancelling high speed internet (horrors!), taking out a loan against the equity in the home, possibly leading to the eventual loss of the home, or going out and getting a job, thereby decreasing the time which can be spent editing Wikipedia (horrors!). Edison 18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Corvus cornix 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

August 29

Exploited children

Does the United States have a moral obligation to assist the world's exploited children? --Longhornsg 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Morals change from person to person (and usually change with each person throughout his/her life). Therefore, it is not possible to give a factual "yes/no" answer to a question that is mere opinion. -- Kainaw^(what?) 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, it depends on your moral standpoint, but that of the US remains essentially a Christian one ("I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God...") Charity, and especially the relief of poverty, is a traditional Christian duty, both of individuals and of communities. As the American theologian Jonathan Edwards puts it in his Christian Charity, or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732), "It is the absolute and indispensable duty of the people of God, to give bountifully and willingly for supplying the wants of the needy". Just how far from home Christians need to apply this has long been open to debate, but we live in a global village as never before. Xn4 01:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the words "under God" were added relatively recently: Pledge of Allegiance#Addition of the words "under God" —Keenan Pepper 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And Christianity does not have a monopoly on God. -- JackofOz 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Moral obligation. Is there any specific reason to single out the United States as the possibly obligated agent? I mean, is there any reason to expect a different answer to the question: "does Australia have a moral obligation to assist the world's exploited children?"? And why, among the many disadvantaged groups, "exploited children"? What about exploited adults?  --Lambiam 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

America has long seen itself, in Christian and in other senses, as a chosen land with a responsibility to bring freedom and liberty to others. This is called American exceptionalism. See this article and related subjects. Wrad 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly corrected, as the US isn't formally a Christian country, but moral obligations need to be argued from some system of morality, and the Christian religion seems to me to be the one which is predominant in the US. If we look at others, is the result much different? Xn4 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, an agnostic/liberal morality would 'dictate' that one should leave others their own values. The liberal motto "everyone should be free to do (and think) as they please insofar as that does not interfere with the same freedom of others". Religions have a tendency to go against that and force their own values down the throats of others. Christianity is a good example of that (missionaries), so maybe the fact that the US is so strongly christian is a good explanation for its behaviour in world politics. Which answers the question if the US thinks it has a moral obligation. Whether it does is pure POV. DirkvdM 06:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is very much more of a libertarian "motto" than liberal one. -- Diletante 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow your own links. The definitions are blurry and libertarianism is more associated with anarchism. In the Netherlands (and I imagine the rest of Europe), the definition I gave is used for 'liberalism'. DirkvdM 06:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As a very hard liberal/socialist, I would say that the US is a "Christian nation," even if the numbers of Christians are up or down. Christianity's world view and morality (morality being religious/supernatural, while ethics are human) are dominant and determinant on American world views. Does any person have a moral obligation to help the exploited children? When Americans (and Brits) have faced this in the past, they have suggested that we are all obligated to look after the least. Additionally, Utilitarianism even argued that it is a moral necessity to look after exploited children because of the amplification of the moral act in helping/hurting children (if you repair a child, you will affect that child's mature life, spouse, children, voting, business, etc.). If one needed a specific Christian command (other than Jesus saying that the second commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself"), Matthew 25:34 ff should do it. Geogre 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We just need to convert the children to Christianity; then, if they die in an industrial accident while producing cheap consumer goods for us, they at least get to go to heaven. Thus, our moral obligation is discharged without upsetting any economic realities. Alternately, it could be argued that we are already rendering this assistance by having our celebrities adopt these children one by one. 38.112.225.84 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

IG Farben

Why was it that Henry Ford funded IG Farben, which made Zyklon B for the nazi death industry ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.238.20 (talk) 04:30, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that this refers to the transfer of a substantial holding of the German Ford Motor Company A.G. to I.G. Farben, you can blame Ford for his support of German industry backing Hitler in his drive to power, but hardly for not foreseeing, in 1929, the future Nazi death industry and the role to be played in it by Zyklon B. While I don't know Ford's motives, the shares were not donated to I.G. Farben; 40% of the Ford Motor Company A.G. shares were floated on the Berlin market and for the larger part bought by I.G. Farben in an undisclosed deal. See here for some speculation on the underlying motives.  --Lambiam 05:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that IG Farben was a respectable large chemical company that would be prefectly natural for someone (Ford) to invest (or vice versa). Zyklon B was based on a pesticide which is a normal product for chemical companys - it was not developed with the intention of killing Jews etc. Had hitler not turned out to be the total fruitcase he was the investement (either way) would have been a normal and sensible financial transaction.

If you are asking why he (Ford) specifically invested in a chemical company and not an engineering firm etc that is another question.87.102.18.14 11:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And note that IG Farben was not just a "large" company, but among the largest chemical combines in the famed German chemical industry. --24.147.86.187 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You might as well ask why Fritz Haber invented Zyklon B, even though he was partially Jewish. He didn't know it was going to be used on his relatives. --24.147.86.187 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A TV docu-drama about the Holocaust several years showed German scientists demonstrating to Nazi officials how they had modified the widely used pesticide "Zyklon" by removing the warning odorant, to create Zyklon B, the only purpose for which was the killing of humans (why warn them death was coming?) The canisters were labelled ironically "Giftgas" the German term for poison gas[10]. The Wikipedia article offers no such distinction between Zyklon B and Zyklon, and applies the name "Zyklon B" to the earlier 1920's pesticide used on the clothing of Mexican immigrants entering the U.S. Holocaust sources probably provide references to determine whether the docu-drama or the Wikipedia article is correct. The German Wikipedia article cited above indicates that the odorless version was created for use around food, to avoid leaving an aftertaste, and to conserve the strategic chemicals used as odorants. The Wikipedia articles on Insecticide and Pesticide give very little coverage to the widespread use of extremely hazardous poisons in the 19th and early 20th century, do not mention Zyklon B or Paris green, and only briefly mention lead, arsenic and such quite generically. Edison 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

English Public Schools

I think some of you may have gone to English Public (ie private) Schools. I would really like to know what they are like? Are they as stuffy as depicted? Do they encourage social separation? Are they only for an elite? Thanx. Matt C Harper 05:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They are far more different from each other than you would think. Few are stuffy. Most try to discourage 'social separation', but it's hard to dispute that they are a factor in it. Some are more for an elite than others, but perhaps the word isn't always negative. Xn4 (Gresham's School, Holt) 06:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of "social separation" they effectively separate rich and poor. Since the 1997 abolition of the Assisted Places (another redlink in need of an RD article) scheme, the number of children from less wealthy backgrounds attending independent schools has dwindled to an insignificant number. Other indicators are less seperatist; in racially mixed parts of the country, you'll find a mix of ethnicities, but one that very much reflects the economic progress of that ethnicity. Many independent schools strive to enhance the diversity of their pupils, particularly those that are located in inner-City areas and feel a drive to open their doors to local families. This has led to a proliferation of bursary (a word usually meaning means-tested scholarships) fundraising by the schools, to support children from impoverished backgrounds through their school careers, often extending beyond fees to other expenses, such as uniforms and school trips. --Dweller 10:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it true that a lot are single sex - which goes a long way to giving a school a certain character - or am I hopelessly out of date?87.102.18.14 11:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not out of date. Many remain single sex. Single sex education has now been a hot topic in British education for some time, particularly over the issue of girls outperforming boys in exams. --Dweller 11:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be overstating the case to say "they effectively separate rich and poor". Some rich parents won't spend their money on schools. Some very hard-up parents would, if they had it, but don't, and grandparents or family educational trusts fill the gap. Many children have their school fees paid by companies, by the armed services, and so forth, because their parents are working out of reach of a good education. And most parents nowadays are neither rich nor poor and have to make hard choices: one of those might be to live in a smaller house, leaving money over for school fees. We could even say that there are people in the UK who impoverish themselves through paying for education. When it comes to 'the poor', then (ironically, perhaps) most of the older English public schools were originally founded to give local children (often, a specific number) a free education. Although a few of them still do so, most give foundation scholarships which cover only part of their fees.

Returning to Matt, the English schools you're asking about have quite a lot in common with prep schools in the US and Canada. That's at least a starting point for understanding them. Xn4 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not sure initially if I should respond here, as it is an issue over which I find it difficult to be neutral. I went to a very fine boarding school for girls, the finest in all England, as far as I am concerned, and I can assure you, Matt, that it was anything but 'stuffy'! Just the contrary. The environment-academic, sporting and social-was second to none, and it took a diffident eleven-year-old girl and turned her into a self-assured young woman, nurturing ever talent she knew she had, and discovering a few she did not know existed! Did it encourage 'social separation'? Insofar as I understand this expression I would have to say yes, I suppose it did. We all came from privileged or very privileged backgrounds; but we were never encouraged to take a condescending view of other people, quite the reverse, in fact. Was it elitist? Again yes, but I personally do not see anything wrong with this, because I take the view that excellence should be encouraged and nurtured. For me it is ironic in the extreme that the assisted places scheme was ended by a government headed by a man who himself went to a very fine public school in Scotland. Let me concluded on a personal note: if I ever have a daughter she will go to my old school! Yes, she will. Clio the Muse 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Drat. If I ever have a daughter, I want her to go to my old school. So that's that, I'd better not join the long line of users wanting to romance you after all, dear Clio! Xn4 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! My loss, I'm sure. What was your old school, if you do not mind me asking, Xn4? I'm just being nosey! Clio the Muse 02:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If I tell you Gresham's School, Holt, then you are not to say 'poor girl!' or argue with me at all. Xn4 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What a lucky girl-just think: all those lovely boys! No, I'm being facetious; Gresham's is a fine school, high among the very best in England. So you were a boarder, were you, Xn4? A quite unique breed; for Such, Such were the Joys! Clio the Muse 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As a former private school pupil, I didn't feel it was socially elite (as mentioned by an earlier poster, scholarships and family educational funds meant that there was a healthy mix of social backgorunds) but I do think it fostered an intellectual snobbery that's very hard to shake off. Coming out into the "real world" was a bit of a shock as I had expected the rest of the world to be the same as school was. I was rather naive.212.240.35.42 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing Titles?

When did the Roman become the Byzantine empire?Essex teen 11:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks. Utgard Loki 11:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See Roman empire#Partition of the Empire the empire was split into two, the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire87.102.18.14 12:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, after Constantine I, originally the Western Emperor, had become the sole Emperor of the Empire after the earlier partitioning under Diocletian, he moved the seat of the Empire to the city of Byzantium and renamed it Nova Roma. Then he divided it again under his sons; it got re-united under one Emperor and split up again, until the Western part totally collapsed. It is important to understand that the divisions of the Empire were, at the time, not viewed as independent "states", but just that: independently administered parts of the one-and-only Roman Empire. Even though some part of it had collapsed, in the view of its rulers and subjects alike, the great Roman Empire, founded by Augustus, continued without interruption in the East. It is only much later, after the Empire had morphed into the Ottoman Empire, that Western authors started to use the attribute Byzantine for the Eastern continuation of the Roman Empire. See further Byzantine Empire#History of the name "Byzantine".  --Lambiam 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Lambiam here one hundred per cent, and would even go one tiny step further: the Roman Empire never, at any point, became the 'Byzantine Empire'. Yes, of course, it underwent a political, religious and cultural development that would have made it quite unrecognisable to Augustus and the early Caesars; but to the very end, 'Black Tuesday', 29 May 1453, the Greek-speaking peoples of the east still thought of themselves as Romans, as heirs of an ancient tradition. Byzantine is no more than a convenient descriptive label. Clio the Muse 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Even today, Turkish citizens who are ethnically Greek are called Rum in Turkish, i.e., Romans.  --Lambiam 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Names of the Greeks might also be of interest. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Algernon Sydney and the English Republicans

I'm writing a paper on the sources of the republican movement in England, and came here looking for further information on the career of Algernon Sydney. Please forgive me for saying so but your entry on this man is rather sketchy. Can anyone help me along? John Hampden 13:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia agrees with you, insofar as the article carries a "stub" tag. I can't imagine I can come up with much that would be very useful on my own, but if you haven't done a Google search for his name and/or consulted the "External links" at the bottom of his page, you might start there. (The References section also lists a number of books which would be useful.) I can't imagine there are online sources which would not be revealed by this process. Anyone else? — Scartol · Talk 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a useful biography in Sidney [Sydney], Algernon (1623–1683), political writer by Jonathan Scott in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It's online here - that's a subscription site, but your library may well have access to it. If not, many university and reference libraries will have the hard copy. Xn4 16:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The ODNB's sources include the following:

Sydney on Government: the Works of Algernon Sydney, ed. J. Robertson (1772)

A. Sidney's Court Maxims, ed. H. Blom, E. H. Mulier, and R. Janse (1996)

J. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the English republic, 1623–1677 (1988)

J. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the Restoration crisis, 1677–1683 (1991)

T. Forster (ed.) Original letters of Locke, Algernon Sidney, and Anthony Lord Shaftesbury (1830)

A. Sidney, The character of Henry Vane jnr, in V. A. Rowe, Sir Henry Vane the younger: a study in political and administrative history (1970)

[A. Sidney and W. Jones], A just and modest vindication of the proceedings of the two last parliaments (1681)

B. Whitelocke, Memorials of English affairs, new edn, 4 vols. (1853)

Earl of Tankerville, The secret history of the Rye House plot (1754)

Xn4 22:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you want to know about Algernon Sydney, the republican aristocrat? Well, here is a little elegy that sums up his spirit, and his ideas, very well indeed;

But where's the wandering spirit gone,

Since here he suffered martyrdom?

To heaven? Oh!, it cannot be,

For heaven is a monarchy.

Where then I pray? To purgatory?

That's an idle Romish story.

Such saint as he can't go to hell?

Where is he gone, I prithee tell,

The learned say to Achipotel.

Sidney was executed in December 1683 because the seventeenth century English state allowed for only two things: loyalty and still more loyalty. He was among the first to challenge the contention that opposition to the crown was treason. More than this, it was he, and those who followed in his path, who gave shape to a new and radical truth; that there were circumstances in which the crown itself could behave in a 'treasonable' way towards greter notions of the public weal. This was the whole point of Discourses Concerning Government, the text for which Sydney lost his life.

For Sydney absolute monarchy, in the form practiced by Charles II, was a great political evil. His Discourses was written during the Exclusion Crisis, as a response to Robert Filmer's Patriarcia, a defence of divine right monarchy, first published in 1680. Sydney was appaled that a free-born Englishman could ever have compiled such a work, a defence of despotism. It was Filmer's business, he wrote, "to overthrow liberty and truth." Patriarchial government was not 'God's will', as Filmer and others contended, because the "Civil powers are purely human ordinances."

In countering the Hobbesian argument that the coercive power of the monarchy was necessary to prevent the return of the Civil Wars, Sydney invoked Tacitus, the Roman historian, saying that the pax Romana, the Imperial peace, was the 'peace of death.' Rebellion may have dangerous consequences but

They who are already fallen into all that is odious, and shameful and miserable, cannot justify fear...Let the dangers never be so great, there is the possibility of safety while men have life, hands, arms and courage to use them but that people must surely perish who tamely suffer themselves to be oppressed.

All of his life Sydney had been consistent in his support of liberty. He had served in the New Model Army, though he opposed the decision to execute Charles I. In the end Cromwell's absolutism was little better for Sydney than that previously practiced by the king. His dismissal of the Long Parliament in 1653 was the act of a Caeserian dictator, subverting the republic and the constitution. In retirement Sydney was bold enough to outrage the Lord Protector by puting on a performance of Julius Caesar, with himself in the role of Brutus; and Brutus he was to remain.

A republican by deep conviction, he was abroad when the monarchy was restored in 1660, choosing to remain in exile for some years. He was only to return in 1677, almost immediately becoming involved in the growing opposition to rising forms of Stuart absolutism. When Charles dismissed his final Parliament in 1681, saying he would have no more, Sydney united with Shaftesbury and others in plotting against the perceived royal tyranny, of a 'force without authority.' Sydney was later to be implicated in the Rye House Plot, a scheme to asassinate Charles and his brother, though on some very suspect evidence.

Unable to support the indictment against him by any normal legal process, Sydney's writings were produced in court, as a 'false, seditious and traitorous libel', an argument for the people, so said the Solicitor General, to rise up in arms. In response Sydney said that it was easy to condemn him by quoting his words out of context "If you take the scripture to pieces you will make all the penmen of the scripture blasphemous; you may accuse David of saying there is no God and of the Apostles that they were drunk." But for the crown 'to write was to act.'

Sydney maintained faith to the end, declaring on the scaffold "We live in an age that makes truth pass for treason." Clio the Muse 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is Achipotel or how do you get there?—eric 05:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See Absalom and Achitophel and Ahitophel. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Ok, I've had my coffee and got the pun now. How embarassing. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mythical World

http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bookt1.jpg

Can you possibly tell me what this place is? I thought it to be a Terry Pratchett creation at first, but I reaally have no idea. Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.228.74 (talk) 14:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Based on this unlabeled drawing, I will be very impressed if anyone here can identify it. Can you at least explain where the image comes from? — Scartol · Talk 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good God that is so familiar. It's not TP, discworld doesn't look like that I don't think, but it is so familiar. SGGH ^speak! 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Kalimdor? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

YES I knew I recognised it. Actually, Geuiwogbil has gotten the answer before I could get back here and post it, but it is Azeroth from Warcraft, see here. *high fives everyon* such a nerdy catch :d SGGH ^speak! 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To be very precise it is a pre-Burning Crusade-map of World of Warcraft Azeroth, the greenly encircled continent is Kalimdor. C mon 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm impressed – in the "I'd be much more impressed if it were from LOTR or some other somewhat-classic piece of fantasy literature rather than a three-year-old video game" sense. (We may be stretching the definition of "humanities".) — Scartol · Talk 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the same map as for Warcraft III, which is five years old. That's practically traditional! Algebraist 00:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Central Business District...

Is there a definitive reason why there are more people in the middle of the CBD (the PLVI)?

--86.136.167.116 14:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean residents? There shouldn't be. If you mean why there are more businesses and workers working in the CBD then there are a number of reasons. Good accessability for the rest of the population, proximity of the local authorities and government, high land prices mean large, multi-employee companies and officers, center of the surrounding population dispersals i.e. center of the regions where you can draw customers from. Highly likely to have a good flow of traffic going through it. Prime locations for redevelopment.

There are also drawbacks, notable a lack of space to expand through, expensive land for initial purchase (hence skyscrapers) pollution, traffic noise and so on. SGGH ^speak! 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was more referring to numbers of pedestrians, but thanks for the info! --86.136.167.116 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are more pedestrians because there are more people. By that I mean the population density of the CBD during business hours is considerably higher than that of any residential or industrial area; think of all those cubicles on all those floors of all those skyscrapers. At lunch hour there is pedestrian chaos in most large cities, as at the beginning and the end of the day. Even in the so-called "working hours" there are always people going to and fro: off-site meetings, deliveries. I feel like this is too obvious an answer, however; perhaps you could refine your question. Bielle 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone else confused by the original question - PLVI. --LarryMac | Talk 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tacitus and the end of freedom

How does Tacitus view the end of the Roman republic and the formation of the empire? Martinben 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

With trepidation I might suspect, it wasn't really a sudden thing if you read about the gradual erosion of the republics functionality during the lifetime of Caesar. SGGH ^speak! 19:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the principate founded by Augustus in the Roman Revolution and the lament of the republican tradition it replaced are so central to Tacitus that the obvious answer to your question would be: grab a copy of the Annals, read them, and you will have by far the best possible answer to your question. Then read the Histories, as really Tacitus scarcely lets a page go by without using his cynically pointed style to let you know how he views things. This is what has inspired Tacitean studies—join the fray. Wareh 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if people remember anything of Tacitus it will be for the words he put into the mouth of the Caledoanian leader Calgacus just before the battle of Mons Graupius;

Whenever I consider the origin of this war and the necessities of our position, I have a sure confidence that this day, and this union of yours, will be the beginning of freedom to the whole of Britain. To all of us slavery is a thing unknown; there are no lands beyond us, and even the sea is not safe, menaced as we are by a Roman fleet. And thus in war and battle, in which the brave find glory, even the coward will find safety. Former contests, in which, with varying fortune, the Romans were resisted, still left in us a last hope of succour, inasmuch as being the most renowned nation of Britain, dwelling in the very heart of the country, and out of sight of the shores of the conquered, we could keep even our eyes unpolluted by the contagion of slavery. To us who dwell on the uttermost confines of the earth and of freedom, this remote sanctuary of Britain's glory has up to this time been a defence. Now, however, the furthest limits of Britain are thrown open, and the unknown always passes for the marvellous. But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace

It is perhaps the most devastating critique of Roman power, of the whole 'civilising' mission of Empire ever written, all the more forceful because they were put together by an insider, the son-in-law of Agricola, the man who won the battle. It is a case against aggression; it is also, at a deeper level, the voice of the dead Republic, speaking against the Emperors.

In the Annals Tacitus concedes that the peace of Augustus was a necessary corrective to the chaos of the Civil Wars, though he does not agree that his dictatorship should have been made permanent. But his criticism is even more trenchant; for it is not a call for a return to the Republic, dead and gone; it is a critique of the Roman people, who lacked the strength of will and purpose to stand by their ancient freedoms. By this measure the despotism of Augustus was based on abdication and consensus. The Emperor, he wrote, had "won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn and all men with the sweets of repose." Bread and peace, in other words, had a higher value than freedom. After all, for the hungry, and for the fearful, even slavery has attractions.

For Tacitus safety and submission came at a high price; an Empire established by a desire for peace was maintained by terror. He takes great pains in his writing to record the 'tools of despotism', making note even of the names of informers, whom he considers to be especially loathsome. Rome, the master of the world, was a city ruled by fear, a fear that created a space between people, forcing them into solitude and isolation.

Tacitus, in a sense, identifies with an ideal of freedom, not represented in the self-interested anti-imperail conspiracies of his day. He finds this ideal far beyond Rome in the barbarian tribes of the north, in the Caledonians and in the Germans; in men like Calgacus and Arminius, to whom he also gave a voice in defence of freedom. In the Germania he contrasts the virtues of the barbarians with the vices of the Romans. Their courage, their simplicity and their sense of honour are all admired because, at the deepest level, they recall a time when such values were held high by the Romans themselves.

In the end even the peace secured at the price of freedom was a false trade for Tacitus, a 'dreadful peace', diminishing by degrees through the reign of Tiberius, Nero, and, worst of all, Domitian, savage rulers who produced a savage people. Yet there was still sources of redemption, examples to be followed, none better the Consul Marius Lepidus, who lived through difficult times, always observing the highest standards of conduct. Even under the worst forms of tyranny, Tacitus concludes, moral choices can and should be made. Clio the Muse 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Germans then and now

This is more of a historical-biological question. Are the physical characteristics of today's German people any different than that of their 11th century ancestors? I know some Germans that have dark hair, brown eyes, and very tan scan. I realize that not all Germans are tall with light skin and blue eyes, but I'm sure some sort of change had to take place over the course of a millennia. I guess it also depends on what area of Germany you choose and what the staple diet of the people was at that time. If they were underfed for example, they would be shorter because of a lack of protein and vital nutrients required for healthy growth. However, this is just a generalized question. --Ghostexorcist 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you want History of Germanic peoples or something similar. The trick would be whether significantly different hapologroups were introduced in the intervening years. Most notably, these would be Norse invaders and Jewish immigrants. The short answer is "almost certainly," but the long answer would be "depends on where, depends on what trait you want," etc. The Germanic peoples moved and moved based on increasing pressures coming from migrants from the east. The farther east you are, the more likely you are to have had one of those waves settle down. Without a large mountain range or ocean to isolate the people, they tended to become European. Utgard Loki 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your question contains part of its own answer. "Are the physical characteristics of today's German people any different than that of their 11th century ancestors?" Essentially, apart from mutations, their genetic composition can only be that of their ancestors. (Note that the ancestors of today's German people may not have been German in terms of speaking German or a German dialect. Some of them, especially in eastern Germany, would have spoken Slavic languages. There was also a considerable Netherlandic migration into northeastern Germany, though at the time their Old Dutch language was not set apart from other Low German dialects. As Utgard Loki points out, their were also movements of Jewish and Nordic people into what is now Germany during the Middle Ages. Some of their descendants must be Germans today.) Now, while today's Germans are largely genetically the same as their ancestors of one thousand years ago, they almost certainly have a different appearance. Standards of personal and particularly dental hygiene were less advanced in the Middle Ages, and people older than 30 might tend to be missing teeth. Most people engaged in heavy physical labor and would have a higher rate of injury and perhaps scarring than today. Most people were peasants who had austere diets without much fat or meat, they may have been malnourished during parts of their childhood, and they would probably have been shorter and thinner than Germans today. But things like skin and hair color would have been roughly the same. Marco polo 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thought on skin color: Since most people worked outdoors in the Middle Ages, the ancestors of Germans would have been tanner, on average, than present-day Germans during spring and summer. Marco polo 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing that struck me when I first went to Germany was just how few people had blond hair and blue eyes. These characteristics are far more common in England. Clio the Muse 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of fulfilling Godwin's Law, I note that a very prominent advocate of the Aryan race did not have blond hair or blue eyes either. -- JackofOz 06:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he had blue eyes, Jack, bright blue. It was the one feature that all those who met him almost invariably remark on. Clio the Muse 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No blue eyes? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For readers in Turkey, where the site is blocked by decision no. 2007/195 of T.C. Fatih 2nd Civil Court of First Instance, this is image of a teapot with Hitler face, having his eyes blue but also his hair! Hevesli 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, where in hell's name does that teapot come from? It is wonderfully kitsch. I simply must have one; really, I must! Clio the Muse 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's by Charles Krafft ('Hitler Teapot' – hand-painted underglaze on earthenware). Contact is Rhonda Saboff, Director, DiRT gallery, West Hollywood, Ca. - see here, contact details here Xn4 01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends of the region. The southern and western regions of the german speaking area like Rhineland-Palatinate. Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Austria, parts of Switzerland have darker hair than the nort germans. I always thought a perfectly good explanation would be the Limes and the borders of Roman ocupation.--Tresckow 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this goes back far earlier than the Romans. Whenever they find scraps of genetic evidence in Europe from prehistoric times, they invariably find that the local gene pool has changed little since then. For example, the mitochondrial DNA of Ötzi was found to be most closely related to that of inhabitants of the Ötztal where he was found. (See this source.) It is true that traders and bands of warriors (such as the Roman troops) did move around Europe and leave genetic traces but large scale migrations transforming the gene pool seem to have been fairly rare in Europe, at least after a possible initial spread of farmers who intermarried with or in some cases displaced the earlier foraging population at the beginning of the Neolithic some 7 or 8 thousand years ago. The Neolithic farming peoples are believed to have spread northwestward from the Balkans, with the Balkan-derived portion of the gene pool decreasing gradually along their migration routes to the north and west. Meanwhile, according to this study, blond hair originated in northern Europe around 11,000 years ago in what would have been a pre-agricultural population. Very possibly, the Balkan-derived first farmers of Europe traveled along the Danube and Rhine rivers, which would have facilitated travel, and supplanted or mixed heavily with the earlier populations in those valleys. The uplands and boggy forests to the north and east may have been less attractive to the Balkan farmers, and farming may have spread to the existing (blonder) populations of those regions later through cultural diffusion rather than migration. Marco polo 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tresckow, most of my time in Germany has indeed been spent in the Rhineland and Bavaria; but I've also visited Dresden, Leipzig, Hanover and Berlin and did not find people in these places all that much blonder. My experience is limited, I admit, to urban Germany. Perhaps it is more of a rural phenomenon? Clio the Muse 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the rural/urban difference is important as the fluctuation with other regions is bigger there. i think i saw a map of hair colours in an old meyers encyclopedia. ill try to find it.--Tresckow 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Spandau Ballet

The article states that the name comes from a reference to the twitchin of bodies on the end of hangman ropes in Spandau prison, but I swear I remember reading that the term referred to the way soldiers fell when they were machine gunned by the Spandau machine gun during the war, have I made this up? Or do both origins have some truth in them? SGGH ^speak! 19:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no citation. I added a citation needed template. So, there's no telling who is correct until some source is discovered. -- Kainaw^(what?) 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to an entry in this thread at Snopes, a book called Rock Names by Adam Dolgins states:

The band formed in London in 1979, after an earlier incarnation as the Makers. A spokesman at the band's management company relates this story: "Spandau were just about to go onstage, and they still didn't have a name. Then a journalist friend of theirs, who'd just been to Berlin--his name was Robert Elms--apparently, on a toilet wall in Berlin he'd seen the name Spandau Ballet written, so he suggested it and they all said, 'Yeah.'"

Which still doesn't entirely answer the question, though other similar possibilities to those you mentioned are brought up elsewhere in the thread.jeffjon 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PDEA

When will the U.S. Public Domain Enhancement Act be voted on? NeonMerlin 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been introduced in the current (110th) Congress, so I don't think any sort of vote is pending. — Lomn 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fletching arrows

What types of glue did early cultures use to keep the fletching on an arrow? The Arrow article suggests that Bluebell sap was used in England, but without attribution. I've heard something about glue made from fish, would that have been made from boiled fish bones, or something else? If I found myself dropped on a desert island and I had to make arrows in order to hunt to survive, what would be the best material to keep the fletching on? Corvus cornix 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to answer the glue-related element of your question, but the Collins Gem SAS Survival Guide by John Wiseman does include a section on arrow making which suggest tying the flights to the shaft. You can use string (everyone should carry some useful string in their pockets), rawhide, or twisted plant fibres (eg from nettles) for the tying. I hope this is helpful, and that you can remember it when marooned. DuncanHill 21:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Try asking Roger Ascham Traditional Archery, a specialist club connected to the British Longbow Society. The contact is Dick de Bruin, and an address for him is on this page. Xn4 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this article [11], fish glue can be made from the heads, bones and skin of fish, but is not very sticky. The swim-bladders make a better glue. DuncanHill 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, everybody. Corvus cornix 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Gervase Markham's Art of Archerie (1634) and added it to our list of his works. Although, sadly, Markham has nothing on glue, there are four chapters (VIII - XI) on arrows. Chapter X is 'Of the feather, the nature, excellence and use'. He waxes lyrical on the subject of the choice of feathers, especially goose feathers and the best kinds and ages of geese. We should note that this book is handsomely dedicated to 'Mr. William Trumball, Esquire, Eldest Clarke to his Majesties most Honorable Privy Council, and Muster-master-General of all England' and to 'The Worshipful, the Masters, Wardens, and Assistants, and to all the rest of the Worshipful Companies and Societies of Bowers and Fletchers within the Honorable City of London, and elsewhere'. Xn4 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting website of traditional African arrows. It shows pictures of arrows where the fletchings are attached using a variety of methods, including simply sliding the fletchings (folded leaves) into a slit in the arrow shaft. Others appear to use glue and ties, probably a way to deal with glue that isn't very sticky: http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/grayson/africaarchery/africaarchery.shtml Crypticfirefly 04:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

August 30

Copyright

Without providing legal advice, can someone point me in the right direction regarding the following: What is the status of the copyright on this? Complicating the issue further, how would an American get permission (given the existence of embargoes, and such)? I can't quite work out who owns the copyright, who to contact, what jurisdiction it covers (and, in fact, whether marxists.org is violating copyright). Thanks, Llamabr 00:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are asking about the text you linked to (a translation) and not the original text. The translator owns the copyright of the translation. This comes up in a lot of areas. For example, I have two copies of Dante's Inferno - each with a different copyright because they are translated by two different people. You need to contact the translator for permission to use his translation. It claims there are two translators on that page. I don't know if both have to give permission or just one. -- Kainaw^(what?) 00:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't assume that a copyright still belongs to an author or translator; it can be sold, and with works done for hire, it could belong to the hirer in the first place. For a derivative work like a translation, the original author's copyright applies as well. (For Dante that doesn't matter, due to the age of the work.) If the translation was done by someone friendly to the Castro's government, it seems entirely possible that it was for hire and the Cuban government, or maybe Castro himself, owns all rights. Or not. The point is that just my looking at the piece you can't tell; you actually need an expert to research it. And that's my illegal advice. :-)

Oh, one more point. I imagine that if Cuba granted you permission to reproduce it without you paying them royalties, you probably would not be falling afoul of the embarge -- but you'd need an expert opinion on that too.

--Anonymous non-expert, August 30, 2007, edited 02:30 UTC.

Cuba is a signatory to the Berne Convention so you can't assume its works are not copyrighted. You may in fact not be able to legally license the material in the United States on account of the embargo. --24.147.86.187 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Government Regulation of raisins in Rasiain loaf bread?

A Friend of mine claims a Sun Maid package says that the government regulates the amount of Raisins in Raisin loaf bread. Long story short, we're in a bit of a bet as to whether a Democrat or Republican was closest to this regulation. I wonder if anyone would be capable of confirming or denying this rumor, and if so whether there was either legislation that created this (and if so a bill number or sponsor would be nice), or if it was some FDA regulation, if we can find whoever sponsored the bill that gave the FDA permission to regulate bread contents. Thanks for helping with such a strange request :). --Ybbor^Talk 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

21 CFR 136.160—eric 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The online Federal Register does not go back as far as 1977, but Donald Kennedy was the FDA Commissioner under Carter's administration.—eric 04:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ybbor, regarding the second facet of your question, the one about who gets "credit" (Democrats or Republicans) it's probably a bit more complicated than finding out "who gave the FDA permission" because the scope of administrative authority is usually defined very generally, and such particulars are within the delegated authority of the relevant agency. Thus, you might have to trace back a bit further than the Carter administration if you want to assign "credit" to a particular party. dr.ef.tymac 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this is administrative law rather than a bill on raisin density that went through Congress and the White House, I don't think you'll be able to say it was attributable to either party, so much as to the cultural norms of the federal civil service. Those norms tend to outlast any given administration. --Sean 13:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You sound a bit surprised that there are regulations that fruit bread must contain at least so much fruit. But it has always been the case that the government sets and upholds trading standards. 70.16.220.156 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; here's a famous 8-page regulation on the permissible length, color, and curvature of a banana: [12]. --Sean 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You know what? When you read the document it is actually quite sane. (And to say "eight pages" is something of a hyperbole, the first four pages aren't part of the standard. Page 1 - title page, Page 2 - revision history, Page 3 and 4 - preamble, Page 5 and 6 - definition of grades Extra, A and B, this is the actual standard, page 7 - how does a properly packed crate of bananas look like, page 8 - frequently encountered banana cultivars. Where is the problem again? 70.16.220.156 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Khubilai Khan

who was Khubilai Khan enemies? and where were they in the world?

please email me at <e-mail address removed> it is for my assessment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.127.58 (talk) 06:19, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the correct spelling is Kublai Khan, and you can read that article now. If it still doesn't answer your question, ask again. 84.0.127.211 08:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC).

Actuallly, "Khubilai Khan" is an acceptable variant spelling, and it more closely approximates the name's original pronunciation than the conventional "Kublai Khan". Marco polo 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, questioner, and welcome to Wikipedia. I suppose the precise response is that the Great Khan had a power beyond the reach of enemies! However, if you have read the article you will see that his empire in China expanded at the expense of the Song Dynasty, though campaigns against Vietnam and Japan were a failure. All of the Khan's opponents were in Asia, as one would expect, which existed largely as a self-contained world at the time of the Yuan Dynasty, despite the intrusions of Marco Polo; the Marco Polo, that is, not the one who appears above (sorry, Marco!) Clio the Muse 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

getting a work permit in Switzerland (Hungarian citizen)

Will I have trouble getting a work visa in Zurich as a Hungarian citizen?

Our EEA article says

“ In an obligatory referendum, Switzerland's citizens chose not to participate in the EEA. Instead, the Swiss are linked to the European Union by Swiss-EU bilateral agreements, with a different content from that of the EEA agreement.

The current members of the EEA, contracting parties, are three of the four EFTA states - Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, without Switzerland – and the 27 EU Member States along with the European Community.

”

However, the cited Swiss-EU bilateral agreement article does not give me any clues, not containing the word "Hungary".

Looking wider on the web I find this FAQ which reassuringly applies to me: "Citizens of the EU 8 are nationals of one of the following countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia. These questions mainly cover aspects, where regulations for the EU 8 and the EU17/EFTA differ." The first point reads:

“ 1. I would like to work for an employer in Switzerland - what do I have to do?

First you have to find an employer willing to employ you. He then applies for your work permit with the cantonal labour market authority competent for your planned place of work. At this stage a work contract must be presented. Based on the current transitional measures applied by Switzerland the authorities will check that the following conditions are met: Local worker priority: No local equivalent local worker (Swiss national or foreigner already integrated in to the Swiss labour market) is available to fill the position. The wage and working conditions must be in line with local and industry standards. The numerical ceiling, limiting the number of permits available, must not be exhausted.

If these conditions are met, a permit can be given.

”

The second point reads:

“ 2. How do the transitional measures work and who do they apply to?

Like several EU countries, Switzerland has negotiated transitional periods regarding access to the labour market. These were fixed in a separate protocol and are now an integral part of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons.

Until April 30 2011 at the latest Switzerland can therefore continue to apply the current labour market restrictions (annually increasing numerical ceilings, local worker priority, control of wage and working conditions) to the new EU member states of 2004 (except Cyprus and Malta).

These specific transitional measures only concern first time access to the labour market and apply to citizens of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia. Concerning regulations on independent entrepreneurs (starting a business in Switzerland), residence without gainful activity (students, pensioners etc.) and family reunion, citizens of all EU and EFTA member states (except Bulgaria and Romania) have the same rights. For questions on these issues we therefore invite you to consult the frequently asked questions for the so called EU 17/EFTA.

After 7 years the Swiss federal assembly will decide on the continuation of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons. This decision will be subject to a facultative referendum in 2008/2009. The Swiss people will have another opportunity to vote on the free movement of persons. In case of a massif influx, a specific safeguard clause can be called upon, allowing Switzerland to reintroduce a numerical ceiling until 2014 at the latest (valid for all EU/EFTA states).

”

However, none of this tells me how hard it is to get the work visa! It says only that I have to apply, but is it worth the application? I haven't found any success/failure stories online, which is why I ask.

I would be teaching English - I'm a Native English speaker, which is why I think "Local worker priority: No local equivalent local worker (Swiss national or foreigner already integrated in to the Swiss labour market) is available to fill the position" may not be too odious a criterion. The other two points mentioned seem like formalities. But what I'd really like to know is what my chances are - it would be great if I could read success stories online, but I just can't find any (or accounts of failure, for that matter). Thank you!

84.0.127.211 08:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC).

Gorbachev and the fall of Soviet power

I read recently that Gorbachev aimed at the reform of socialism, not its destruction. How true is this?Bryson Bill 11:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's quite true, for the most part. He certainly wasn't aiming for its destruction; as to the extent he thought he could "reform" it, and to what he thought he could politically get away with, it changes depending on what particular time of his rule you are looking at. A great, genuinely fun read on the subject is David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb, which is primarily about the final days of the Soviet Union, but gives a great historical overview and a great behind-the-scenes look at the power politics involved.

In any case, Gorbachev was a true believer in socialism, up to the end, but he thought that one could take far less hard-line approach than previous Soviet leaders believed. In the end, he was, it seems, a bit wrong — adding in some elements of freedom while keeping many of the vestiges (and history) of the old system ended up driving the country into a severe state of political instability. --24.147.86.187 15:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So the fall of communism had nothing to do with the 'pissed up clown' known as yeltsin - seems a little unfair to place the blaim on the 'ultimate beaurocrat' known as 'gorby'.87.102.14.233 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Yeltsin was very important to it too. I don't think you can really isolate Yeltsin and Gorbachev in considering the final days of the USSR, they played off of one another quite a bit. --24.147.86.187 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus it seems to make you what if you think the head of state's task is to destroy the state itself - where did you get that idea?87.102.14.233 15:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am of the school of thought that Gorby, Yeltsin, and the whole bunch were subject to forces much bigger than them -- global macroeconomics. "In a simplified way, the story of the collapse of the Soviet Union could be told as a story about grain and oil." When the USSR could make money off of oil exports, it did well; when the bottom dropped out of the market, the USSR crumbled. --M@rēino 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that it is entirely plausible that the USSR could have just become a run down Stalinist state, like North Korea, and persisted like that for decades longer. There was no strong political reason for Gorbachev to have instituted the reforms that he did, which clearly set the political ball in motion. Had someone more conservative taken power instead of Gorbachev, there might still be a USSR today, for all we know. Taking an overly macroeconomic approach obscures the contingency of history, and is a terribly teleological view of the past. --24.147.86.187 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gorbachev's Memoirs are a pretty good read (though partial, obviously) & make very plain his sincere belief in socialism (and union among the USSR's constituent republics). Through the lens of Russia's experience of Yeltsin and Putin, it's quite possible to feel that Russia's break with his policies & supposed plunge into democracy and liberal civil society has brought about something more undemocratic and illiberal than Gorbachev was tending towards. Wareh 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Russia, like any other state (US,UK etc) never really changes, and neither does (it seems) the desire amongst some (in the press mostly?) to believe that it is in someway barbaric, or run by barbaric people (cue diatribe about stalin perhaps?)213.249.232.26 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that it never really changes, it is that you can't just switch from one form of governance to another in the course of a year or two, especially when you are talking about a form of governance which essentially denied that there was an individual (communism) to one that elevates the individual to the most important central element of society (liberal democracy), without having major problems and repercussions. (Which doesn't mean I think Putin's approach was inevitable or positive in the slightest, but the conditions which allowed for him to move in that direction and for him to enjoy so much popular support in doing so are directly related to the difficulty of the transition and the short term losses in enacted upon Russian society.) Changes happens — and did happen in Russian society — but it is still constrained by the bounds set on it by the past, by history. --24.147.86.187 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, Bill, that it is Gorbachev's tragedy that he truly believed that he could indeed reform the unreformable, to give fresh life to what was, in practice, a political and economic corpse. If you look closely at the history of the period you will see that he was acting on conclusions already reached by Yuri Andropov, his predecessor, who died before he could implement any policy changes. Alterations to the moribund system had to come, in one form or another. So, what went wrong? Well, let's have a look.

The first thing is that he was too ambitious: he opened so many doors that could not be closed again; to rooms within rooms, ever beyond. He began by looking for both political and economic change, whereas the wise thing would have been to renew the economy, the immediate area of concern, and leave political superstructures to a later date. He might, in other words, have adopted the kind of model being pursued with considerable success by the present Chinese administration. Attempting political and economic change at the same time was bad; it was far worse when one ran far ahead of the other. In Gorbachev's case political reform proceeded well out of pace with the rescructuring of the economy. To be more precise, the the whole Soviet economy went into a state of freefall, while a growing sense of political freedom opened the whole apparatus of Communist rule to acute forms of criticism that Gorbachev could simply not control. It was a self-reinforcing process; the more living standards declined the more critical people became. For some the pace of change was too fast; for others it was not fast enough. There was no strategy; there was no road map; there was no coherence.

Gorbachev was also faced with the inertia and lmitations of the whole system; an entrenched and sclerotic bureaucracy, and a population that over time had learned apathy as a mode of defence. The Secretary's attempt to appeal to 'the people' beyond the apparatus only incresed hostility towards him within the Communist Party, just as his wider social and political initiatives often had risable consequences. I am thinking here of the anti-vodka campaign, intended to reduce absenteeism and increase productivity. All this did was to give an added spur to the black economy, and draped poor Gorby with the unfortunate appellation of 'Lemonade Joe.' Unpopular within the system, and unpopular without, he went on to attempt to ride all of the horses of the Soviet republics and the People's Democracoes at the same time. Practically speaking, the whole thing was quite impossible.

Internal matters were made worse for Gorbachev by the falling world price of oil and gas, which reduced his room for maneuver still further. In international terms his inititives looked increasingly desperate, particularly his moves towards disarmament, which further weakened the Soviet military-industrial complex, and only confirmed to western leaders that the U.S.S.R was in serious economic difficulties. The cuts in defence spending also failed to have the intended effect, with little in the way of realignment towards the consumer economy. Shortages remained a feature of the whole system, made worse when reduced subsidies led to a sharp rise in the rate of inflation. Many ordinary Russian people, particularly those on fixed incomes, were effectively priced out of the market altogether. And here I think what I wrote in response to the question about the Roman historian Tacitus has some relevance: when it comes to a choice between freedom and security, between hunger and bread, there are few people who are satisfied to chew on abstractions.

Gorbachev certainly saw Communism as an ideal which could be renewed, in the same fashion that Christians throughout history have sought renewal in a return to the primitive faith. But Communism was-and is-The God that Failed. I think I should let the man himself have the final word;

When I became General Secretary, I admit that I was not free from the illusions of any predecessors. I thought we could unite freedom and democracy, and give socialism a second wind. But the totalitarian model had relied on dictatorship and violence, and I can see that this was not acceptable to the people...I wanted to change the Soviet Union, not destroy it. I started too late to reform the party, and waited to long to create a market economy.

How hindsight makes us all wise. Clio the Muse 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do all year-numbering systems commemorate some sort of historical and/or mythical event?

Do all year-numbering systems commemorate something? Such as the birth of Christ, or the creation of the universe, or an event in Muhammad's life, or something?

Like, for instance, the Jalaali calendar. The beginning of its year is natural (the spring equinox), but the years themselves are numbered from an event of religious significance. Do all calendars number years from something of religious and/or political significance? Why not take the most recent year in which an equinox occurred at the earth's perihelion to be year 1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.149.201 (talk) 11:43, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

For starting with religious/political significance, pretty much. I can't think of any exceptions offhand, unless you want to count the Unix epoch. See calendar era for more on that.

As for the equinox/perihelion suggestion, it's more or less as arbitrary as the others. Why not the solstice, or aphelion? Practically speaking, what would be gained by overturning an established (if arbitrary) system in favor of another? Are there benefits comparable to, say, those of metrification, or will it just lead to something as lame as BC/BCE edit wars? — Lomn 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unix time, as mentioned. Also, the "before present" used in radiocarbon dating has "present" fixed at 1950. --Sean 13:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a wonder the English didn't use a calendar that started on 3 September 1189, which for a long time was the legally defined "time immemorial". -- JackofOz 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Freedom

Why is it that ordinary people are willing to engage in wars for "freedom" when they allow themselves to be controlled by their governments and, in many cases, religion? I really dont understand why people fight for something that doesn't exist, because every person who lives in say the USA is controlled by the USA's laws; and everybody who is a christian, is to an extent controlled by the teachings laid down in the bible. Any thoughts? Hadseys 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

People often regard the referent of a word as quite secondary to the word itself. Examples:

• In the USA, we went off the gold standard some decades ago, and the public did not storm government buildings claiming that they were being robbed of their gold.
  • What relevance does that have to the question?
• Simply tell people to get up earlier and they won't; put Daylight Saving Time into effect and they will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.130.121 (talk) 14:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that has any bearing on why people fight for "freedom" in wartime

Ordinary people do not engage in wars. Governments and religions do. -- Kainaw^(what?) 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was referring to world wars, why does everybody group together to fight for something that isnt there?

See Causes of World War I and Causes of World War II. -- Kainaw^(what?) 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Religions don't engage in wars. People do. The unsigned comment, above, seems to be echoing George Orwell's point in Politics and the English Language: the evacuation of signification from a sign reduces it to a feeling rather than a meaning. If we employ the signifier and switch signifieds over and over again, eventually the signifier becomes no more than a social gesture (a motive, an action, a marker of identity -- a transaction between persons rather than a limited or meaningful exchange of symbolic knowledge). Orwell was very concerned with Goebbels suggestion that people believe a Big Lie more readily than a small one.

However, "freedom" has received immense scrutiny in the United States. It was a very contentious term in the 18th century (Burke to Samuel Johnson, Locke to Hume), but it experienced a renewed fascinated gaze in the 1960's, when the original questioner's sorts of musings became fashionable again. "Are you really free, man?" Well, there is "free your mind," "free action," "free will," "free feeling," "free love," "free property," and "free spirit." Chris Christoferson said, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," and that anti-accomplishment "freedom" was always lurking beneath the surface of the positive-attainment "freedom." You can be free by gain, or you can be free by loss. You can be free by being king of your domain, or by being a monk on a pillar in the Nitrean desert.

Part of the 1960's fascination was because of inequality and lack of freedom in laws (the absence of civil rights), and part was because people wanted a chance to step outside of the social network itself (the guru induced fascination) or outside of a complex system of control (what Kesey would call The Combine) (in communes and the like). After the 1960's fitful and disparate questionings, we came to other understandings of freedom. The quietism of self-improvement replaced the oddity of chanting, and people began to give up on collective freedom in favor of personal egoism, perhaps.

The most important element, though, is that the absence of total freedom does not mean that people are "not free." Total freedom is like total power: it is impossible to conceive or possess without an alternate state existing at the same time (free from what? in control of what?), and the fact that a person does not have entire freedom does not mean that a person is a slave. Utgard Loki 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• But if we had been controlled by Hitler who's to say we'd have been slaves; we'd have just been controlled by another form of government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 16:10, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
• You might also look at the Four Freedoms, which is closer to what many people think of as "freedom" than "license to do whatever one wishes without repercussion". No sane group has that latter state as a political goal; witness the famously freedom-loving Idahoans' rejection of their Senator's recent contretemps. --Sean 16:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I like Loki's reference to George Orwell's Politics and the English Language, an essay which is summed up in its last paragraph -

“ Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase - some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse - into the dustbin, where it belongs. ”

Orwell also said "Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defence against a homicidal maniac", but of course that didn't stop him from believing that sometimes wars have to be fought for political reasons. The greatest of those for his generation (as he saw it) was the defeat of fascism. In 1936, he went to Spain to fight for the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War, joining the militia of the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). In 1939, he supported the reluctant declaration of war against Germany by Britain and France and volunteered for the British army. Found unfit, he joined the Home Guard. Of course, his experiences in Spain also turned him bitterly against Stalinism. Xn4 16:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Always great to have more Orwell. The original questioner seems to want to know why this abstraction, above all others, is the one that people will fight for. The problem, as I see it, is this sort of political metonymy. Taking a single word and turning that word into a goal is never satisfactory, whether it's "democracy" or "freedom" or "flag." Augustine said, "When no one asks me what (time) is, I know what it is; but the moment I am asked what it is, I do not know." Well, freedom is like that. While Freedom is an impossible abstraction, "Freedom from the domination of the Hun" or "Freedom from having those smelly people in our neighborhood" or "Freedom from having the Government tell me that I have to bow to a hat on a pole" is meaningful. Most of the time that people respond to the call to fight for freedom, they're conceiving of it, if it's a compelling call, not in an abstract term, but as part of a larger sentence. In world wars, for example, lingering xenophobia and rampant nationalism (i.e. both "those people are horrible" and "the way we are is the best") combined for WW1's call for "freedom." Freedom from the beastly Hun, freedom from the decadent royal houses, freedom from Austro-Hungarian expansionism, freedom from Anglo-French diminishment of natural rights.... In other words, each side could say it was fighting for "freedom" but mean a very different thing. Each side's "freedom" was not a hollow word. Each side's "freedom" was a real quality that they sought. We see from our distance that it was horribly foolish, and we should learn humility from that, but we shouldn't say that they were stupid. Blind, they were. Stupid, they were not. They did not fight for a word, but for a whole system of beliefs, and they shared a word in their different sentences.

At present, people may go to war to be "free from terror" or to "free Mecca from the infidel" or to be "free of foreign influence" or to "ensure the freedom of the repressed people" or to have "free access to our natural resources" or to "free the tribal peoples from being moved off their natural resources." People again are using that word freedom, but they're using it in utterly different sentences, and it is at that level that meaning adheres for those who go to fight, I think. Geogre 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, Hadseys, I do not think ordinary people ever fight for grand abstractions of any kind, no matter what their leaders may say. People go to war for a whole variety of reasons, usually to be located within their own emotional reactions to a given set of circumstances. But for a soldier crouching in a trench under shell fire in 1916, or walking on point in the jungles of Vietnam in 1968, or patrolling the streets of Baghdad in the present day, notions of 'making the world safe for democracy', or 'containing the spread of Communism' or 'helping the Iraqi people' would, and do, sound particularly hollow. Clio the Muse 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK fine, A vast majority of slaves predominently came from the Slave coast and the Gold coast, so all of them are of ghanaian, togolese, beninese and western nigerian descent?

followed by bantu's from congo and angola!!, huh!!??, So they did not come from no Mali empire, Songhay empire and Ghana empire? or southeast africa? Just the Slave coast and the Gold coast?!--arab 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please put your followup questions in the original thread. --Sean 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have answered this question several times now, but you don't seem to get it. The question in the title is nonsensical. It does not make sense. 17th and 18th century people do not descend from 20th century nations.

The slavers included African tribes and kingdoms, such as the Empire of Ashanti, and they got slaves from whereever they could get them. It is quite likely that this included slaves from the vast geographical area corresponding to the former Mali Empire, defunct at the time, the earlier Songhai Empire, or the much ear;lier Ghana Empire, which had ceased to exist several centuries before. However, the slavers were not bean counters who kept records of how many of the slaves traded came from where.

You seem to have a problem with words like "majority" and "predominantly". There is a difference between "majority" and "all". For example, a majority of Haitians is black. That means the same as that most Haitians are black. It does not mean that all Haitians are black. Some are white, but most are black. White Haitians form a minority; the majority is black.  --Lambiam 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

arab, I've kept out of this saga, but even for a passer-by it's getting wearisome... enough, now. Xn4 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the slaves came from coastal areas of West Africa. Most of the slaves from coastal West Africa probably came from the Slave Coast. However, I'm not sure that most slaves came from the Slave Coast. A fair number of slaves came from the area that is today Senegal and Gambia. Others came from areas outside of West Africa, such as Angola and present-day Congo. Some also did come from southeast Africa (present-day Mozambique). Feeding captured slaves during long journeys on foot was costly, and it seems unlikely to me that many of them would have come from the interior of West Africa, the region where the former empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai had existed. Probably a large majority came from within 200 miles of the coast. But no doubt some few did come from the interior. We can't know exact numbers, because detailed and accurate records were not kept. Marco polo 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous Name of Chicago's McKinley Park Neighborhood on the near south side

I am writing a novel about the area known as Mount Pleasant whose boundaries would be from Ashland (Reuben) and Archer Avenue, Archer West to 35th Street, and 35th Street east to Ashland, Ashland North to Archer. This triangle of land was known as Mount Pleasant.

I've researched every database and/or website I could find and not one of them has the original name of the McKinley Park area.

I am not able to locate the original name of the area now known as McKinley Park, whose boundaries (approximately) from Ashland to Western, from 31st and Ashland South to 39th, 39th West to Western. From what I've been able to find, the Brighton Park area's eastern boundary was Western Avenue.

Can anyone help me?

Thanks so much

63.215.26.205 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (removed what looks like name and email address)09:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In what time period is your novel set? Before the park was opened in 1902 (as McKinley Park), the site had been the Brighton Park Race Track, but apparently by 1900 the area consisted of open prairie and cabbage patches.[13]  --Lambiam 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. According to our Brighton Park, Chicago article, the race track had been built in 1855 by the then mayor of Chicago. 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the Research Center at the Chicago History Museum? --Anonymous, 22:27 UTC, August 30, 2007.

Great depression in Europe

Please explain the cause and effects of the great depression of 1929 and after in europe. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.6.69 (talk) 20:40, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Please see our article Great Depression. It includes links to more detailed articles , such as Causes of the Great Depression, and articles on the Great Depression in individual European countries. Let us know if you have more specific questions after reading those articles. Marco polo 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Adolf Hitler as it can be argued that the depression gave the Nazi party cause to be popular. Extremeism doesn't function in a society that is working well... SGGH ^speak! 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The economic state of pre-Nazi Germany was due as much to the Treaty of Versailles as it was to the Great Depression, although I'm sure there was room enough for both. Plasticup ^T/C 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The page on the Great Depression seems a little bit eclectic, Marco, with links to some countries but not others; a large article on the Netherlands, of all places; a tiny page on France, and a passing mention of Germany, arguably the most important case of all! Anyway, enough frivolity!

The effects of the Depression were profound throughout Europe, though the greatest impact was on Germany, Austria and Poland, where one in five of the population were unemployed as a result, and where output fell by some forty per cent. Inevitably this had effect on domestic politics virtually everywhere, especially in countries like Germany and Austria, where democracy had shallow foundations. Internationally it led to a rush towards protectionism, as each nation attempted to defend its own economic interests. By November 1932 every European country had increased tariffs, or introduced import quotas, to prevent further damage to their domestic economies. Competing trade blocks had a geo-political effect also, with the rise of more aggressive and predatory forms of nationalism and imperialism. This was made all the worse because international co-operation between the leading democracies was also weakened by protectionism and competition. And there was no powerful international body like the IMF to counter the effects of economic nationalism.

The sources of the problem can be traced back to the Firtst World War and the rise of international indebtedness. At the conclusion of the war the United States had become the world's banker. It is not quite true to say that the economic collapse in Germany was due to Versailles, as Palasticup alleges, at least not in the short term. Under the Dawes Plan the German economy had boomed in the mid-1920s, paying reparations and increasing domestic production. But the whole thing came to a sudden halt in 1929-30, when Dawes Plan loans dried up. This was not just a problem for Germany; for Europe at large had received almost 8 billion dolars in American credit between 1924 and 1930, on top of pre-existing war time loans. The problem of credit financing was compunded by slavish adherance by governments to the gold standard, the great economic shibboleth of the day.

Falling prices and demand induced by the crisis created an additional problem in the central European banking system, where the financial system had a particularly close relationship with business. In 1931 the important Credit-Anstalt Bank in Vienna collapsed, causing a financial panic across Europe and the rest of the world. In Britan the bank of England was forced to abandon the gold standard in September of that same year. Though this was a cause of much anxiety at the time, by reducing the value of sterling it helped fuel a recovery in exports, making Britain the first country in Europe to emerge from the deepest valleys of the Depression, and thus limiting the appeal of political extremism. Elsewhere, particularly in Nazi Germany, recovery was secured by the introduction of a modified form of the command economy, with the country eventually put on a war footing. Countries like France, Belgium and the Netherlands held to the gold standard right into the mid-1930s, introducing still more political problems at the worst possible time. Moreover, Britain and France, by retreting into empire, raised fresh demands from powerful and hungry outsiders. World War Two was coming. Clio the Muse 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Glencoe Massacre

How was it possible for such a thing to happen in late seventeenth century Britain? Was it the fault of the English? Lord of the Glens 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Massacre of Glencoe? --Sean 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired now, but I cannot resist giving an answer to this before trotting off to bed.

Your Lordship, the English were the very last people to blame for the Massacre at Glencoe. It was, from beginning to end, an entirely Scottish affair, that was approved by a Dutch king for reasons of strategic and political expediency. The scheme itself was conceived by James Dalrymple, Master of Stair, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who acted in conjunction with Thomas Livingstone, the Scottish commander-in-chief. The task was then delegated to the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot, a formation on the Scottish military establishment. This regiment's Campbell associations helped give the whole affair quite spurious overtones of clan rivalry, an act of deliberate obfuscation.

Why, then, did Dalyrmple conceive of this act? Because he wanted a quick end to the Highland war against William, and because he was looking forward to eventual political union between Scotland and England. The one obstacle on the path of both schemes was the Gaelic peoples of Scotland's 'wild west'; and that expression is not chosen by accident. If one wishes an analogy with what happened in Scotland in 1692 one could do no better than look to the United States and the policy towards the Indian tribes of the West in the nineteenth century. I imagine Dalrymple would have shared Philip Sheridan's sentiment with a slight adaptation, in that for him the 'only good Highlander he ever saw was dead.'

There was a huge and ancient cultural gap in Scotland between the English-speaking Lowlands and the Gaelic-speaking Highlands, with hostility and misunderstanding spread along the way. For many Lowlanders the Highland 'savage' was an embarrassment, an obstacle to progress and civilization. James V had pressed for the wholesale extirpation of the people of Clan Chattan, who had given him particular offence; and James VI had advanced a scheme for Lowland settlement in the Hebrides, based on the extermination of the local people, MacLeods and MacDonalds. These hostilities were compounded by the rise of Jacobitism, which divided the Lowlands of the south still further from the Highlands. In 1692 hatred, racism and the politics of cultural contempt finally acquired a practical and murderous form. Clio the Muse 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but could Dalyrmple ride [14] like Sheridan? Edison 07:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Interested in a style of work

Are there any works that are written in a way to make the reader feel sympathy for the antagonist? I'm interested in reading how an author approaches this style of writing. HYENASTE 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice springs to mind. --Nicknack009 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal Rising gives some sympathy to Hannibals character in the end, which I think ruins the interest of the character personaly. Evoking emotion and sympathy for an antagonist by showing an event where he or she suffered is a common tool for creating the feelings you mention, i.e. the fate of Hannibals sister. There are a number of historial books that are pro characters in history that most people are generally anti, and they might make interesting reading for you as the historian works to convince you of his or her point of view. To be honest, if you are skilled enough, you can create sympathy for any antagonist with the right situation, and vice versa. Just reveal that they parents died when he was young, or something! SGGH ^speak! 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is how L. Ron Hubbard's 10-volume Mission Earth series is written. The books are written as the confession of the antagonist. In a minor twist, he repeatedly states that he deserves no sympathy. -- Kainaw^(what?) 00:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lennie Small could have been an antagonist if Steinbeck hadn't made him so incredibly pathetic. Plasticup ^T/C 00:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The most famous instance of an accidentally admirable villain is Paradise Lost. Lord Byron noted that many readers found Satan to be the more compelling character, even though all were against him (and William Blake had made the same observation earlier, suggesting that Milton was "accidentally of the devil's party"). Byron worked up an essay on the subject, and the result was the Byronic hero. However, a more indelibly admirable "villain" is probably Hector in Iliad. Achilles, as John Berryman said, is a bore. Hector is a real man. N.b. that both of these require a change in the consciousness of the reader from the author's own worldview, and neither author was "of the devil's party." It is impossible to, as you ask, write in a way that is designed to make the villain the one you admire, because the very definition of villain is that he must be the one who engages the reader's antipathy. If you don't dislike or cheer against the villain, then that's not the villain. Geogre 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nabokov's Lolita is told from the antagonist's point of view. I agree with Geogre that it's fuzzy to speak of "villains" or "antagonists" when they're presented as three-dimensional human beings. --Sean 00:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think of H.H. as being the protagonist, albeit one with dark designs, as is the multi-talented Mr. Ripley. To me, an antagonist is someone who purposely thwarts, or strives to thwart, the protagonist in the pursuit of their goals. That is fully compatible with not being a cardboard cut-out, and does not require villainy.  --Lambiam 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the word for it (in at least one form) is the Byronic hero. Basically, a character who has major flaws, but is still portrayed as somewhat admirable. Wrad 01:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "antagonist" implies the person who's opposed to the protagonist, so I don't think Humbert Humbert counts - he's the protagonist of the book, no matter how "villainous" we might consider what he does. Hector in the Iliad, and as I mentioned before, Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, seem to fit the bill better, because in both works they are opposed to, and eventually defeated by the protagonist, even though Hector is more admirable than Achilles, and Shylock more sympathetic than Antonio. --Nicknack009 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Booker, in "Seven Basic Plots" describes a tragedy as a story in which the protagonist becomes a monster and has fail. In that case one would feel sympathy for the antagonist. Particular examples might be Macbeth, where MacDuff might be the antagonist, although he comes quite late to the scene, or Frankenstein, where Mary Shelley presents an antagonist who has every reason to hunt down his creator. Much more recently Iain M Banks plays with the reader's sympathies in Use of Weapons. In any case, Booker's book is well worth reading by any aspiring author. SaundersW 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Malingering vs. sinistrose

What, if anything, is the difference between the English-language concept of malingering and the French-language concept of sinistrose? NeonMerlin 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is really a question for the Language desk, where it would get more answers... In brief, though, sinistrose is defined as a genuine medical condition, a psychological syndrome, whereas a malingerer is someone feigning sickness, usually for some selfish purpose. Someone found to be a sufferer from 'sinistrose' might be paid out under an insurance policy, but someone found to be a malingerer wouldn't. Xn4 04:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Visionary Writing

Hi again! I am back for a bit. Tonight I'm looking for classic works of visionary literature: the passage in Moby-Dick in which Pip sees God's foot upon the treadle of the loom, and the "multitudinous, God-omnipresent coral insects, that out of the firmament of waters heaved the colossal orbs" is my starting text, but other works that would fall into this category are the poems of William Blake and the mystical reveries of writers like Emmanuel Swedenborg and Julian of Norwich and Walt Whitman.

In other words, writings that attempt to give concrete form to spiritual realities, as when a certain mystic catches glimpses of the Byss and the Abyss, or when Blake sees spiders crawling round the sun. Great visual imagery. Can anyone recommend a few more?

Thanks much! 66.112.246.159 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Melancholydanish

The whole of Dante's Divine Comedy, for a start, and also parts of CS Lewis's Narnia books and the Perelandra trilogy deal with visual imagery of heaven and hell. SaundersW 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesuits in Beijing

Does anyone know anything about the Jesuit mission in Beijing? Seventeenth century, I think. MindyE 09:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)