Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Momynym (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 4 September 2007 (New section: When Were the Nuremberg Trials Televised?```Momynym). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And Christianity does not have a monopoly on God. -- JackofOz 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think that is very much more of a libertarian "motto" than liberal one. -- Diletante 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I remember a piece in The Economist (excerpt here) commenting on the oddity that "liberalism" is loudly condemned on both sides of the Pond, with two widely divergent meanings. —Tamfang 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Netherlands, many (including myself) are proud to call themselves. The equivalent for 'libertarian' ('libertijns') sounds very old-fashioned. DirkvdM 10:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you exploit someone and that person is thereby harmed (this is not a tautology!) then you have a moral duty to make that person whole. Like every government, the United States as an institution exploits lots of people to their detriment, mostly its citizens, usually in the guise of helping them; restitution is impossible as it has no resources of its own. —Tamfang 00:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 backgrounds) 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)[reply]

I couldn't not post an answer to this question! the school clio went to does indeed sounds amazing- certainly nothing like mine! i went to a boarding school just outside Edinburgh (no, not THAT one and OK, its not "English") which placed little emphasis on anything meaningful (academics, sport etc) and a whole world of emphasis on conforming and, for us boys "being a man". Sadly the closeted queen that i was felt alienated and alone. I hated every moment of that place and hold it directly accountable for both keeping me in the closet for at least 5 years longer than i should have been and not fulfilling anything like my potential whilst i was there. I left after three long years and went to another school (this time as a day -pupil). it was far more academically driven so whilst i got good a-levels, it was still "socially separated"- at the age of 18, i'd met no more than 5 people from ethnic minorities throughout my school career and ,yes, no out gay people. This story does have a happy ending however, after leaving school i took 2 years off to explore the world and come to terms with who i am. i now have friends from across all kinds of spectra and i've done things most people my age can only dream of. Would this have been possible without the independence and drive that boarding school environments foster? i doubt it.195.195.248.252 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Titles?

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kalimdor? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Indeed the Entertainment desk would be more appropriate. —Tamfang 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I was more referring to numbers of pedestrians, but thanks for the info! --86.136.167.116 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
For anyone else confused by the original question - PLVI. --LarryMac | Talk 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No blue eyes? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for the correction about his blue eyes, Clio & Sluzzelin. -- JackofOz 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

PDEA

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
According to this article [2], 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)[reply]
Thanks for the links, everybody. Corvus cornix 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


August 30

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 :). --YbborTalk 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 CFR 136.160—eric 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Indeed; here's a famous 8-page regulation on the permissible length, color, and curvature of a banana: [3]. --Sean 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:


The second point reads:

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).[reply]

First, please see WP:IANAL. Second, my advice would be to e-mail the Office of Economy and Labor of the Canton of Zürich and ask directly. Their website is here. They even have an online form for work permits. Sandstein 14:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A note on terminology: Socialism is a much broader term. The USSR had State Socialism. And it wasn't communism either - it was meant as a precursor to communism. Also, the fall of the USSR just ended the state socialism in the USSR, not (state) socialism in general, as is often claimed - except that it is often called communism, which is extra confusing because it's impossible to end communism because it didn't exist in the first place (except on a small scale such as in the Israeli Kibbutzim). DirkvdM 07:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Unix time, as mentioned. Also, the "before present" used in radiocarbon dating has "present" fixed at 1950. --Sean 13:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"the most recent year in which an equinox occurred at the earth's perihelion" would be long before human history, and difficult to determine accurately. —Tamfang 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda wonder why historians use BC; it would be easier on the brain (imho) to cite Roman events in the Roman count from the legendary founding of the city. Did the French Republicans extend their new calendar to the past? —Tamfang 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

They may well sound hollow once the soldiers get a "real taste" of battle, but nonetheless such reasons do account for a large proportions of enlistments, when the would-be soldiers are still quite naive. As for the original question, freedom is a relative thing. While, as an American, I seem to have lost the freedom from having my phone calls monitored without a warrant, I can still call Bush an idiot without being executed. In many countries, insulting the leader would result in just that. Some think such things are worth fighting for. StuRat 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many countries? Some, maybe (which ones?), but not that many. In many countries it may be punishable to insult a leader (such as the queen in the Netherlands), but not quite that severely. DirkvdM 07:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some more thoughts on the notion that freedom is a relative term. It's easy to mock others who don't have certain freedoms we do have, but no-one is completely free. We don't live in a garden of Eden in which one is free to walk around buck naked or take fruit from trees at will (excepting that one tree). We live in societies in which pretty much everything is owned and therefore not free - ironically in the name of the free market. :) This is an illustration of how freedoms often collide. If I take the liberty to take something for myself then I take away that freedom from someone else. One always has to balance those things, so no-one is ever completely free. If I use jy freedom to smoke I take away other people's freedom to live in a smoke-free environment. But when those others use their freedom to drive their car around in my neighbourhood, they take away that same freedom from me.
Concerning the original question - the real reasons to go to war (unprovoked) are usually economic. But that sounds too much like stealing, so excuses are needed. Freedom is just one of those many excuses. When the others don't have certain freedoms we have then they 'need to be liberated'. And when they have freedoms we don't then they are immoral and need to be subdued. DirkvdM 07:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and according to War (band), "Freedom is to be free from the need to be free". Whatever that means. Just couldn't resist the quote given the connection between war and freedom. :) DirkvdM 07:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[4]  --Lambiam 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah, but our GCSE course said that Germany was recovering economically until the Wallstreet Crash. This may be the sort of thing they're looking for :) Skittle 12:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 dollars 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)[reply]
I think it's also good to add that the Depression mostly harmed capitalist countries, but it had little impact on the Soviet Union. — Kpalion(talk) 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed; for the Bolsheviks not only repudiated the Russian war debt, but they created an economy that stood outwith the international network, so important in the crisis of 1929. Clio the Muse 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, Clio, not that I'm being nationalistic (God forbid), but what's wrong with a large article on the Netherlands ("of all places")? :)
A note on that: the fall of the German economy also had its effect on South Limburg, in the Netherlands, where the German mark was a more common denomination than the official Dutch guilder - something that nearly ruined my grandfather in the early 1920's. But also in other respects are economies entwined, so a crashing economy will take others with it (never realised that therefore the USSR wasn't affected - maybe a decisive factor in the defeat of Germany later on). If I'm not mistaken, the Great Depression started in the US, a country that had such a strong economic link with Europe that the crash spread there. I now wonder if that was the sole cause for the European depression. DirkvdM 08:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at all wrong with love of one's country, Dirk, though patriotism is probably a better word than nationalism. I meant no offense, and would have made essentially the same point if there had been a similar sized page on, say, Belgium or Denmark. The article on the Great Depression in the Netherlands is actually quite good; but contrast it with that for the Great Depression in France, a country of far greater importance in political and economic terms. There is no article at all on Germany, where the impact of the Depression was of even greater significance for the history of Europe as a whole, or even a small country like Austria, where the collapse of the Credit-Anstalt in 1931 deepened the political and economic crisis across central and eastern Europe. I come back to the point I made to Marco at the outset: the whole page on the Great Depression, with the associated links, is eclectic and unbalanced. It was in that context my remark about the Netherlands should be understood.
On your second point I would ask you to read again what I wrote about the importance of the United States in the international credit system. I think it was John Maynard Keynes who wrote that when America sneezes the rest of the world catches cold. Well, in 1929 America did a lot more than sneeze. There were, however, European factors that contributed to the down turn, not least of which was the growing weakness in the agricultural sector from 1928 onwards. Clio the Muse 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note the smiley - I wasn't being quite serious. But now that you delved deeper, Wikipedia will always be a project under development, with new info going into ever deeper levels (with sub-articles splitting off as the higher articles get too big). And the amount of info on various subjects will always be out of balance, for example with more info on Internet technology than most other subjects, because of the sort of people who like to work on Wikipedia. In casu, there are more Dutch editors on the English Wikipedia than German ones. But there are twice as many articles on the German Wikipedia than on the Dutch one. Note that about half the German article on the Great Depression is about Germany. That half is about the same size as the Dutch article, which has only one line on the Dutch situation. Germans are more active at the German Wikipedia. But it seems the Dutch are more active in general (per capita), since there are about 6 times as many Germans. DirkvdM 07:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 John 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)[reply]

Ah, but could Dalyrmple ride [5] like Sheridan? Edison 07:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dalrymple of Stair was an interesting man. James Hogg might easily have given him a part in The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner as an antinomian monster. But although Stair did indeed order the massacre, Dutch Billy and the poor old Campbells are popularly remembered as the villains of the piece. Stair, insofar as he is remembered at all, is thought well of. His work on Scots Law was of great importance, which is why the Stair Society (no article?) bears his name. As for the wild Gaels and ancient divisions, Dalrymple himself came from an area where Gaelic had been spoken until late, within 150 years of the massacre if the Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy (no article at Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedie alas!) is to be relied upon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edison, I do not suppose that anyone could ride quite as well as bandy-legged Phil! Clio the Muse 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Angus, you seem to be climbing the wrong Stair! James Dalrymple, 1st Viscount Stair, was, as you rightly indicate, a Scottish jurist, author, amongst other things, of the Institutions of the Law of Scotland. It was not he but his son, John Dalrymple, Master of Stair, later 1st Earl of Stair, who was responsible for the infamous Massacre. I think I may be in part to blame for this confusion of identities, because I wrote James rather than John in the above, an error which I have now corrected. Clio the Muse 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Stair indeed! Confusedly, Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree, and should have distinguished between "antagonist" and "villain". "Villain" is kind of a hokey word for literature, but I'm OK with that. --Sean 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Now that you guys mention Lolita, I actually can think of a book where the villain is made the protagonist first. The Collector, by John Fowles, is obviously influenced by both Nabakov and actual news accounts. It achieves its effect by splitting the narrative in two, where the same events are told from two different points of view -- those of the abductor and those of the victim. (It is not a novel for the faint of heart, but it's not as tough a book as Lolita.) Geogre 10:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A similar example, but an easier read (on many levels) is Stone Cold by Robert Swindells. (Incidentally, I keep finding that many of the books I thought about most as a child were written by Robert Swindells, although I was completely unaware of him as an author.) Skittle 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a big fan of anti-heroes! Very cool stuff. I think it adds a degree of creative style to a work when you have a good guy going at things the wrong way as opposed to a bad guy that's being a bastard just for the sake of it. Beekone 14:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of putting your link into a more convenient format. —Tamfang 23:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One villain-as-protagonist book along those same lines that I loved as a kid is Patrick Süskind's Perfume. --Sean 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll throw in J. P. Donleavy's The Ginger Man as a recent favorite. 38.112.225.84 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More recently we have the series of Dexter novels in which the protagonist is a really, really bad guy even though he uses his evil for good. --SGT Tex 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "hero" of Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books starts off his adventures by committing rape, then whines through the whole series. I was never able to get through two of the books, despite their apparent popularity. Corvus cornix 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you said "works", not just books, let me include a movie, Psycho, in which Hitchcock led us to sympathize with the insane murderer, such as when Norman Bates tried to conceal his victim's body in the trunk of her car and then sink it into a lake, but was having difficulty (although the first-time viewer wouldn't have known he was the murderer at that point). The victim also had a dark side, having embezzled $40,000 from her job. I only mentioned the film, since Norman's portrayal wasn't nearly as sympathetic in the book. StuRat 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've finally gotten as close as I think is possible to a hero being villainous and the villain being heroic. The Third Man is an inverted Christ story. (The "third person" of the trinity is reflected in the "third man" at Harry Lime's funeral.) In it, we have a Satanic man who has risen from the dead, and our hero must betray him to the authorities. In other words, because it's an inversion of the Christ story, the Judas figure (Rollo or Holly Martins) is the hero, despite being a "rat" who doesn't get the girl, and the anti-Christ figure, Harry Lime, is killed in a descent (instead of Ascension) in the sewers of Vienna. That's about as close as I can get, though, unless we start in on Flannery O'Connor's stories, and she basically doesn't have heroes at all. Geogre 02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flamebait: Spike (Buffyverse), particularly in season 4. —Tamfang 23:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


August 31

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
Have a browse through Category:Mysticism. Since you mention a Middle English author, I'd like to add Piers Plowman and Pearl. In French, the Roman de la Rose is certainly a classic. (For a taste of many of the classics of Christian mysticism beyond literary fiction—everything from Hildegard of Bingen to Bernard of Clairvaux to The Cloud of Unknowing—the most readily available source for browsing is Bernard McGinn's The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism, ISBN 0812974212.) I don't know why, but what leaps into my mind reading your Melville quote is the Merkabah. Wareh 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To those, I would add only Dark Night of the Soul and The Seven Storey Mountain by St. John of the Cross. Not only was Juan de la Cruz a mystic, but he attempted to translate a vision into words. This said, other than Juliana of Norwich, I have some trouble here. Most mystics don't describe the visions or even really try to offer paradox and metaphor for their visions, as it's impossible to do, and so they discuss the method (Stairway of Perfection and Cloud of Unknowing) or the meaning of the vision. For mystical description (where the description is mystical, or a description of the mystical state), I can only think of St. John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, and the end of Dante's Paradiso. T. S. Eliot attempts it in both Ash Wednesday and overall in Four Quartets, but he goes at it kind of sideways (following Dante). Geogre 13:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuits in Beijing

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

All I know is that there were Russian Orthodox missions in early Qing China (see Albazinians and Spathari). As for the Jesuits, I guess our articles Jesuit China missions and Roman Catholicism in China may be helpful. Unfortunately, Paris Foreign Missions Society and Nantang are stubby. Our articles about individual missionaries are collected in Category:Jesuit China missions. There is more information in French Wikipedia, where the relevant article is featured. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mission was established in 1601 by the efforts of Matteo Ricci. His whole approach was quite subtle, interesting the Emperor and the Chinese authorities in aspects of western technology and learning as a point of opening. He also made attempts to reconcile Christianity with the Classic Confucian texts, though he was hostile, along with the other members of his order, to Taoism and Buddhism. Ricci died in 1610 but the Jesuit mission went on to become an important part of the Imperial civil service, right into the eighteenth century. In 1644 a German Jesuit, Adam Schnall von Bell, was appointed Director of the Board of Astronomy by the new Qing dynasty. Jesuits were also given posts as mechanics, musicians, painters, instrument makers, and in other areas which required a degree of technical expertise.

The Jesuits pragmatic accommodation with Confucism was later to lead to conflict with the Dominican friars, who came to Beijing from the Philippines in the middle of the century. Their leader, Dominigo Fernandez Navarrete, in responding to the question 'Was Confucious saved?' said that as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all damned "how much the more Confucius, who was not worthy to kiss their feet". In responding, Antonio de Gouveia, a Portuguese Jesuit, said that Confucius was certainly saved, "which is more than can be said for King Philip IV of Spain!" Clio the Muse 02:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not help copying this lighthearted reply to the article Roman Catholicism in China. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are embarrassing yourself

When was this dreadful phrase first used? What is it intended to mean? - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds like an impossible question to answer, like asking who first said "nice day, isn't it?" SGGH speak! 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you ask what it means, as your command of English seems excellent and the phrase is both widely used and fairly self-explanatory. In any case, the Languages Desk may give you expert information on its origins. --Dweller 12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the meaning is a little odd. I mean, if it means literally "you are causing embarassment to yourself," then it is an odd statement, since if that were true presumably the person in question would know it. What it probably really means is something like, "you are behaving in a way which ought to be causing embarassment to yourself, from my point of view", which is a little bit more subjective in its implications. --24.147.86.187 15:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, a bit more objectively, "you will be embarrassed when you stop to think of how your behavior looks to others." —Tamfang 23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish word "embarassado" is my favorite false cognate. 38.112.225.84 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean embarazada.  :) Corvus cornix 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I surely did. Very polite of you not to just come out and tell me I was embarrassing myself. :) 38.112.225.84 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could it be virtue knocking on vices door ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.9.216 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward the first

Hi, people. I bet some of you remember me from last term when i asked some history questions and got GREAT help from Clio Muse, BRILLIANT help. Here I am back at school (aaaaarghh!!!) with a new history assignment. Here it is-Was Edward I the English Justinian or an imperial bully? Discuss with examples. Please do not hit me with 'we dont do homework'-i know, i know, and just need some directions along the road. Your stuff on Edward is not an big help, sorry, because there's too much bully and not enough Justinian (a law maker). I see you are still around Clio so i look forward from hearing from you, and anyone else, please dont hassle me like some person did last year. From Clio's friend ( I just LOVE it that she is a girl!!!) who is now, cheeky as ever, Kathy in redKathy Burns 11:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what level you're at, but you need to delve a little deeper into Justinian's character; "bully" gives you a clue, in that your teacher has opposed the two terms, so they're going to be two ends of a spectrum in some way. Other advice with Edward; 1) don't watch Braveheart (historically, it's the worst kind of toshvery inaccurate) 2) try not to fall into the question's trap by oversimplifying his complex character. He came mighty close to securing a huge empire for his son and he was a pretty shrewd man, capable of different types of response to different problems. Compare his actions vis a vis Scotland, Wales, France, the Barons (including early in his reign vs late) and the Jews. --Dweller 12:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at each character's use of force to solve a problem/benefit themselves would be one good indication of bullying behaviour.87.102.88.202 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy, how nice to see you back. So, you are now looking at the reign of Edward I, quite a change from your last area of study!

As you clearly have discovered, the Wikipedia page on Edward I does not really do proper justice to a seminal reign (Why, I would have to ask, is there such a large section on contact with the Mongols, a minor episode, out of all proportion?! And the picture of Patrick McGoohan as the absurd 'Longshanks' from Braveheart is grossly out of place!) The real point to hold in mind here is that Edward was a complex man. Do not, I urge you, fall into the trap opened by the question you face; for Edward was both law-maker and law-breaker; Justinian and Joshua! He was certainly a 'bully' when it came to dealing with the Welsh and the Scots, jealous in every way of his imperial and feudal rights. But he could also be quite overbearing when it came to his own subjects. At the beginning of his reign, determined to restore some of the rights of the crown eroded during the reign of Henry III, his politically inept father, he instituted a series of legal inquiries, known as Quo Warranto. By this he challenged holders of liberties, particularly those with jurisdictions, like that enjoyed by the Palatinate of Durham, to prove that they held these by legal title. These investigations were a source of much friction, and Edward was compelled to modify his legal offensive in 1290 under political pressure from his barons. But it also provides an insight into the lawyer-like and nit-picking mentality with which Edward doggedly pursued the prerogatives of the crown, a clue to his later attitude towards his feudal superiority over Scotland.

So, yes, something of a single-minded bully, without a great deal of interest in constitutional niceties. Yet consider this: in 1275, not long after the beginning of his reign, he wrote to the Pope, explaining that he could do nothing concerning the power of the crown without "consulting the magnates and the prelates." It was during his reign that Parliament began to be a regular feature of the English political landscape. In the summons for that of 1295 it was announced that "What touches all should be approved by all.", meaning that taxation could only be granted by consent, one of the great founding principles of English constitutional law. It was during this time that the census known as the Hundred Rolls was taken, the first comprehensive survey of English property rights since the earlier Domesday Book. As a result, the law was further refined in the Stute of Westminster, and other law codes issue subsequent to this document. So, here is your English Justinian!

In ever sense, therfore, Edward was the perfect feudal lawyer; therin lies his strength, and therin lies his weakness. For his notions of what was right were often so narrowly defined and pursued with a single-minded purpose, regardless of the political damage caused, and with hidden costs to the crown. Unlike his father, he was a good soldier; but his conquest of Wales, and the attendant castle building, was ruinously expensive. It would have been wise to consolidate and pause for reflection, but the vacancy of the Scottish crown following the death in 1290 of Margaret opened what was to be known as the Great Cause. It was, perhaps, the defining moment of Edward's reign, confirming that jealousy of privilege and title that marked the outset of his reign in England. He came to Scotland as a lawyer, and as a bully; and he fought his wars in Scotland as a lawyer, and as a bully. You see-and this is a point that is often overlooked-Edward never, at any point claimed the crown of Scotland for himself: he simply fought to maintain his position as feudal overlord, granted to him by the Scots in 1292. Even in 1305, when the conquest seemed to be complete, Edward produced Ordinances for the government of Scotland, of which he is Lord, not King.

So, Kathy; lots to go on. Think about it carefully; tailor your answer towards the question, writing in your own words, and with all subtelty. Just remember that Edward came, like most important people in history, in shades of grey; never in black and white. Good luck! Clio the Muse 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The McGoohan image hs been removed as a violation of fair use. Corvus cornix 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, Corvus cornix; my sincere thanks! Like Dweller, I really hate the distortions and corruptions of Braveheart; but that is quite beside the point. Patrick McGoohan has nothing whatsoever to do with the Edward of history. Clio the Muse 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Edward's ambitions (particularly those pertaining to continental Europe) can better be understood in the context of the extent of the lands formerly held by Edward's antecedents. --Dweller 12:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Magaret Maid of Norway episode is quite revealing of Edward's character, though it can be interpreted variously. --Dweller 12:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT!!! THANKS +++++to Dweller and Clio Muse (i wish you were my teacher Clio). See you both. Sincerely, Kathy Burns 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English tourists in Italy 1856

I am preparing a 19th century travel diary by a Yankee for publication. He is in Florence during November, 1856 and writes: "I was glad to conduct my sight-seeing in Florence somewhat more leisurely than during my rapid tour of the last few weeks. I found the city full of strangers, particularly of English tourists, whom recent political troubles have shut-out from the South of Italy."

Using the following website http://researchitaly.us/historyofsouthernitaly/ad1801to1860.html I composed the following footnote: In May of 1856, Ferdinand II, the ruler of the Two Sicilies, was censored by the British and French governments for his tyrannical methods. Later in October, England and France withdrew their ambassadors from Naples.

I surmise that the English and French tourists were subject to some sort of harassment. Was this solely at the hands of government officials or did it also include the common folk? 69.201.141.45 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]

I don't know the history here, but I think you want 'censured', not 'censored'. Algebraist 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, 69.201; it just would not make good sense to go there in such politically unsettled times, with the prospect of no diplomatic protection if things went wrong. I certainly cannot see ordinary people in the south being in any way hostile to English or French tourists. Very few of the southern Italians had much in the way of sympathy for Ferdinand II, also known disparagingly as 'King Bomba', whose rule was famously described by William Ewart Gladstone as "The negation of God erected into a system of government." Clio the Muse 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The withdrawal of an ambassador always leaves travelling nationals without recourse to a protective diplomat. --Wetman 06:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. I am surprised that I didn't catch the censor/censure mistake. Homonyms are well-known, but the near-homonyms (quasihomonyms?) are trouble to me because as I age, I tend to type phonetically. I think this is also a result of no longer writing in long-hand. (Remember Truman Capote's comment about another best-selling author, "She doesn't write books, she types books.") I will include in the footnote the fact that it is dangerous for nationals to travel in countries in which they have no diplomatic recourses. I guess this applies to U.S. citizens in Cuba. 69.201.141.45 12:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]

Leaving money to pets

Leona Helmsley was recently in the news for leaving millions to her pet dog after she died. Do courts actually recognize such actions, and how do they administer them? What happens when the dog dies? (I only care about U.S. law, really, but if someone has a take on it from another country, by all means, pony up.)

Additionally, Helmsley left what looks like long-term stipulations on some of the money (the grandsons lose half of their take if they don't visit her late husband's tomb each year) — exactly how specific can such stipulations be? Can you really require someone to do something each year or else half of some set of assets will be taken away? Do courts really recognize such a thing as valid? --24.147.86.187 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read something on this stuff, long ago, but here goes:
  1. you can't leave money to a pet (or a car or house) as they have no rights to property. You can leave money to a person to be used for the care of said pet (or car or house), with the stipulation that if the person does not use the money for such, it goes to the red cross or your cousin or some such instead. I assume you can daisy chain it, leave the money to your brother to care for your dog and if he doesn't, then to your sister to care for your dog, and if she doesn't etc. etc. Lot's of times the money assigned for the care of the pet ends up buying a nice big house for the pet to live in, and incidentally the person who's supposed to care for the pet; that kind of thing.
  2. when the pet dies, if there is money left and the will doesn't specify what happens to it, then it's just part of the general estate and goes to the legal heir like any other unspecified property.
  3. generally you can stipulate most anything in a will, like taking care of your pet, but such stipulations are only as good as whoever is watching. Thus, it is advisable to have somebody at the end of the "and if he doesn't then the money goes to..." chain who wants the money and so will watch the beneficiary to try and catch them not following the stipulations, like a jealous brother, or the Red Cross, to keep them honest
  4. however, some stipulations do get struck down for various reasons.
  5. you do have to be careful, to some degree; if you leave the money to your son on condition he get a job or it goes to some charity, and the charity goes broke before the will is probated, then the son inherits the money even if he doesn't get a job, since neither of the conditions specified in the will are doable, and therefore the money would just go to your heir. Gzuckier 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This calls to mind of the deceased dog continued to be "walked" due to the stipulation in a will providing for the care of said dog.69.201.141.45 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

double barrelled inherited names

An idle musing I've had has led to a convoluted question.

In this modern age we live in, I've noticed a number of married people with different surnames who double barrel their surnames for their children (e.g. the son of John Smith and Jane Jones would be Adam Smith-Jones). Now if this 2nd generation man married and had a child with another double barreled woman, would their child be quadruple barrelled (Adam Smith-Jones and Julia Stewart-White are pleased to announce the birth of Imelda Smith-Jones-Stewart-White)? And so on? I understand that different people would have different ways of dealing this but the crux of my question is: what's the most barrels anyone has come across and how far would you be willing to take it? - 212.240.35.42 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel count? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern -schplenden -schlitter -crasscrenbon -fried -digger -dangle -dungle -burstein -von -knacker -thrasher -apple -banger -horowitz -ticolensic -grander -knotty -spelltinkle -grandlich -grumblemeyer -spelterwasser -kürstlich -himbleeisen -bahnwagen -gutenabend -bitte -eine -nürnburger -bratwustle -gerspurten -mit -zweimache -luber -hundsfut -gumberaber -shönendanker -kalbsfleisch -mittler -raucher von Hautkopft of Ulm? Adam Bishop 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples from the British upper classes; they are big fans of adding names:

Triples:

Quadruple:

Quintuple:

Honorable mentions also for Celtic F.C. footballers:

--Rockpocket 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness Book of Records (1997 ed.) notes the sextuple-barrelled surname belonging to a certain Major Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatafilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana-Plantagenet-Tollemache-Tollemache (1884-1917). He was known at school as "Tolly". -- JackofOz 05:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errr. I only count 5 barrels there (and its taking the piss slightly to have the same surname barreled three times and a variation for a fourth!) Rockpocket 07:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I count six, Rockpocket. I think this is in the form "A de B", where A is "T-T", and B is "O-P-T-T". Of course, this means that Tollemache is used 4 times, but that doesn't alter the fact that the surname comprises 6 distinct elements, separated by hyphens. (Smith-Smith, for example, is clearly a double-barrelled name.) I'd agree with Guinness's assessment that this monstrosity is a sextuple-barrelled name. -- JackofOz 06:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this name appeared in a recent Ref Desk answer - Fictional character w/ same first and last name – in a quote from Bill Bryson's book The Mother Tongue. If User:TotoBaggins got the Bryson quote right, Bryson seems to disagree with Guinness on the spelling of the Major's 5th given name (Guinness has "Fraudatafilius", Bryson has "Fraduati"). -- JackofOz 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, the lack of hyphenation and the list of Ralph Tollemache's children's names suggest to me that all but the final Tollemache-Tollemache were given names, not part of the surname. —Tamfang (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The British tradition was that an heiress's maiden name was perpetuated when she married and her husband was considered to represent the family that had become extinct in the male line. Otherwise a double-barrelled name was a pretentious affectation. Some old fogeys believe this still holds true. Nevertheless, modern usage is a free-for-all: you can call yourself whatever you want. About half the babies born this year in the U.S. will have their mother's last name, things being what they are. --Wetman 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a fictional example, memorized by many generations of German speaking children (Dschingis Khan chanted it, and so did Boy scout groups where I grew up): Hadschi Halef Omar Ben Hadschi Abul Abbas Ibn Hadschi Dawud al Gossarah, appearing in a number of books out of Karl May's oriental cycle. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your interesting answers!212.240.35.42 13:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pls help me

thanks for your effort i'm from Egypt there is a hospital in Benib called national hopital send to me to work and required fees before i travel through western union i ask it is true or nor is this a big lie or this true what can i do ? what is the guarantess? pls help me waiting for your reply thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.121.105 (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We cannot give you meaningful advice on the particular, but it is a common scam and confidence game for people to claim to be speaking for an employer and asking for money up front. A real employer should not do that. First, contact the hospital directly and ask if this is their policy. Second, do not send the money, but request that it be deducted from your pay. That might get to the truth. Utgard Loki 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several websites list CENTRAL NATIONAL HOSPITAL AND UNIVERSITY - Porto Novo Cotonou Rep Du Benin as a common job scam.[6][7][8] The scammers even have set up a fake web site that looks very professional. The "contact us" will connect you with the scammers. Beware.  --Lambiam 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More on this: the website of the CNHU: http://cnhu-benin.net/, is copied with some modifications from the Madonna hospital in Nigeria: http://www.madonnahospital.com/. A dead give-away that this is a scam is that in copying over this page they forgot one time to change the name "Madonna" on their copy.  --Lambiam 21:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In brief it is a lie. Do not send any money. Skittle 21:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodivian

Hi, I'm looking for the Prodivian credit card company but there was a red link. Can someone create the article, or is it under a different name? Thanks. --129.130.38.131 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Providian. Rockpocket 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological god with the ability to impregnate women with his stare

Yesterday at quiz bowl, someone mentioned a (hilarious) tossup we had last year on a mythological god (of fertility, I think) with the ability to impregnate women with his stare. I cannot for the life of me remember his name. I do remember at the time, I looked him up, and he had a Wikipedia article. Someone please tell me what his name is. Raul654 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the packet from the Stanford Archives? You could search that. (Although I just tried and nothing useful came up...) Adam Bishop 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was. Raul654 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, you might care to work your way through the list of Fertility Gods. I personally have never heard of this 'cock-eyed' deity! Clio the Muse 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it might be an Aztec god? In their mythology, Coatlicue, Mother of the Gods, was impregnated by a ball of down falling her way while she was sweeping a temple. Xn4 03:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my trip through the stanford archive per Adam's suggestion, that came up about 50 times. Raul654 03:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found two unreliable and completely unreferenced mentionings that the peacock, with its many staring eyes, had this ability in "Chinese mythology". I found nothing else on this, just thought I'd throw it in, might well be a red herring though. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember something about Ra (or Amun - a solar deity, at any rate) using this technique to impregnate the pharaoh's mother. I can look through some books if Wikipedia's articles don't mention this, if you'd like... Random Nonsense 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be totally wrong on some or all of this, but I seem to remember that it was some native american mythology (Hopi, maybe) and he, the god, was a dwarf or something. Also, I think his article was illustrated (again, making him look like a dwarf). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it possibly Murugan who was born this way?
Here is a site containing a story of the birth of Kumara (the Sanskrit name of this otherwise Tamil deity). Śiva, after becoming a beautiful six-faced form, looked at Parvati lovingly ... and "a dazzling lustre similar to numerous suns arose from the eye in his [Śiva's] forehead" and the lustre spread throughout the world; thus was born Kumara, of Śiva and Parvati (as recounted in the Skanda Purana. Antandrus (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism and Communism

If I were to say "Marxist economics are the basis for Communism as Market economics are the basis for Capitalism", would this be accurate? If not what terms would you substitute for in place of Marxist and/or Market? thanks, --Czmtzc 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To start, I wouldn't say that "market economics" is the basis for capitalism. In modern capitalist society, we have a market economy. Economics is the science that studies how economies work. Although capitalist societies have a market economy, the economic system of Western societies preceding the advent of capitalism was also largely market-based. Marxist economics does not specifically study the economic system of communist societies. On the contrary, the focus seems to be on the study of capitalism! Marxist economics is a school within economics, and other economists than Marxist study communism as well.
It is not clear that any of the states self-identifying as communist were actually a communist society; in the philosophy of Marx, the advent of communism would be marked by the "withering away" of the state. We are still waiting for that to happen.  --Lambiam 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While true communism (which I will define as everyone sharing everything equally) could only exist, IMHO, in a small group, many countries have claimed to be communist that are really just the same old dictatorships with a new propaganda tool. I wouldn't take North Korea's claim to be communist (share the wealth equally) any more seriously than I take their claim to be democratic. StuRat 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Capitalism" requires Smith (and then Marx) defining a system that was based upon a description of practice rather than outlining a theory of what should be. In other words, Smith begins and goes forward by looking at how capital moves at the present time (1770), and Marx sees this system described and theorized by Smith as having peculiarities that Smith does not address. Because Smith was descriptive before proscriptive, he doesn't design his system and doesn't see the problems of surplus credit and the disequilibrium of wage/cost that Marx would make hay of. Therefore, the basis of capitalism is simply the slow, accidental, and haphazard evolution of a trading system as it is then modified by certain accumulations of wealth and state power. In fact, I would almost say that capitalism is derived largely from Marx himself, as capitalists somewhat embraced his description and went from there. Well, maybe not. Geogre 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very difficult question, since it is about definitions. I think the following distinctions are useful to keep in mind:

scientific theory concerning the economy Marxist economics classical economics
influential exponent of this theory Karl Marx Adam Smith
political ideology of this exponent socialism liberalism
radical version of this ideology communism libertarianism
economic system of this ideology socialism capitalism
control of the means of production in this economic system the community or for it the state private individuals
main device for distribution of property state planning free market


I hope this helps in explaining what

  1. communism is: namely a radical brand of socialism, a political ideology
  2. what marxist economics is: namely an economic theory
  3. what capitalism is: namely an economic system
  4. what free market economy is: namely a way to distribute goods

To answer you question, no this analogy is not correct since these are four different things and not two pairs of similar things. C mon 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one or two tiny points to add to C mon's excellent submission here. First, Czmtzc, as others have indicated, Karl Marx has far, far more to say about capitalism than he does about communism. You will, however, find some sketchy references in The German Ideology and the Critique of the Gotha Programme, where he first used the phrase From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Second, and for more general reference, there has never, so far as I am aware, been a state that has identified itself as 'Communist', a clear contradiction in terms. There are, and have been, countries ruled by Communist Parties, but that is a different thing altogether. In these particular cases the economic system is defined as 'Socialism', as in Socialism in one country. I will also say that capitalism, and Karl Marx, requires David Ricardo as much as it does Adam Smith. Clio the Muse 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good chart by C mon. Geogre 02:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a true communist society there is not only no state, but also no money. And therefore no economy. DirkvdM 08:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can have economy without money. — Kpalion(talk) 08:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, such as a trade economy. But that's not what people usually mean by economy. You can turn it around, though. In a true communist society there is no economy and therefore no money. DirkvdM 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; that is wrong. Economies can-and do-exist with a complete absence of money, or when the the fiscal and banking system has collapsed. At the most basic level an economy is merely the production, transport and exchange of goods. Even under the purest forms of communism these activities would have to continue. Otherwise communism means exactly the same thing as paradise: an ethereal world beyond both life and history; beyond hunger and want. Clio the Muse 22:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the first bit: I already acknowledged that an economy can exist without money. About the last bit: Isn't that sort of the communist ideal? Or am I overstating the dreaminess of communists? Anyway, the exchange of goods will certainly not be an aspect of a communist society, because everyone just takes what they need (and nothing more) - no exchange needed. There is total freedom of the use of products, without competition over their use. Production and transportation will still be needed (although transportation will greatly decrease when there are no more low wage countries). In a capitalist society those are parts of the economy, but not in a communist society. No system for the division of labour or goods is needed. People decide for themselves what they do and take. They are all so educated and good natured that that would work - in the ideal communist society. So there is no economy. Note that this is a bit of an academic discussion because such a society will never work (on a large scale and in the foreseeable future, that is). This is why the economy article backs you up - it reasons from the reality we live in and treats communism as an aberration. DirkvdM 07:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overstating the dreaminess? Yes, I think you probably are; you are certainly far closer to concepts of a paradise not of this earth. Marxists have always had a notion of communism as an ideal goal, though you will search hard to find a detailed description of what shape a communist society would take; even the link between the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and the 'withering away of the state' is highly problematic. But for a view of a perfect future that Karl Marx would almost certainly have dismissed as 'utopian' you could do no better that read Robert Tressell's Bunyanesque novel The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.
OK, now let's deconstruct your image of the 'economics' of communism (and we are talking, I have to stress, about an economic system). Everyone will take what they need, and nothing more? How does one define need? I need a rolex and a rolls royce; would that be OK? Yes, you might reply in terms of your ideal, because everyone can have a rolex and a rolls royce. Ah, yes, but this is in paradise, is it not? In the real world of finite resources decisions would still have to be made about how resources are used and labour allocated, on the assumption that things, real things, will have to be made. Now we are already seeing, even in the purest forms of earthly communism, an uneven distribution of power; because some will have to make the decisions about the allocation of resources and others will have to implement these decisions. Again speaking in earthly terms, and assuming no cornucopia, things will still have to be made, skills nurtured and labour divided. Goods made in one place will have to be transported to those places were such goods cannot be made, and handed over in some process of exchange. So you have, in other words, an economy. You also have the makings of disaster; for in a world of equal demand resources will be used up at a rate that makes our present problems over climate change, pollution and vanishing assests seem like the true paradise. A world where everyone has a rolex and a rolls royce is unsustainable. Even as a dream, Dirk, it goes beyond the limits of the possible. More than that, it is a dream that forever tumbles into nightmare. Perfection is only for the dead.
Anyway, I am sensitive to the fact that this discussion is going too far from the point of the original question, so I do not propose to add any more here. If you would like further clarification on any of the points I have made in the above you are welcome to come to my talk page. Clio the Muse 22:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize what Clio, DirkvdM and StuRat said about the distinction between communism and socialism in Marxist theory in a small table. Note that according to Marx history goes through phases, that are characterized by who controls the means of production.

time name control of the means of production form of government
current time capitalism bourgeoisie "liberal democracy"
(dictatorship of the bourgeoisie)
near future socialism proletariat dictatorship of the proletariat
distant future communism community none (there is no state)

It is very important to note that the terms socialism and communism as used in this table are distinct from the use in the previous table. So communism both refers to a political ideology (a radical brand of socialism) and a future phase in the marxist theory of history (where there is no state, only community). To make confusion even worse: socialism refers to a political ideology (a very broad movement of ideologies actually), an economic system (where the state controls the means of production) and a future phase in the marxist theory of history (the dictatorship of the proletariat). C mon 08:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, the second meaning of socialism is actually state socialism, which, for even more confusion, was dubbed state capitalism by some 'real' communists who rejected the way the USSR functioned. The most common form of socialism is social democracy (a better term would be democratic socialism, but that is used for something different). Even the most hardcore capitalist democratic society (eg the US) has some of it, in the form of what one could call 'institutionalised charity'. Playing Robin Hood, basically, to combat the worst excesses of capitalism - without that, the poor would soon be so poor that they would have nothing to lose, which would make them very dangerous. One could say that socialism killed the communist revolution in western Europe. In the Netherlands, after there had almost been a revolution in 1918 (see Troelstra#Proclamation of the socialist revolution), the right-wing government got so scared they started taking all sorts of left-wing measures to prevent another uprising. DirkvdM 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gemstone Healing and Christianity

Is Gemstone healing mentioned directly in the Bible? And if so, Is it against the Christian religion? 196.207.47.60 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)zen'aku[reply]

Witchcraft is mentioned, of course, and so is idolatry. However, the specific method of healing is irrelevant. In medieval medicine, people believed in both gems and plants based on their homologous forms (lung shaped plants were good for the lungs, and blood colored stones were good for the blood), and this was seen as being efficacious because of the divine plan. At the same time, believing that healing comes from anywhere but God's providence is forbidden, as it involves idolatry or holding other gods before the Lord. Thus, you can believe that a pretty rock will help your arthritis, if you think it's just because of hidden medical properties or God's plan, but you can't if you think that it's the Spirit of the Earth refashioning your body. Medicine is fine. Spiritualism isn't. Geogre 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mean 19th-century Spiritualism, do you?  --Lambiam` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. In an Old Testament sense, all of that stuff fell afoul of the law. I also meant, though, what people now call "spiritualism" in distinction to religion. The term is sometimes used to say, "I believe in a thing that has no religion but has plenty of spiritual powers." That, in both an OT and New Testament sense, would be against Jewish and Christian doctrine. Geogre 12:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that 'amethysts protect against' drunkeness or some other minor sin - and that it is mentioned in the bible, though I've never read it myself.. Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of??87.102.87.15 11:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amethysts offering protection against drunkenness is not mentioned in the Bible, although amethysts feature in a few places. However, this doesn't mean the belief was not around at the time. Apparently the name referred to this supposed property. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a handy resource for this sort of thing, but you can also search online bibles for the word 'amethyst'. Skittle 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-pol

There is an organization at www.e-pol.org which appears to claim some sort of jurisdiction over internet use. Can anyone confirm (a) Does this organization actually exist? (b) what, if any, legal status it has? or (c) is it some sort of hoax? I am not asking for legal advice - just information, thanks. DuncanHill 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article about it. Commercial company? If a hoax, why would someone make a hoax so boring? A hoax to me on - for example, the release of an Apple Mac kneetop (ie. mini) notebook, or something like the flying spaghetti monster (and to pretend it be aa worldwide, serious religion with millions of follower) sounds more fun.martianlostinspace email me 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it's being used for isn't for "fun" hoaxes, but a darker use. Corvus cornix 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"e-pol.com" is a domain name from Go Daddy.com, Inc. out of Scottsdale, Arizona. I can't find anything else about it on the Net, but I know we have some ace searchers who watch this desk. Bielle 22:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be related to UNNET and UNombud, two "organisations" which briefly had WP articles which have since been deleted. The websites (.org) are fake database frontends, and the ultimate host of the sites seems to be [a site which I can't link because the spam blacklist complains]. It's either some sort of scam, or a kid messing around with flash and javascript. Either way, no, it's not a real organisation and isn't anything to be worried about. FiggyBee 09:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference?

Can someone tell me the differences between these words? Thanks. Coalition, alliance, and union. 67.169.185.206 23:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coalition, alliance, union? SGGH speak! 23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Coalition" is most often used for a temporary agreement of two political parties to work together, typically voting the same way in a legislature. The term "alliance" has a similar meaning but extends to many other fields, especially the military and nowadays also business, and may refer to a longer-term agreement (for example, NATO is an alliance that has lasted over 50 years). "Union" indicates a stronger joining, normally one that is intended as permanent and takes precedence over the interests of the individual members, which may not even exist afterwards. --Anonymous, 00:28 UTC, September 1, 2007.

September 1

Creating a new page

How do I create a new entry on Wikipedia? All I want to do is create one, very short and simple entry about a candidate running in a political primary race. I looked at all of the instructional pages and I cannot find this information anywhere. Please just give me a simple link to the page where I can create this entry.

thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleeye2044AD (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When posting to the Reference Desk, please use the + button, which will remind you to put a title on your question. I have added one.
As to creating new articles, that is really a question for the Help Desk, but I'll answer. If you've read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#Create new articles, you may have noticed a link to Help:Starting a new page, which has a space right the top where you can type in your title. What it doesn't seem to mention is that this is actually the same as the ordinary "Go" box on every page. All you have to do is pretend the article exists and try to go to it, and there will be a "create this article" link. (As it says, you have to be logged in for it to work.) --Anonymous, 00:43 UTC, September 1, 2007.
And if the "Go" button returns results, click on the small, red link to the non-existant article beneath the page title ("Search").
Welcome to Wikipedia, and have fun editing! --Bowlhover 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB - As a general rule, "a candidate running in a political primary race" is not considered to be notable (that is, a suitable subject for inclusion in an encyclopedia and thus for a Wikipedia article) unless he or she is already notable in some other regard. See Wikipedia:Notability. Xn4 03:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to what Xn4 just said. Most candidates who are running for a seat are not sufficiently notable for a biography on Wikipedia. Those who win the race may be, but those who merely contend are not, unless they possess some other source of significance (e.g. Tom Tancredo has never won, but he did any number of things to make himself known and did quite a few extremely shady/controversial things). Some people believe that candidates on the ballot in multiple states might be ok. Geogre 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life in the Soviet Union

What was the quality of life for the average Soviet citizen from 1940's-1991? If I was living in the country during that time period, any idea what my home, workplace, school, environment, etc. would look and feel like? What kind of products would I be able to buy? I'm also curious about what the Soviet citizens thought of their government and the outside world.

Also, suppose a hobbyist wanted to buy high-quality electronics from Japan or the United States. Would this purchase be possible, assuming the potential costumer has enough money? --Bowlhover 02:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long period encompassing several Soviet eras (WW2, the last years of Stalin's reign, Khrushchev, the era of Brezhnevite "stagnation", and post-Brezhnev attempts at reform). However, "hard" currency was scarce for most of it, and only a tiny privileged elite allowed to travel abroad would likely have any opportunity to personally own the latest tech toys. By the way, Japan didn't really become known for high-quality electronics until around the late 1960s... AnonMoos 06:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the latest tech toys from outside the USSR. The USSR had it's own technological development. Which may be an important reason for its (relative) economic downfall - it was a big country, but not all that big (around 150 million people - just over half the population of the US, for example). Other countries profited from each other in a way that the USSR couldn't - even big neighbour China wasn't much of an ally, despite similar ideologies. I said relative economic downfall, because the USSR saw major economic improvement after they got rid of the Tzars. It just didn't do well in comparison with other countries. For most (dissidents excluded), life must have been much better than under the Tzars. Or those living in third world countries.
I only visited Russia after the fall of the USSR (apart from a stopover at Moscow airport - but airports look the same everywhere, so that's no indication). What struck me was how 'western' it felt and at the same time not. People didn't hang around pointlessly, as they often do in poor capitalist countries, but were busy doing something or going somewhere. There was little luxury, but the basics were provided. Perhaps most indicative are the ladas and the metro. Personal property wasn't in high esteem, so purely functional, but the metro was a 'glorification of communion' - absolutely marvelous. Especially the Moscow metro. Public buildings in general were rather impressive. The new and the old. And the old ones were accessible to everyone (when my niece said in the Saint Petersburg summer palace "Wow, we don't have that in the Netherlands", I said, "How do you know - we're not allowed to visit our palaces."). But homes were very Spartan and 'functional'.
What the environment in general would have 'felt like' (vague term) will largely be determined by the nature of the people, because even with such a strong state, people make their own lives. It seems logical to ask someone who lived there and then, but then they wouldn't be able to compare with your reference framework, so if you got such an answer, you would have to be very careful how to interpret it if it deals with what it 'felt like'.
I once asked a Russian if they looked up to the West in the Soviet era, and he said that quite the opposite was true. Maybe that is one reason the Communist Party got so many votes in the mid 1990s. Of course, it was easy for the government to make people believe the West was a horrible place - just show films of the reality of the slums. Hell, even Hollywood provided those - a depiction of the misery in the US, depicted by the US. Perfect propaganda because it makes it perfectly believable. Actually, it's quite likely that the bottom 10% or so in the USSR was better of than the bottom 10% in the West (certainly the US). And crime would probably have been low, just the way it is in Cuba today, because of less extreme poverty combined with severe punishment. Ironically, that last bit is promoted by right wing parties elsewhere. :) Then again, one may argue that the USSR government was pretty right wing (state capitalism?). DirkvdM 09:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of information, crime is as high in Cuba as it is elsewhere in the world, and drug trafficking and addiction are major problems, especially in Havana and the other urban centres. Clio the Muse 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understood differently, although I may be confused with crime against travelers. Then again, several Cubans asked me if crime is really so high in the US,which suggests it is low in Cuba, but that is about people's perception of criminality, which is not very reliable, especially if there is little knowledge of the reality of the other country (on both sides). Official figures will be hard to compare between Cuba and other countries as things are defined differently. For example, I can imagine there are more political prisoners in Cuba (per capita), but then I wouldn't count them as criminals. I was really talking about 'crime in the streets' and Cubans gave me the impression that that was very low. DirkvdM 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight expansion: I've had lots of political discussions with Cubans and there was roughly a 50/50 division between supporters and opponents of Castro. But there are two things that all agreed about was a good thing about his rule: safety (for non-dissidents) and medical care. DirkvdM 10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union had an advanced technology in many respects, but it was very weak on mass-producing high-tech personal consumer gadgets. AnonMoos —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the galveston hurricane

how is this regional feature connected to the local and global community physically, culturally, politically, symbolically, and personally? And how does this regard perceptions of the feature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.115.146 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a series of questions, and I am not entirely certain how one would attach them to a hurricane, even one as deadly as Galveston Hurricane of 1900. There won't be many around who can respond personally, and I am not sure about how to look at a real hurricane as a symbol. The article noted is a start. Bielle 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate timeline?

I've been reading some of the historical timelines on Wikipedia and I was wondering if there exists any single consistent timeline that covers from the big bang up to the present day. Obviously not in great detail as that would be immense, but it would be great to just get a concise 'snapshot' of what the world (or certain parts of it) was like during a given era, just to see how all the different eras and events fit together and put things into context. I know I could just look up a certain date on here and be given a huge amount of info but it would be good to have it in a single continuous timeline. Sort of like a brief history of time (but not in the Stephen Hawking sense). --Ukdan999 03:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found an example of a backward looking logarithmic timeline ---Sluzzelin talk 06:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago recently had one which was printed out and stuck on a large wall, like 30 feet long by 8 fet high. Not sure how far back it went, but it listed developments in religion, technology, politics, medicine, etc in each decade or so over an enormous span of time. A huge amount of detail. Edison 00:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time served in Polish Prisons

In western countries people found guilty of crimes and sentenced to prison time will often serve less than the specified sentence due to good behaviour, remorse and other factors. Does the Polish justice system operate in the same manner? or does it rely on Eurpean Union principles for time served or in fact do Polish prisoners serve the entire sentence?

In Poland, it's just like in any other western country. From the Polish Wikipedia article about parole (pl:Warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie):
A prisoner is normally eligible for parole after having served half of their sentence, but not less than 6 months. If this is their second sentence, this is only after 2/3 of the sentence served; if it's the third or more time – after 3/4, in both cases after not less than a year. If you were sentenced to 25 years of prison, you're eligible after having served 15 years; if you were sentenced to life imprisonment – after 25 years. In some cases, the judge may specify a longer period you have to serve before you can apply for parole.
From the statistics I found on the Polish Penitentiary Service website:
During the second quarter of 2007, 14,489 requests for parole were filed by prisoners (or on their behalf by the prison director, prosecutor, judge or supervisor) throughout Poland. Parole was actually granted to 39.40% of them. — Kpalion(talk) 08:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the assumption the question starts with correct? I know that in the Netherlands, a life sentence is exactly that - unless you can prove your innocence, you only ever get out of prison feet first. DirkvdM 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is also generally true for the Netherlands, where early release is almost automatic, the exception being life sentences, which are rarely given, and only then when they really mean it. Still, even then pardon may be granted by Royal Decree, as happened in some exceptional cases.  --Lambiam 10:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poland's current right-wing government with Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro had plans, so far unsuccessful, to introduce an absolute life sentence into the Penal Code. Leading Polish experts on penal law, such as Prof. Andrzej Zoll, argue that such a punishment would be inhumane. Moreover, such a punishment would practically render the convict unpunishable and make him dangerous to prison mates and the Penitentiary Service. [9] — Kpalion(talk) 10:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rise and fall of French protestantism

What were the main factors leading to the rise and subsequent fall of the reformed movement in France? Pere Duchesne 10:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have patience, someone will provide a concise analysis later. Meanwhile, and to better understand the answers forthcoming, I recommend you read the articles on Religion in France (there's a historical overview), French Wars of Religion, and Huguenot. And of course, you can click on wikilinks to learn more about the relevant people and events. ---83.79.144.184 10:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is always rewarded; well, nearly always!

On the assumption that you have now read the pages linked by 83.79, Pere Duchesne, all I really have to do is to put matters in some form of political perspective. To begin with Protestantism in France, largely Calvinist in direction, made steady progress across large sections of the nation, in the urban bourgeoisie and parts of the aristocracy, appealing to people alienated by the obduracy and the complacency of the Catholic establishment. This was a time when monarchs viewed heresy as a challenge to royal authority, as much as anything else. Francis I had initially maintained an atttitude of tolerance, arising from his interest in the humanist movement. This changed in 1534 with the Affair of the Placards. In an act of astonishing insensitivity a section of the Huguenot community decided to make their presence known to the wider Catholic population by denouncing the mass in placards that appeared across France, even so far as the royal apartments. The whole question of one's faith was then thrown directly into the arena of politics, and Francis had little choice but to support the popular reaction. It was the first major phase of anti-Protestant persecution in French history, which saw the creation of the Chambre Ardente-the Burning Chamber-within the Parlement of Paris to cope with the rise in prosecutions for heresy.

French Protestantism, though its appeal increased under persecution, now acquired a distinctly political character, made all the more obvious by the nobel conversions of the 1550s. This had the effect of creating the preconditions for a series of destructive and intermitent conflicts, known as the Wars of Religion. The civil wars were helped along by the sudden death of Henry II in 1559, which saw the beginning of a prolonged period of weakness for the French crown. Atrocity and outrage became the defining characteristic of the time, illustrated at its most intense in the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of August 1572, when 30,000 Huguenots were killed across France. These wars only ended when Henry IV, himself a former Huguenot, issued the Edict of Nantes, promising official toleration of the Protestant minority, but under highly restricted conditions. A peace, yes, and a salvation for the Huguenots, but one that also embraced their future destruction. Catholicism was still the official state religion. Dissent could exist by the will of the king, just as it could be suppressed, also by the will of the king. Clio the Muse 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question

the answer want to know about the aztecs?

See aztec of course?87.102.87.15 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you want to know? Clio the Muse 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a question, and the answer is about the Aztecs, but what specifically is the question? · AndonicO Talk 23:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

local question - global view

Hello. From a local view (Hull University) I am somewhat amazed by the vast numbers of Japanese students visiting.. Now I realise that foreign students visit universities all over the world, but Japan has good universities of it's own yes?

Question : is it much more normal for a japanese student to take their studies abroad than in other countries, or what?87.102.87.15 12:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a bit confusing. Do you mean is it more normal for Japanese students to study abroad than for foreigners to study in Japan? The Evil Spartan 21:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real answer, just a few considerations. Life is expensive in Japan, so it would probably be cheaper for Japanese to study abroad (more than the other way around anyway). Also, the knowledge system that Japan has now is largely imported from the West, so it makes sense for them to learn it 'from the horse's mouth'. As a variation on that, with English being the lingua franca, it makes more sense for Japanese to study in an English speaking country than the other way around. DirkvdM 07:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are those students actually enrolled in the university, or are they just learning English in an affiliated program? The English language is a significant part of the Japanese school curriculum, but a large number of Japanese seem to find it very difficult to acquire much active conversational fluency in English while still living in Japan... AnonMoos 12:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. A nephew did such an English course in Vancouver, and there were lots of Japanese students there. Problem was that the students hung out not with locals, but with each other, picking up each other's peculiar accents, which defeats the purpose. DirkvdM 10:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1930s press agencies and magazines

I'm currently researching the following statement:

The Hulton Getty Picture Collection (formerly the Hulton Deutsch Archive) scarcely needs an introduction. Based in London, this collection is universally acknowledged as the greastest library of photojournalism in the world. The collection comprises in excess of 15 million photographs, prints and engravings, including the work of such famous names as Keystone, Picture Post, Fox and Central Press. (HELIX (Higher Education Library for Image eXchange))

I've found our article Picture Post, but I'm drawing a blank on the others. Our disambiguation page on Keystone mentions a news agency called Keystone Switzerland, but that appears to be a subsidiary founded in 1953: "KEYSTONE was established in 1953 as the Swiss subsidiary of the American KEYSTONE View Company that was originally founded in 1891."[10]. The Keystone here could be Keystone Studios, but I'm now thinking that is it more likely this "Keystone View Company": "The Keystone View Co. was formed in 1892 in Meadville, Penn. by B.L. Singley, a former salesman at Underwood & Underwood. This company became the major publisher of stereographs in the world after 1920. In 1898 they organized their highly successful Education Department which produced boxed sets for school instruction of images and descriptive text illustrating culture, industry, commerce and politics world-wide. Although the company hired its own professional photographers, they also purchased rights to other negatives including several series of Underwood and Underwood negatives in 1912. Orders for Keystone sets continued to be filled by the company as late as 1970."[11]. On the other hand, Keystone View Company doesn't mention the Hulton Getty Picture Collection, so I'm not sure about this. 'Fox' is obviously not Fox News, but I think it could be Fox Film (one of the predecessor companies of 20th Century Fox), which produced Fox Movietone News. The real question I need help with, the one I'm drawing a blank on, is Central Press. The ubiquity of the phrase makes it hard to search for it. Can anyone help? Carcharoth 12:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some more at: "the Keystone Collection, itself an amalgamation of the Keystone, Fox Photos, Central Press and the Three Lions press agencies."[12] and [13] Carcharoth 13:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fox Photos, Ltd., was apparently U.K. based, at the address 6, Tudor Street, London, E.C.4. It was owned by George Freston, who died in 2006.[14] Central Press Photos, Ltd., was also U.K. based, with address 6–7 Gough Square, London, E.C.4.[15]  --Lambiam 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing! Thanks. What did the trick? Putting "photos" in the search term? Someone should contact Egby (from that second link) and tell him that his negatives might have gone to the Keystone Collection and then to the Hulton Getty Archive. Carcharoth 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keystone: I once had to write something about Bert Garai, a Hungarian journalist who founded the Keystone Press Agency, which was active in London in the 1930s. His autobiography is called The Man From Keystone (1965). He was the great-grandfather of Romola Garai. Xn4 23:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this site, "Keystone Press Agency was founded in the early 1900’s in London, by Bert Garai. The Canadian office, located in Montreal was founded in 1960 by Bob Moynier, who was a staff photographer at Keystone Press Agency’s Paris office. For the last 40 years, Keystone has accumulated an extensive collection, including over 2 million black and white, and over 2 million color images. Since 1960, international news has become more and more popular, and Keystone’s philosophy has always been..." Xn4 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Talisman" painting by Henryk Siemiradzki (1843-1902)

Please consider the following paragraph from A Yankee Engineer Abroad Part II: The East (I own the copyright, so I can reproduce it here):

"We rode across the fields a mile or two to the north-west and, reaching the base of the mountains, visited the Ain es Sultan, Fountain of the Sultan, the veritable Diamond of the Desert, so beautifully painted in the Talisman3 – a large spring of pure water, overshadowed by fig-trees, sending out a considerable volume to irrigate the fields. Farther back up the mountain, a leaping stream comes sounding down the steep slope in an artificial channel. Its waters are also conveyed to the fields, being partly conducted in the aqueduct whose arches we noticed last evening. This stream enjoys the reputation of being the Fountain of Elisha, whose waters the Prophet healed of their bitterness. The ruins of a pile of buildings, possibly a convent, are found on the hill-side near the fountain, half-buried in tangled vegetation. A bold precipitous mountain overlooking it to the westward, called the Quarantania, is considered the mount of our Saviour’s forty-days’ fasting and temptation. A small chapel occupies its summit. All over the face of the cliffs are numerous little caves, the abode of visionary enthusiasts in the day when such practice was in fashion, who endeavoured, as it has somewhere been expressed, to secure their title to Heaven by making earth a Hell. This method is out of date now, and the kennels are all vacant."

Talisman, by Henryk Siemiradzki (1881). From a series of paintings illustrating ancient Roman life, painted in Italy. Here's a detail of the "talisman". --Ghirla-трёп- 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reproduction of the "Talisman" on the Internet, but no description. I located the museum in Russia that displays it, but there was no response to my e-mail enquiry (in English). The New York Public Library on-line research service referred me to the Polish and Russian collection, but I'm illiterate in those languages. I took a chance and tied the work to Henryk Siemiradzki in a footnote. I hope to do a revised version of the book some day and would like for someone to verify whether a not the scene described above by Frederick Hubbard in 1857 is indeed the same as in Siemiradzki's painting. Frederick Hubbard lived in New York state. Was the painting ever shown in New York City? 69.201.141.45 13:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]

This representative of Academic art is little known in the West, because his paintings reside in the provincial museums of Russia or Poland. That's why I don't think it likely that the painting ever travelled from Nizhny Novgorod to New York City. For another characteristic example of his work see The Dance with Daggers. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some links to articles might help kick-start this: Henryk Siemiradzki, Frederick Hubbard, Elisha. Here is a link to a picture of The Talisman. Here is something explaining Elisha's Fountain. Carcharoth 13:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also found lots of references to The Talisman a novel written in 1825 by Sir Walter Scott. He describes the fountain at length. Have a look at this online text here: ""It is called in the Arabic language," answered the Saracen, "by a name which signifies the Diamond of the Desert."" It is a stretch, but I think Hubbard (the Yankee Engineer Abroad) is referring either to the book (which is using words to paint the scene), or, more likely, a painting inspired by the book, or maybe even published in the book. Carcharoth 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Even though F. Hubbard compliled his notes years after his travels (he died in NYC in 1895) it is more likely that he is referring to Scott's book (1825) rather than the painting (1880's). He refers to Sir Walter Scott in other places in the book. On re-examining the painting, it seems more likely that "the talisman" refers to a charm being held by the girl and she is not leaning against the wall of a spring. Thanks.69.201.141.45 14:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]

Scott went to the Holy Land and saw for himself the place he described. Xn4 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can rhetoric silence truth?

from the age of the sophist to that of quantum mechanics,we appear to be just delving in rhetorics,can the west take the time out and prove it not so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.9.216 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case of quantum mechanics is a nice one for this — the Copenhagen interpretation's focus on language is specifically meant to imply that the limits of truth lie in perception, and that an overly realist approach to the world is not, in fact, truth. The enormous success of quantum mechanics in describing the world — success over more realist attempts — is a strong argument that indeed, epistemology ("how we know") must be given a strong, and sometimes primary, role in talking about ontology ("what is"). Most attempts to jettison epistemological discussions or limitations (what I am assuming you are calling "rhetoric") are failures, and the assertion of "truth" they provide illusory. Better to know what you don't know that to think you know everything, I would argue.
So I wouldn't include quantum mechanics in your railing against rhetoric or subjectivity. I probably wouldn't include philosophy, either. However if you want to argue that deconstructionism and rhetoric in places like politics and the courts is having an overall net negative effect on the operation of at least American society, I would probably agree, but I would argue that such was not really a new thing. The deconstruction of scientific facts in the political and legal arena has been going on for at least a hundred years, probably longer. --24.147.86.187 15:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one would believe that general relativity comes into play somewhere somehow in this multi-quantum world.truth ultimately wills out, but do we with all our sophisticated rhetoric suppress the elusive and life giving truth —Preceding better to understand what you dont know than to say you do unsigned comment added by 59.94.9.125 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you lost me on that last one there, the "elusive and life giving truth." There's little doubt that the quantum mechanical description of the world is in many ways largely accurate, even if it is unintuitive and makes large claims about what is knowable in physics.--24.147.86.187 21:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kjvenus! Is that you? What happened to Garb wire?  --Lambiam 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

! Deconstruction is over. The Mai 68 generation's pique produced some interesting digressions, but can rhetoric silence truth? Truth? Truth? Rhetoric and "truth" are neither opposed nor antithetical. Can sophistry obscure a truth that would otherwise appear? Sure. Can such truths break out anyway? You betcha. Are we doomed to language? 'Fraid so. Are we limited by language? In social and political action, seems like it. Are these constructions limiting and meaningful? As objects, they certainly are, and as operative modes of life, they're inescapable and so they might as well be called meaningful. To posit a truth that is outside of rhetoric is a statement of faith. I have no problem with such faith, myself, but Wittgenstein said that we are like the fly in the bottle -- going around and around and around and never going up out the top of the bottle. Is there an escape from such determinism to the non-determined thing that we have no words for? Well, sure seems like it, if we suppose that all those mystics aren't liars. Is there a way to use language's toys to argue someone to it? You can try, if you like, but I'm with Kierkegaard on this one: leap of faith or happiness in the bottle. Geogre 14:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prora the Nazi holiday camp

I came across your page on Prora by chance. Is there any political background to this project? Captainhardy 16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be described as a 'butlins' for aryans. - It was part fo the Strength Through Joy program and as such part of the apparatus of the state political philosophy - but that's already mentioned in the article - perhaps you wanted more information...?83.100.249.228 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(after unnoticed e.c.) Indeed there is. It was part of the Nazi program Kraft durch Freude ("health through strength strength through joy"), which had the self-declared goal of creating "a National Socialist Volksgemeinschaft ("people's community") and the perfection and refinement of the German people." It aimed to reach this goal by organizing tight and thoroughly structured recreational programs. Robert Ley, one of KdF's founders, quoted Hitler: "I wish that the worker be granted a sufficient holiday and that everything is done, in order to let this holiday as well all other leisure time to be truly recreational. I wish this, because I want a determined people with strong nerves, for truly great politics can only be achieved with a people that keeps its nerves."
Another less ideological goal was to boost the German economy by stimulating the tourist industry out of its slump from the 1920s, and it was quite successful up until around the outbreak of World War II. By 1934, over two million Germans had participated on a KdF trip, by 1939 the reported numbers lay around 43 million people. The Nazis also sought to attract tourists from abroad, a task performed by Hermann Esser, one of the Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda's secretaries. A series of multilingual and colorful brochures, titled "Deutschland", advertised Germany as a peaceful, idyllic, and progressive country, on one occasion even portraying the ministry's boss, Joseph Goebbels, grinning and hamming in an unlikely photo series of the Cologne carnival. KdF more or less collapsed in 1939, and several projects, such as Prora, never got completed. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Kraft durch Freude translates as "strength through joy", as in the article? Algebraist 18:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it does, Algebraist, amended. Thanks for pointing out my inexplicable error. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those buildings look like tenements to me, who would want to go on vacation in such a drab place ? And, as for tourism, I can't see Nazi Germany attracting many foreigners (perhaps a few Austrians), which is who they really needed to help the economy. StuRat 18:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a derelict shell gives a true impression of what it would have been like - even if it had ever been finished, that said I'm not that keen either..83.100.249.228 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, admittedly, Prora in particular was a less luxurious design, even for 1930's tastes, and didn't primarily target tourists from abroad. Ley wrote that Prora was originally Hitler's idea too. He wanted a gigantic sea resort, the "most mighty and large one to ever have existed", holding 20,000 beds. In the middle, he wanted a massive building. At the same time, Hitler wanted it to be convertible into a military hospital in case of war. Ley appointed Clemens Klotz (interesting aptronym, as "Klotz" means "block" and is also a derogatory word for massive cubic buildings). Hitler insisted that the plans of a massive indoor arena by architect Erich (Wilhelm Julius Freiherr Gans Edler Herr zu) Putlitz be included. As mentioned in the article, the entire combined design won the Grand Prix for Architecture in Paris in 1937, so it seems not every non-German person deemed it that ugly at the time. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly looks functional, but possibly a little more 'luxurious' than the early camps set up by Butlin! And it certainly dwarfs Butlin in the sheer scale of its ambition. Putlitz's 'Festival Hall' was intended to be able to accomodate all 20,000 guests at the same time. Those parts of the complex that were completed were used as a temporary shelter for people made homeless by the air raids on Hamburg. The Soviets later used it as a barracks. After the formation of the German Democratic Republic part of it was used as an army holiday centre, by the name of the Walter Ulbricht Home. What remains now has a formal heritage listing. Ah, well-Heil, die Heil! Clio the Muse 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ox in the belfry. (il bue nel campanile da Giotto)

I recall being told that the locals of Florence call the low-toned bell in Giotto's campanile "il bue," but have not been able to verify this. Is it true?69.201.141.45 17:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]

I found nothing either. This site lists the bells' names and calls the heaviest one Il campanone ("the big bell") or Santa Reparata. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was told this by my Italian teacher, Mary Borelli (circa 1968). She was a Scotswoman, but her husband, Luigi, was native Italian. They travelled extensively through Italy. I also remember her telling the class of coming across a remote town (in the mountains, I think) in which the people still pronounced "cento" with the "c" sounding as the Latin "c". A decade later I heard the big bell in the campanile in Florence. To me it indeed sounded like the braying of a bull (I've never heard an ox). It could be that the lower classes referred to it as "il bue," while the the "polite" classes referred to "il campanone." It is interesting how some "trivial" things stick in the mind while larger ones escape. Teachers are often surprised at what their students remember. 69.201.141.45 12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]

nougat,almonds - european culture

Background: a european based supermarket has opened near me (UK) recently - many of the products are sourced from europe..

I'm amazed at the number of products that contain nougat for examples - biscuits with nougat centres, breakfast cereals with nougat chunks, ice cream with nougat in - this is most un British.

Also Almonds - there is practically a whole row devoted to almond products - every other biscuit product contains almonds or is made from almonds..

Is love of almonds/nougat a continental european obsession? Why do so many products contain almonds - are there vast almond forests in the Bavarian alps producing a massive almond surplus perhaps. Or perhaps it is the opposite: do the bosses at lidl believe that the British are extremely fond of chewy nut based foodstuffs!?

Can anyone provide any insight, thanks.83.100.249.228 18:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to get us started, here's the article on what happens when Continental Europeans mix the nougat and the almonds together: Turrón. Wareh 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nougat is not a german specialty its produced there and popular (amongst other sorts of chocolat) but its not originally from Germany.--Tresckow 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nougat is quite popular in France, but I'm not sure if it originated there. The article isn't very specific. :/ · AndonicO Talk 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. George and England

What is the background to the cult of St. George? Tower Raven 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page Saint George that gives some background informations - was it for a specific country?83.100.249.228 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lengthy article at Saint George. Which cult do you mean? He is very popular especially in the east, but presumably you mean England...well, St. George was one of the saints whom the First Crusaders saw helping them, so his cult was also popular in the crusader states. The English picked him up and brought him back after the Third Crusade. Adam Bishop 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it pays to read the header. "England" was mentioned there.  :) -- JackofOz 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it does!
Actually, contrary to the point made in the Wikipedia piece on England and St. George, traces of the cult date right back to Anglo-Saxon times. He appears as early as the ninth century in rituals at Durham, and in a tenth century martyrology. There is evidence, moreover, of pre-Conquest foundations dedicated to St. George: at Fordingham in Dorset, at Thetford, Southwark and Doncaster. So he was already familiar to the English well before the Crusades, though it is not until the reign of Edward III that emerges as the most important national saint, replacing Edward the Confessor It is probably more accurate to say that the cult was identified specifically with the monarchy, rather than England as a whole. Edward I was the first king to display St. George's banner alongside those of Edmund the Martyr and St. Edward.
By the reign of Edward III he had definately emerged as a 'god of battles', in much the same fashion as Saintiago Matamoros in Spain. In 1351 it was written "The English nation...call upon Saint George, as being their special patron, especially in war." In this regard he was certainly more appealing than the unwarlike Confessor or St. Edmund, who had been defeated and subsequently killed by the Danes. But with the succession of Richard II George once again slipped down the ranks. Richard had little of his grandfather's warlike ambitions, and returned to the veneration of the two native saints. George was called back to national prominence during the Wars of the Roses, when his name was invoked by both sides in the contest. It was also at this time that his cult spread across the nation at large. Almost a hundred wall paintings featuring the saint date from the fifteenth century, almost always showing him in combat with the dragon. He also survives in pilgrim badges. His secular importance was finally confirmed by the English Reformation; for he alone survived the suppression of the cult of saints, which not even the Virgin herself had been able to do.
Now, I have a question. I see that a claim is made in the Wikipedia page that St. George was 'demoted' by Pope Leo XIII in 1893 as the patron saint of England and replaced by Saint Peter! I had no idea that Popes were ever in the business of promoting and demoting national saints. Besides, nobody seems to have told the English! A citation request has been put against this statement; but these things, as I am sure many of you are aware, can hang around forever and a day. I need to know if this is true or not, or if it is just a subtle piece of vandalism? Clio the Muse 02:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curious. I've never heard of this, Clio. Saint Peter#Patronage makes no mention of it, and googling produces only one source - our article. I suspect it's either vandalism, or a genuine mistake on the part of the editor who posted this. -- JackofOz 02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it's any of the pope's business who we have as our Patron Saint. DuncanHill 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the Pope's business who he has as England's patron saint, just as it's the Pope's business who he has as saints at all. I could understand if such a thing happened, and I have often heard it claimed, since George is fairly mythological and the emphasis lately (in the Catholic Church sense of 'lately') has been on people who pretty definitely existed. You can, of course, have anyone you like as your patron saint, and declare anyone you like to be a saint, but how many people will follow you? If the government wanted to declare someone as a patron saint of England, they could. Quite what this would mean, I don't know. To be honest, your comment is really quite odd Duncan. Skittle 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, quite right, Skittle: that saints 'made' by the church can also be 'unmade', if that makes sense. But I do not believe that the Vatican has ever sanctioned, or created, national saints: saints who were intended to be identified with a given country. Patron saints are created for historical and political reasons; so it was with James and Spain; and so it was with George and England. Even now, living in a secular world, English people, whether Catholic, Protestant or of no religion at all, understand the significance and symbolism of St. George and England. I confess that I myself have become more and more aware over the last few years of a growing sense of 'Englishness', brought on in part by Scottish and Welsh devolution: the English flag is ever more evident and people now celebrate St. George's Day with an a new enthusiasm; I do, and so do my friends. The Pope may demote or promote all the saints he wishes; but he could not end the link between George and England. So once again I pose my question: where does the contention about Leo XIII come from? I now believe this to be quite spurious. Clio the Muse 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. It's just that, since the whole deal of 'official' saints and patron saints is a Catholic thing, to say it's none of the Pope's business is really quite odd. That George is popularly considered the patron saint of England is, of course, unaffected and people are free to make their mascots what they want. Who the English have as their 'mascot' patron saint by no means has to match anything any church says, but what the Catholic Church says about these things is the church's business. I have often heard that many saints were 'removed' in the last century or so for being mythological, and that some were restored. However, I have never seen any authoritive evidence that this was the case. So it wouldn't surprise me, but it seems unsupported. Skittle 12:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic Encyclopedia calls him patron of England in the very first sentence of its article on Saint George,[16] while the Catholic Community Forum lists England as one of the beneficiaries of George's extensive patronage.[17] While not spealing ex cathedra, they are generally reliable sources in doctrinary matters.  --Lambiam 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Duncan has it in mind that "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England" - Article thirty-seven of the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563, which still have the force of law so far as the Church of England is concerned. Lambiam has raised a real doubt as to whether Pope Leo XIII did downgrade George from the Roman Catholic point of view. The Catholic Encyclopedia postdates Leo. I see someone has added the {{Fact}} template to that statement in the Saint George article, to challenge it, and I hope someone will get to the bottom of this for us. Xn4 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other part of the equation is that Pope John Paul II is supposed to have restored St George as patron saint in 2000. Does anyone remember anything about this in the media at that time? I certainly don't, and I think it's something that would have been widely reported in the anglophone world. Google produces nothing about it. The edit that's sparked this discussion is this one, from almost a year ago. Amazing that this hasn't been challenged till now. The anonymous editor only ever made a handful of WP edits - all in September 2006 - then got pissed off by something, and has never come back. -- JackofOz 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not wish this issue to pass by default, and I do not personally believe that the citation request will ever be answered. We are now in a position where people could claim that St. Peter is the patron saint of England because the Pope and Wikipedia say so; and as we know both are infallible! So, how should I proceed? Would it be best to put this whole discussion on the article's talk page with an introductory comment, leaving it for a day or so for a possible response, and then making the changes? Clio the Muse 23:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smart idea, Clio! Xn4 05:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of General Knyphausen

Can you help me find a picture of General Knyphausen of the American Revolution? Thanks!!!!!67.120.75.214 19:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, try the Knyphausen family at Schloss Lütetsburg - that's at Lütetsburg in Germany. Xn4 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US BANKING System Structure

I am looking to understand the US banking structure system. My frame of reference is the Canadian banking system and I want to understand the differences/similarities between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.217.61 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try comparing Banking in Canada with Banking in the United States. --Halcatalyst 02:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian State v. Michigan

I got a question about the recent upset between app state and michigan. I thought that app was a division II team...so why are they playing division I teams? I went to the article on WP and it said that their confrence got bumbed up to division I, but when I go to other internet sites it still says that SoCon is a d-II confrence. So depending on what's right...why did they play michigan, or what division is the new conference in? - Rentastrawberry 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Appalachian State is a division IAA team (pronounced One Double A). That is a subdivision of Division I. Occasionally division II teams play IAA teams, and occasionally IAA teams play IA (the top tier) teams. Please note that the NCAA recently changed the name of the top two divisions to something funny like "Bowl Championship Division" and "Tournament Division". The Evil Spartan 21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Division I-A is now the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision, while Division I-AA is now the Division I Football Championship Subdivision. As Evil Spartan pointed out, there's no rule saying you can't play teams outside of your division. -- Mwalcoff 23:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any chromatically tuned brass or woodwind instruments?

I'm interested in playing exotic scales, and I was wondering if there are any chromatic brass or woodwind instruments. So far the only thing I've found is the melodica, but it seems to be mainly for solos, and I'd like to have something more flexible. I know that there are chromatic harmonicas, but the melodica seems superior.

Thanks for any help or suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.148.98 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to answer that, exactly, and someone will, of course, but slide instruments have the potential for chromatic notes, and Ornette Coleman does harmolodic scales with a conventional trumpet. I realize that neither of these are chromatically tuned instruments but, instead, musicians who are overcoming their instruments to achieve notes between the notes, but it is possible. Those are masters, of course, and that's not what you were asking about. Geogre 02:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the harmonica nor the melodica are brass or woodwind isntruments, but free reed aerophones. I guess you're not looking for those aerophones which don't use breath, but other means for the air flow instead. Otherwise, of course, there's a great selection of chromatically tuned instruments to choose from (organ, harmonium, chromatic button accordions, and so forth). As Geogre pointed out, woodwind and brass instruments are not "chromatically tuned" in that sense, most change their notes (whether chromatic, microtonal or other) by a combination of altering the length of the air column and the harmonic within the same resonator. Some, such as the bagpipe, do have multiple resonators, and Adolphe Sax created several cornets with 6 or 7, and even a trumpet in C with 13 Bells [18], but these don't qualify as chromatically tuned brass instruments either. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the central problem here is that most wind instruments have a single source for the notes (tube or whatever). Harmonicas and organs have one for each note, so you can make as many as you like and therefore any scale you like. But with a single sound-source (is there a proper name for that?) you have to work with overtones. That works well for octaves, fifths, thirds and such, but a diminished fifth is based on such a high overtone that it would probably be very hard to play (I imagine - I don't play wind instruments). It also wouldn't sound too good in conjunction with other instruments that don't use the same fundamental frequency or equally tempered instruments. A clever mix of sound sources with different fundamental frequencies might solve that. Don't know if such a thing exists, though. DirkvdM 07:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, upon reflection, I guess you could say that modern Western woodwind instruments such as the clarinet, bassoon or flute are chromatically tuned, in the sense that the positioning and size of holes, pads and keys are meticulously made to reproduce chromatic scales as precisely as possible. What confuses me a bit is that the questioner is looking for a chromatically tuned instrument to perform exotic scales. The most exotic scales to Western ears include quarter tones, microtuning or other systems outside equal temperament, so the melodica, or any other "chromatic" instrument not allowing for controlled playing of tones between the discreet chromatic steps seems a worse choice than the saxophone e.g., which let's you play chromatical and quarter-tone or other scales (with enough practice of embouchure and fingering techniques such as semi-closing pads etc.) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My imp of the perverse keeps telling me to suggest a fretless guitar or the use of inexpensive electronic processing and amplification. Down, imp, down. Geogre 14:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about an EWI then, you can tune it as you like. And our fretless is the trombone! I did finally think of the pan flute, a woodwind with multiple resonators, sometimes tuned chromatically. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resonator! That's the word I was looking for. Thanks. DirkvdM 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

Trying to identify a painting

Hello! The other day I was thinking about a painting that I had seen in a book. I've been trying to find it again since without luck, and turned here hoping someone might recognise it from my description. I believe that it was from the late-Nineteenth or early-Twentieth century; it showed a couple sitting on a couch, with the man slumped over the woman's lap, holding a hypodermic syringe. For some reason I was thinking that it had hung in the Musée d'Orsay, but it wasn't in my book of paintings from that museum, so maybe not. Wading through 60+ pages of Google Image results for various keyword combinations turned up nothing. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Thanks in advance. Heather 00:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not this is it? Carcharoth 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately; this one was more realistic, and was from a perspective directly facing the couch and the couple seated on it. I think that the title may have been "Cocaine" or "Morphine" or something like that, and I think that it may have been French or Belgian. I am sorry that I can't provide more detail; I don't know a lot about art. Thanks greatly for the help, though! Heather 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germany's arrival in haiti.

when did they came to haiti, what year, why did they come?--arab 04:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what year the first German immigrants came to Haiti, but by the second half of the 19th century German businesspeople and their families seem to have had some influence in Haiti's economy. If you're referring to when the German Navy came to Haiti, this link (and several others mirroring the text) mentions one example on June 11th, 1873. At the time, several imperialist nations took a greedy interest in Haiti, and the German empire used two German expatriates' bankruptcy as a pretext to show off their military power in the Caribbean, demanding $ 15,000 from the Haitian government under Nissage Saget. Two German warships enforced the demand - Haiti's fleet was captured, and only returned after Haiti gave in and after some of the ships had been vandalized (see link for unappetizing details). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia and the German French War of 1871

How did Russia react? S T Blues —Preceding unsigned comment added by S T Blues (talk • contribs) 05:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not all that familiar with the unification of Imperial Germany, but you might try this e-text and search for Russia (Case sensitive to avoid highlighting "Prussia" as well.) A few minutes of this took me only about twenty pages into the document and revealed fears in Europe about aggression from Russia and Great Britain establishing another Hanover-like stronghold on the continent, as well as fears that Russia would assist the German states in the event of a war on the part of Napoleon III.
The TXT file.
Hope this helps. --Demonesque 06:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it might be worth noting that Napoleon III lead France into the Crimean War against Russia, which would have almost certainly played a role in Russia's relations with France. (As well as the likely enemy of France, given that France was allied to Great Britain and the Germans accepted the Crown of Spain, putting them at odds with France. --Demonesque 06:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we know Russia and the new German Empire became pals - Dreikaiserbund and all that - it may not have been obvious to people at the time that it would work out that way. An anonymous writer produced the short story "Der Ruhm" in 1871. That features a Russo-German War that the Prussians lose. It's reprinted in I.F. Clarke's Great War with Germany. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be almost completely overlooked just how vital the role of Russia was in the whole strategy pursued by Otto von Bismarck between 1864 and 1870, particulary in relation to France. We know with hindsight that the Franco-Prussian War was over relatively quickly; but there was no guarantee of this at the time. If German forces were, for any reason, bogged down in the west, then Prussia's eastern and southern flanks would have been highly vulnerable. With his usual skill, Bismarck moved carefully to sidestep the nightmare.

Since 1863 Bismarck had made efforts to cultivate Russia, co-operating, amongst other things, in dealing with Polish insurgents. His one great concern after the defeat of Austria in the War of 1866 was that a resentful Franz Joseph might enter into an alliance with Napoleon III, an alliance that might conceivably have included the south German states, resentful of the rise of Prussia. In 1868 he held discussions with the Russians, intended to prevent such a union. The Russian government even went so far as to promise to send an army of 100,000 men against the Austrians if the country joined France in a war against Prussia. Whilst at Ems in the crucial summer of 1870 Bismarck had meetings with Tsar Alexander, also present in the spa town. Alexander, though not naturally pro-German, was persuaded, as he told his mistress, that Napoleon was 'an adventurer.'

Bismarck also had talks at Ems with Alexander Mikhailovich Gorchakov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and was assured on 14 July, days before the French declaratiion of war, that the agreement of 1868 still held: in the event of Austrian mobilisation the Russians confirmed that they would send 300,000 troops into Galicia. More than this, they also applied pressure to Denmark to remain neutral. Bismarck now had all he wanted: a counter to Austria and the assurance of a one-front war. This was one of the great diplomatic coups of the nineteenth century, whose importance has still not been fully recognised. Germany, it might even be said, came into being by the grace of Russia! Clio the Muse 00:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site with radio frequencies

I came upon a site recently, didn't appear to save it. Anyway, one was able to randomly choose any station, in a web 2.0 manner, that was an actual station on physical radio somewhere in the world. Any help in finding it would be appreciated. Baseballfan 07:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did it tune broadcast only, or also shortwave? Could it have been just places with webcasts? Edison 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Cousin

My cousin's wife is having a baby, therefore the child is my second cousin, when my second cousin grows up and has a child of his own, does that make my second cousin's child my third cousin? And when I have kids, what is the relation between my second cousin and my children called? Also between my children and my third cousin? --124.254.77.148 11:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first cousin's child is your first cousin once removed, not your second cousin. We have an article at cousin with a rather nice chart which helps. DuncanHill 11:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, but why are they "removed"? --124.254.77.148 12:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question directly, your first cousin's grandchild is your first cousin twice removed -- and you are also his/her first cousin twice removed. Why "remove"? The word has a sense that is almost like "move"; this is pretty much obsolete in North America, but in Britain people still speak of "removing" when they go to live in a different place. And a cousin who is one more "remove" away from you is one degree of kinship farther away. --Anonymous, 12:16 UTC, September 2, 2007.
Gadzooks, Anon! To say "I'm removing to Exeter" would sound amazingly old-fashioned to me. Perhaps someone very old might use it? However, the term removal van is still in common use. Xn4 21:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, one generation away; one degree of kinship could mean a lot of things. —Tamfang 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
remove is from the same root as remote. I occasionally hear/see the phrase "at one remove" to describe a viewpoint less intimate, more neutral, than some alternative. —Tamfang 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1637 Siege of Breda

I need some more detail on the Dutch siege of Breda in 1637. Some references would also be a help. CountCasimir 11:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much detail you need, but Siege of Breda (1624)#1637 is a (meagre) start. Some more detail can be found through a Google serach.[19] I expect many of the primary and secondary sources to be in Dutch or Spanish.  --Lambiam 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find all of the detail you are looking for, CountCasimir, in Breda 'Bravely Besieged' and article by F. S. Memegalos in the Ocrober 2002 issue of Military History (pp.63-9). For a more general political and strategic context try The Dutch Revolt by Geoffery Parker, The History of the Dutch-speaking Peoples, 1555-1648 by Pieter Geyl and The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall by Jonathan Israel. Clio the Muse 01:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

history: bristol members of parliament

Who was the last bristol MP who was born and brought up in the city or who was at least closely associated with it for some time before becoming an MP?

i.e. NOT Tony Benn (who was not a Bristolian before 1950) or Ernie Bevin (who was born locally and was associated with the city before becoming an MP but was not an MP for Bristol)

86.25.15.206 13:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One who was "born and brought up in the city" is William Wills, of the Bristol tobacco family, member for Bristol East in the 1890s, but I guess you should be able to find someone more recent. One who springs to mind as "closely associated with it for some time before becoming an MP" is Stephen Williams, the current Liberal Democrat member for Bristol West. After the University of Bristol (1982-1985), he worked in Bristol, served on Avon County Council and Bristol City Councils, and fought the 1997 and 2001 general elections there before being elected to parliament in 2005. Other current members who fit that description are Doug Naysmith, Labour member for Bristol North West, who was also a local politician in Bristol for many years and Dawn Primarolo, another University of Bristol student (early 1970s) who stayed on in Bristol and went on to become the member for Bristol South at the 1987 election. Xn4 18:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cossack Dance

Maybe a silly question, but does anone know the name for the (apparently stereotypical) type of Russian dance in which the dancer squats on their legs, arms folded, and kicks their legs out forwards? I can't find a reference to it on the Wikipedia dance pages. Rusty2005 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopak (a Ukrainian dance, but for some reason many people strongly associate it with Russia). Skarioffszky 16:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rusty2005 17:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a Ukrainian martial art called Combat Hopak. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does it work? If the opponent swings a sword to slice off your head, you just squat and kick him in a tender place? Edison 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I doubt that would work very well. :-P Too bad the article doesn't specify. :-( It should be merged into Hopak, IMHO. · AndonicO Talk 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baptistry of the Duomo in Spoleto, Italy

The following is a footnote in an unpublished work:

"The baptistery/baptistry of the early Christian Church was located near the west end of the church-building. The early bapistries provided ample water for the immersion of adults. Near the end of the 6th century, it began to be incorporated into the church proper, but the Italians often retained the original location. After the 9th century, infant baptism, using little water, became the most prevalent form of the ritual."

When I visited the Duomo at Spoleto, the baptistery was decorated with Roman pagan designs. I was informed that the room was not considered part of the church proper. It had a direct entrance from the front of the church. The advantage/purpose of not being part of the church was that it allowed non-christians to witness the baptism. Was this folklore or fact? 69.201.141.45 16:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]

As far as I know being a non-Christian is not and was not considered an impediment to attending religious ceremonies by the Roman-Catholic Church. So the rationale given does not seem right. Traditionally baptisms were held where water was available, like from a spring, and originally just in the open air, while the main religious ceremonies like the Eucharist were held in houses, originally just private dwellings, later dedicated houses of worship. An obvious advantage of keeping the (often quite large) baptistery and the church building separate is that the church could be built on the best available piece of land, and that its architectural plan did not need to accommodate a large quite different structure. Most likely, the church builders saw no reason to unite the two kinds of structures, each serving its purpose by itself quite satisfactorily.  --Lambiam 17:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the early days, there were Catechumens... AnonMoos 04:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For much of the late Antique and early-early medieval period only the baptised were allowed in the nave (naos), and catechumens were supposed to stay in the narthex or porch, which was often a large feature. Hence also separate baptistries. Johnbod 12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art destroyed by War / Il Campo Santo di Pisa

The following is a paragraph from an unpublished 19th century work:

The famous Campo Santo did not equal my expectations. It has more the air of a museum of antiquities than a place of sculpture. The cemetery at Bologna, for dignity and beauty, I think decidedly superior. Nevertheless, this spot is not without great interest. It is a simple cloister in the form of a long parallelogram; the open court within containing earth brought from Jerusalem. The monuments which crowd the corridors are a miscellaneous assemblage of Etruscan, Grecian, Roman, and a few modern sculptures. In many an ancient sarcophagus, the original dust has been displaced to give room for that of some modern hero, whose “fitful fever” occupied an age later in the world’s history by a score or so of centuries. The best modern works are a bas-relief by Thorwaldsen and a statue of Grief, called The Inconsolable by Bartolini. The latter excels for its execution rather than its good taste, while the former for both. The walls of the building are frescoed with scripture subjects, now much defaced.

I searched the article on the Camposanto of Pisa in Wikipedia and there is no detailed account of the survivors of the 1944 bombing. I visited the Camposanto, but have no recollection of a bas-relief by Bertel Thorwaldsen nor of the work by Lorenzo Bartolini, though I probably was suffering from the "Stendhal syndrome" at the time. Did these works survive? It is interesting to notice how much damage Italy suffered from Allied bombing and retreating Nazis. Yet it is hardly mentioned. If in northern Italy or Naples using a 19th century tourist guide-book, you will be surprised to find that many of the murals or churches in the book no longer exist. Is it for the sake of not offending the Brits, Americans, and members of the Axis (all tourists now)that it is "forgotten"? Is it part of the healing process to forget the material losses since the human casualty was so much greater? Is there guilt of fascism involved? 69.201.141.45 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]


Mind-Shattering Things

Alright, here is my second question of the week: can you direct me to literature, music, films, or works of art that can produce a vast explosion of consciousness and a sense of overabounding wonder? Things that are able to induce a state of sublimity without the use of drugs.

The examples that I've gathered from my own experience include:

archetypal psychology, visionary and mystical writing, Borges, Moby-Dick, Shakespeare, Shelley, the Bible, the Ancient Mariner, Gustave Dore's illustrations, Buddhist art, Hindu myth, Blake, Paradise Lost, world history, travel and nature writing, psychedelic music, really odd thoughts, magic, weird tales, and fantasy

Thank you for any additions you might have! 161.13.11.211 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

I don't mean to be dismissive, but it sounds like you're trying to rediscover 1968. Ok. Folks then found Hieronymous Bosch to fit, and, of course, On the Road by Jack Kerouac. This is excepting pscyhedelic music, which I, for one, used to make. One theorist of the genre explained to me that the best drug music was made by people who didn't take drugs. Druggies, he said, made folk music and Grateful Dead music, while straight folks trying to get a druggie experience made trippy music. I don't know if that's true, but most of the mind-altering stuff has the air of a clean chemistry about it. Oh, and German Expressionism, both in film and in painting, can be pretty wild. Dada can do it, too, if you're in the mood. Andalucian Dog will certainly send you to another place -- as will Eraserhead and the music of The Residents -- but it might not be a very happy place. Geogre 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Fire Upon the Deep made my head spin, dunno about yours. —Tamfang 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For books, see Books that will induce a mindfuck. —Keenan Pepper 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness; what a list, Keenan Pepper! Some of the 'mindfucks' would struggle to be defined-how shall I put it-as 'heavy breathing'; and, no, I am not prepared to say which! I think, Melancholy Danish, that you may have read Malcolm Lowry's Under the Volcano, the one 'mindfuck' that does not even appear on the linked list? If not, it's a great whirlwind of images, words and ideas; sublime in every degree. In my estimation it is the best English novel of the last century, and by that I mean of the novels written by a person from England. Clio the Muse 23:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has no-one mentioned William Burroughs yet? One ounce of Burroughs has more power than a hundredweight of Kerouac. DuncanHill 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, because Burroughs and Kerouac are often considered of the same type, but they're really totally different types of writers, people, mindfucks, etc.. I think it is unfortunate that they are so often put side by side, since they've really got very little in common other than some shared acquaintances and time period... --24.147.86.187 23:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in something that'll raise your heartbeat, I found White Jazz to be pretty wonderfully frantic, in a "popped some bennies and shot a man" sort of way. As for film, Adaptation. really blew my mind as meta-meta-art, and one that played with the boundaries between fiction and non-fiction in clever ways (in the same way Ellroy's works do), though I know some people feel otherwise. --24.147.86.187 23:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The things that blow my mind are books about science and history that make the mind boggle when being forced to contemplate the mysteries and wonders of the universe, the possibilities of eternity, and the vastness of space. Books include Profiles of the Future by Arthur C. Clarke, Atom by Lawrence Krauss, Tau Zero by Poul Anderson, and moments during TV documentary series such as Cosmos by Carl Sagan, The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, and many of the archaeology and history documentaries by Michael Wood. Carcharoth 02:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first time anything had that effect on me, it was André Chénier, when I was a teenager. Xn4 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to Arnold Schoenberg's Gurre-Lieder, preferably live in a concert hall. -- JackofOz 05:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first two things that came to mind, and which are fairly new and not in the "classic" league of, say, Moby Dick, are the paintings of Alex Grey and the Ware Tetralogy books by Rudy Rucker. As usual with these things, your mileage may vary. Pfly 05:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conlon Nancarrow's Study for player piano #36 (listen here, or here with a Dutch introduction). Zipangu by Claude Vivier. Jonchaies by Iannis Xenakis. Skarioffszky 08:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly, The White Album by The Beatles had a pretty mind-shattering impact, unfortunately. --Dweller 08:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) If you want travel writing, try Bruce Chatwin, for example The Songlines. In film, Andrei Rublev can nail you to your seat for three hours, mouth agape. Stalker isn't bad either. And as for books on film, have you read Flicker by Theodore Roszak?--Rallette 10:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

π is enlightening, though it hurt my head (albeit probably not as much as it did to Max). Some people find Koyaanisqatsi and its sequels wonderous (others find them pretentious nonsense). For a darker awakening, the music of Godspeed You! Black Emperor is remarkable, especially F♯A♯∞. A part of East Hastings, one of the "movements" on the album, appears to be the movie soundtrack of choice these days to evoke foreboding. I heard it used in two trailers in a row recently, presumably reflecting the tension of its first evocative use in 28 Days Later. Rockpocket 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I was going to suggest Godspeed You Black Emperor as well, so maybe that says something. Their Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven and Autechre's Tri Repetae were the albums that had that sort of effect on me. Recury 14:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek would shatter your mind quite nicely. · AndonicO Talk 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|200px|A life-altering experience, or a waste of 87 minutes? You decide.

September 3

To know me is to be me.

What is the oldest secret society?69.201.141.45 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could tell you, but then.... DuncanHill 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Secret society. Freemasonry has many mysteries and secrets, but could we call it a secret society? It claims to date from the time of King Solomon's Temple, but evidence of that is lacking. Xn4 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean still extant? If not, the Sicarii were around at the turn of the first millennium, but they're not still fighting the Romans. Probably. --Dweller 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat of the Confederacy

Was the defeat of the Confederacy, as Lee suggested, all down to the superior resorces of the North? Hungry Hank 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What else? —Tamfang 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skill of the soldiers, and the fact that Great Britain stopped secretely supporting the Confederacy after the North gained an international abolitionist image? --99.245.177.110 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the first three years of the war the South seemed to more often have skillful generals in critical command positions. There's an interesting little book Why the North Won the Civil War which briefly examines several aspects of the question for a general audience. The most general conclusion is that if the South didn't strike a military knockout blow relatively early in the war, and wasn't able to wear down Northern morale or attract European intervention, then it was bound to lose, since in a long war of attition the North's numerical superiority in economy and population would become decisive. Of course, if Jefferson Davis had allowed the brightest minds under him (most notably Judah P. Benjamin on the civilian side and Robert E. Lee on the military side) full scope to exercise their talents -- instead of fussily trying to micromanage things, as he so often did -- then probably the Confederate cause would have been more successful over a longer period... AnonMoos 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they'd have had to take Washington DC in a surprise attack, at the outset of the war, then negotiate for peace from there. The other alternative by which the Confederacy could endure would be to avoid the war entirely. StuRat 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there an early opportunity to take Washington, which the Southern commander declined? As for avoiding the war, the battle of Fort Sumter happened after Lincoln threatened to invade if tribute (his new tariff) wasn't paid. —Tamfang 09:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book "Reveille in Washington" described one day when Confederate General Jubal Early (iirc) was in a position to readily take Washington D.C., due to bad timing which led to a lack of adequate troops to defend the city. The defenders turned out clerks from the War department, uniformed militia and volunteers to show a presence in the ramparts and give the appearance of a better defense than they really had. Good spying (which the Cinfederacy usually had) would have told the Rebel general the true situation and the capitol could have been taken, with much of the government. But the bravado caused hesitation and eventually regular troops arrived sufficient to properly defend the city. Edison 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.110, saying the Confederacy failed because it lost British support strikes me as kinda like saying it failed because it never had Chinese support. The loss of foreign support merely unmasked the difference in strength (if it ever was masked). —Tamfang 09:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Resources" is one way to put it. The North had won the seas thanks to northern steel. Once it had that, it could make iron clads like there was no tomorrow, while the South needed the few forges and sources for cannon, etc. The control of the seas meant steaming up rivers with invulnerable ships, and that made Vicksburg vital. On land, the North had one resource in vast superiority: numbers of humans. The South won all the way to the end of the war, in land battles with Lee, but it lost in the West with some inferior generals and with lack of control of the rivers, although the confederates did some amazing things to try to even the odds. However, in the east, in the Virginia campaigns, Lee won but lost, because Grant had tens of thousands more to lose at a given battle, where Lee had no reinforcements coming. The Battle of Cold Harbor is the most grim thing imaginable. Grant lost soldiers at a terrific pace. He would lose 10,000 to Lee's 1,000 and yet be able to replace those soldiers, while every loss to Lee was a loss for good. The British "secret support" was very small, as the blockade (see Navy: none in the South) choked it almost instantly. In the West: rivers, some bad Confederate leadership, some great Union leadership. In the East: darned-near human wave tactics. In the South, though, a yet different problem for the Confederates. Because the Confederacy was built on the idea of supreme state's rights, the states did not cooperate well with one another, and the Georgia governor Joseph E. Brown was really cute. He decided that none of his troops should be sent off to be commanded by Virginians, and so he cut off all support to Lee and kept all his troops at home in a "state militia" that had no leadership at all. The army that fought Sherman in Georgia was the Western army. Once Sherman gave them the slip, he only had to face a bunch of unequipped, poorly led rabble of Joe Brown's devising. The other component of the Southern campaign was Florida and Charleston, and the South defended these very, very well to the end. So, what was it? Resources, yes, both in terms of the farms of Indiana that weren't being turned into battlegrounds (if the south wanted food, it had to send its soldiers home to farm, and if it wanted soldiers, it had to depopulate its farms), the steel and industry that was never much imperiled, stable currency from a federal power, iron, saltpeter, and federated military commands. The defensive strategy the South adopted (not attacking Washington, except for one very brief cavalry raid) was hardly a mistake, as it allowed for many of the brilliant early victories, but it meant that the South had to win quickly or not at all. Geogre 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. William Tecumseh Sherman was a very good general, Robert E. Lee was a great general, and Ulysses S. Grant was a butcher. That's more or less the verdict of Shelby Foote, but he seems to admire Grant as a man who did what had to be done, and what had to be done was to win at any cost in lives. It's also one of those myths of the war that Gettysburg was when the Union won. In fact, Gettysburg was more or less a Confederate victory, but it is when the war turned and when the South's lack of supplies meant that it was already losing the war of attrition. (Foote also admires Bedford Forrest despite his own cruelty (and what he would do after the war, of course).) Some of those Confederate ship designs (rams, submarines, naval mines) were horrible and inventive. Utgard Loki 14:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the end of the war, the north could ship soldiers and equipment to the front by newly laid train tracks, while the Rebels had little food or ammunition and no shoes. Shelby Foote said the north fought with one hand tied behind its back, and if the south started to win, the north could start using the other hand. The north had four times the white population of the south at the start of the war. The South was sending young and old into battle, while the north could spare college students from the draft. More early Confederate victories might have induced Europe to break the Union blockade and trade weapons for cotton and tobacco. But crop failures in Europe and availability of cotton from Egypt made norther grain more critical than southern cotton, and the Emancipation Proclamation made supporting the south morally less appealing than merely helping part of the U.S. to separate from the rest of the U.S. There were good, mediocre and lousy generals on both sides, and good and bad luck on both sides. Ruthless Union generals (like Grant was at the end) early in the war could have ended things a lot sooner. Good politicians on both sides could have prevented over 600,000 soldiers being killed. Per American Civil War, "Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6% in the North and an extraordinary 18% in the South." Edison 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Foote was being very seasonable with his suggestion that the North fought with one hand. That, I think, came in the Ken Burns documentary. In his three volume The Civil War: A Narrative, he covered the reasons why the North's hands were both pretty severely tied better. The population of the North did not like the war. There was a substantial copperhead population, and there were absolutely staggering riots in New York City when the Emancipation Proclamation was made. New York was not the only site of draft riots, either, and high and low society alike was at least ambivalent about letting the South go. As it was, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and faced extreme resistance from his cabinet, his generals, and the public at large. If we look simply at materiel, then the North could never have lost a defensive war, but the rule of warfare is that the attacker must win, or he loses, while a defender need only not lose to win. The military manuals of the day, as Foote relates, suggested that any attacker facing fixed works needed nearly a 3:1 superiority in numbers to prevail. Had the North felt that it was a war of it's survival, it could have brought both fists forward and would have from the start of the war. Field leadership was very clearly superior in the South for three years of the war, and it's only in the fourth year that the North had weeded out some of its peace time promotions and Mexican War old timers to get military leaders with flexibility. The South, starting from a disadvantage and having to assemble its army, had some big, big mistakes in leadership (the beloved "fighting bishop" of Leonidas Polk), but it generally had them overruled by more able generals. Yes, resources, but no, it wasn't as if they were playing while their youth lay dead on the battlefield. That simply makes no sense. Geogre 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utgard Loki, I'm not a little bemused by your suggestion that Gettysburg was 'more or less' a Confederate victory. Do you mean it was a 'victory' because Lee was able to get what was left of his army, including the remnants of George Pickett's Virginian division, safely out of Pennsylvania, much as he had withdrawn from Maryland after his defeat at the Battle of Antietam? Otherwise it can only be considered as the kind of 'victory' that that King Pyrrus himself might have understood! Clio the Muse 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely pyrrhic, of course, and when Pyrrhus said "a few more such victories, and I shall be ruined," this is one where the victory was the beginning of the ruin of the Southern army. It was a win, in that the South not only managed a pretty amazing retreat, but also because the South generally inflicted more casualties on the North than vice versa. As a percentage of soldiers present, even the South did not lose. However, it was the first significant time that the North didn't lose to Lee. I don't think they won at all, but they did not end up with stolen supplies (commonly before, they did), flanked, or driven back. Also, both the Gettysburg Address and other documents from the time suggest that Lincoln didn't see it as a victory, quite. In the West, the Union was routinely winning or losing in the lower case. Gettysburg allowed quite a few Union commanders to rise, as well, and show themselves as the sorts of ruthless men Lincoln needed (even though that didn't really work out). Utgard Loki 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the numbers? In casualties and dead, the South came out ahead, but in field objectives it was a loss. A defender who doesn't lose, wins, and that was the time when the North was on defense. Therefore the South lost, although they won the numerical game. Pickett's charge was horrible, but there had been Northern Picketts before, too. I think one reason that battle gets talked about (aside from its being a singular occasion when the Union forces don't look like bullies) is that it was an absolutely monumental failure on Lee's part. His normally excellent communications failed, and he pushed troops into untenable positions without knowing the lay of the field. (I had an ancestor at the battle who survived to the end of the war, minus a limb or two. He saved his amputated leg and insisted on being buried with it decades later, or such was family lore.) Geogre 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the original question, I would say that the Civil War has always seemed to me as if there were two styles of conflict being fought side by side: the great material battle that the Confederacy was bound to lose, and the search for the 'knock out blow', which it might conceivably have won. The first kind of conflict was to emerge in a fully developed form in the Great War, a struggle between nations; between strength of will and depth of productive capacity; the kind of 'struggle in depth' rarely effected by the outcome of a single battle, no matter how large. In the Civil War one can detect evidence of this in Grant's final campaign from the Wilderness to Petersburg, particularly at Petersburg. The other kind of conflict based on the single 'knock out battle', the kind of thing that had been such a feature of earlier wars, including the campaigns of Napoleon, was what Lee looked for time and again, and why the Confederacy pursued such a high risk 'offensive-defensive' strategy. That this kind of thing was not confined to the past was to be fully demonstrated not long after the conclusion of the Civil War by the Prussians, who defeated the Austrians in such a manner, and the French not long after. Lee never found his Waterloo. Clio the Muse 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic split: English and Scottish lines?

The Protestant Act of 1701 enabled Sophia of Hanover, a descendent of the Winter Queen of Bohemia and object of the English Gunpowder Plot, to succeed whereas the Scottish legitimists in the form of the Jacobites were left in the dust. What happened? How did an English Catholic plot result in a Protestant succession? How did a Scottish Catholic line of exiles descend from the Protestant Charles I? It doesn't make sense! Did the English and Scottish Catholics have no community and they were more politically united with their respective Protestant countrymen? Lord Loxley 02:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "happened" is that many influential Englishmen feared that having an openly Catholic monarch would result in some form of heresy trials or inquisition against Protestants within England, and the subordination of England to its main enemy France in international affairs -- and the actions of James II did absolutely nothing to allay these fears. AnonMoos 03:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are underestimating the breadth of the opposition to a Hanoverian succession in Queen Anne's final years. Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke wasn't a Catholic. The relevance of Guy Fawkes's cunning plan to events in 1712–1715 isn't blindingly obvious. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an English-vs-Scots thing. Though the Stuart dynasty originated in Scotland, by 1701 no monarch had set foot there for fifty years (and that's only if we count Charles II as succeeding immediately on his father's beheading rather than at the Restoration). The only royal consort after 1603 with Scottish roots was the Late Queen Mum (daughter of an Earl of Strathmore). — James II was a Catholic convert, and (iirc) the first Catholic monarch since Bloody Mary Tudor (in England) and Mary Stuart (in Scotland); neither was a favorable precedent, and James himself had unpopular notions of his own authority. The move to depose him was triggered by the birth of a son to his second (Catholic) wife; until then, his opponents were willing to wait for one of his Protestant daughters (Mary II and Anne) to succeed him. — That the Jacobite revolt happened in Scotland may be simply because Scotland was a remote and neglected province. —Tamfang 09:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lord Loxely. I hope you do not mind me being so direct, but you appear a little confused over some of the issues here. Before proceeding to tackle your question it might help if I clarified things, for the benefit of other readers, as much as yourself.

There was no 'Protestant Act' in 1701. There was, rather, the Act of Settlement, by which succession to the throne of England was settled on Sophia of Hanover and her descendants. The aim, of course, was to secure succession in the Protestant line, thus excluding the Catholic James Francis Edward Stuart, the son of the deposed James II. Jacobite, from Jacobus, the Latin for James, was a term coined to describe the followers of the senior Stuart line; it is not therefore technically correct to describe them thus, as you have in the above. Nor should they really be described as 'Scottish'. The line certainly originated in Scotland, though by the time of James Francis Edward it had more French and Italian blood than anything else. Only the Catholic Stuarts, moreover, were 'left in the dust', to use your expression. Queen Anne, herself a Protestant and the younger daughter of James II, was, after all, the last of the Stuarts to occupy the throne of England. Indeed, it was the death of her son Prince William, Duke of Gloucester in 1700, and the likely extinction of the Protestant Stuarts, that precipitated the Act of Settlement.

In find it really hard to make sense of your connection between the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and the Act of Settlement. There is absolutely no causal relationship here. Nor do I understand what you mean when you say that Elizabeth of Bohemia was an 'object' of the Gunpowder Plot. It was the intention of the plotters to place her on the throne, that much is true, as a Catholic queen. But the Catholic descent from Charles I came with the conversion of his son James, while still Duke of York, in the early 1670s. In political terms this was certainly serious because of the suspicion of Catholicism and its links with Continental absolutism, though it would probably have passed without consequence if James had been remote from the succession. It became explosive because he was the only legitimate heir of Charles II, his elder brother. In the late 1670s the outbreak of the so-called Popish Plot saw serious attempts by the emerging Whig movement to have James removed altogether from the line of succession. But Exclusionism failed, and James succeeded peacefully enough in 1685, his Catholicism notwithstanding. Attempts to remove him in England by James, Duke of Monmouth, and in Scotland by Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll were a complete failure.

There matters might have stood but for James increasing arrogance and tendency to resort to extra-parliamentary action. In particular the trial of the Seven Bishops for seditious libel led to fears that the Church of England itself was under threat. Even so, James would, in all probability, have continued to occupy the throne so long as his heir was his Protestant daughter Mary, wife of William of Orange. However, the birth of James Francis Edward in June 1688, and the prospect of a permanent Catholic line, precipitated the Glorious Revolution and all that followed, as Tamfang has described in the above.

Finally, it should be made clear that the Jacobite rising of 1689 in Scotland did not come about because the country was, as Tamfang puts it, a 'remote and neglected province'. The Jacobite movement at that time was largely confined to the west Highlands, to those clans suspicious of the return of Campbell power, yet another feature of the Glorious Revolution.

Anyway, I hope this is all clear. But please ask if you need any further information. Clio the Muse 23:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more small point of confusion can be cleared up - Elizabeth Stewart (later the 'Winter Queen of Bohemia') was not a Catholic. Her father, James I and VI, was brought up in the Kirk, and her mother, Anne of Denmark, as a Lutheran. This Queen Anne of Scotland, later of England, was sometimes suspected of Catholicism and managed to confuse people on the issue. She had sworn an oath at her Scottish coronation "...to withstand and despise all papistical superstitions", but also would not conform to the Kirk, nor later the Church of England. Many people (including Queen Elizabeth I in her last years) believed Anne had converted to Catholicism or else might do so. Elizabeth Stewart was only nine at the time of the Gunpowder Plot and so was seen by the Catholics as potentially malleable, especially given her mother's equivocations. However, when Elizabeth later married, her husband, Frederick V of the Palatinate, was a Protestant prince, and they brought up their many children as Lutherans, including Sophia of Hanover. Xn4 03:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble: It became explosive because he was the only legitimate heir of Charles II, his elder brother. Do you mean in the male line? —Tamfang 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point was: The Catholic Gunpowder Plot's motives to place Elizabeth of Bohemia on the throne, led to the Protestant succession of Sophia's son. This was an English movement, through and through. Guy Fawkes was even a soldier of the Spanish Habsburgs, like other English Jesuits and opposed to the line of Margaret Tudor. King Henry VIII barred the Scots and the English Parliament apparently respected this, after seeing that King James VI of Scots (like his son Charles) was not going to follow English customs. There was no love of the Scottish side, which preferred a Stuart-Bourbon Auld Alliance renewal and totally different way of things. The Scottish preference (how many English Jacobites?) descended from the hated Charles I, beheaded by the English for his apparent Auld Alliance which was prejudicial against England but favourable to the Scots as allies of the French--think of Queen Henrietta Maria. The political ambitions of English and Scottish were diametrically opposed and regardless of religious differences between conationals, it appears that Catholics and Protestants in each country shared more than with their coreligionists across borders. I just realised this yesterday, which made me think differently on the events and as of English descent, I feel less "guilty" or whatever for the "woes" of the Scots. It rolls off my back. The Scots wanted things one way and my ancestors wanted another. Animosity only dissipated when latent frustrations were released onto the Irish, so it really took the Pope to realise how the Protestant (Sophia of Hanover) and Catholic (Mary of Modena) branches of the Hanoverian line were what united the British. It was the introduction of foreign dynasties which lulled internal violence throughout the Britain, exported to Ireland. It just leaves one thing: why didn't the English resort to an heir of Lady Jane Grey (descent from Mary Tudor), instead of use James's daughter's line against the Scots? Is it because Elizabeth had two lines from Henry VII, plus the two Stuart lines of Mary and Lord Darnley, so they could control Scotland as well? I think the English Jesuits already tried to recruit the heirs of Mary Tudor during the plots (Babington, Throgmorton etc.) of the time when Elizabeth Tudor was queen of England, but were rebuffed/exposed and which is why they chose Elizabeth Stuart. Lord Loxley 06:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tordesillas

A couple of weeks ago our Clio wrote:

English sailors first caught sight of the Falklands in the late sixteenth century. In the following century the government was to make a half-hearted claim, though under the Treaty of Tordesillas they fell within the Spanish orbit. . . .

My question: why would England give a damn for the Treaty of Tordesillas? —Tamfang 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official English position was Uti possidetis... AnonMoos 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that article confirms my guess, that the English state did not consider itself bound by a treaty between two Catholic powers. —Tamfang 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James I said he recognized Spanish sovereignty over the lands actually in Spain's possession, but not the Spanish claims to all parts of the New World beyond the line set by the Treaty of Tordesillas. This treaty was to some degree superseded by the Treaty of Madrid of 1750. Xn4 13:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

England may not have given 'a damn', as you put it Tamfang, about the Treaty of Tordesillas itself. What it would and did 'give a damn' about was the possible consequences of intruding in the Spanish sphere of influence. The intitial seventeenth century claim was not pursued because of the political implications. In an attempt to clarify matters the question of sovereignty was raised with the Spanish in 1748, who made it clear that they would take a hostile view of any English presence. After the Seven Years War England was immeasurably stronger; so while the affair of 1770 brought Spain close to war, the country was not prepared to act without French support; hence the fudge of 1771, which left the whole question of sovereignty entirely open

On the general question of Anglo-Spanish relations, there were times when London proceeded with considerable care. For instance, the failure of the Scottish Darien scheme, an attempt to establish a trading post on the Isthmus of Panama in the days before the Parliamentary union of 1707, was in part due to the fact that William III would offer no support, not wanting to alienate the Spanish. Though the region fell within the Spanish 'sphere of influence' they had no presence in the immediate area. There was, therefore, no Uti possidetis, though that made little practical difference to the outcome. Clio the Muse 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that all the English settlements in North America were in defiance of the Treaty of Tordesillas. Also, Uti Possidetis was a stated English policy, while the Darien scheme was a Scottish venture, at a time when England and Scotland were two separate kingdoms which happened to have the same king. And the Spanish did in fact make use of the Isthmus of Panama as an important seasonal Atlantic-Pacific trade link. AnonMoos 03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weathercock on churchtowers

Please tell me the origin of the weathercock on churchtowers —Preceding unsigned comment added by LvdW (talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They go back a long way – the earliest known use of a cockerel for the weather vane is from 820 A.D., on the San Faustino Maggiore in Brescia – and the origin is not really known. The German Wikipedia, in its article entitled Windrichtungsgeber, offers as a possible explanation that this is inspired by Matthew 26:74–75: "Then began he [i.e., Peter] to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly." The weathercock then supposedly admonishes us not to turn with the wind like Saint Peter did then.  --Lambiam 09:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the origin is kind of obvious, if you've ever lived on a farm with chickens (I suppose "free range" chickens). Roosters/cockerels/cocks absolutely love to go up high. Chickens can't fly, quite, but they can fly a bit. They can get up on the roof, and there is something quite masculine about a cock's desire to get up on top of everything to be king of all he surveys. The problem is that they're really hard to get back down, if they don't want to come down. Anyway, the roof is a common place for the rooster to go, although a bell tower is usually quite a bit beyond their range. Maybe it's more sophisticated than that, but they really do like to get up high. Geogre 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you find a weathercock or weathervane on a church tower? Is this a lower peak than the top of the steeple? If you refer to the steeple, I usualy see them topped by a cross. "Cock" by the way is one of those words which does not travel well across the pond. Edison 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, many church steeples have weather cocks. It's just one of those things some of us assume are done everywhere :) There's even a song we used to sing at school: "The golden cockerel crows in the morning./Wake up children welcome the day." etc in which the cockerel comes alive. I'm sure I've read other children's stories that involved the cock on the spire coming alive, and not all of them were originally from the UK suggesting it can't just be a British practice. Skittle 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all churches in the UK have a steeple (aka spire). Norman churches were built with a square tower and spires were a later (Gothic) fashion. SaundersW 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos, I was reverted when I tried to add a link to cock throwing to our article on fox tossing. -- !! ?? 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In architecture, a spire isn't quite the same as a steeple. A spire is a conical or pyramidal structure tapering upwards to a point, while a steeple is any tower (though usually a church tower), with or without a spire. Thus, a steeplechase was a cross-country race towards a church tower - a spire might help but wasn't essential! Xn4 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In some European countries Catholic churches carry a crucifix on their steeple, while the rooster sits on top of evangelical or reformed churches. This WDR site interprets the rooster as more than one Christian symbol: 1) The bible passage quoted by Lambiam, where the rooster stands for vigilance and a reminder of Peter's renunciation of Jesus. 2) As the herald of the morning light, the rooster can also be seen as symbolizing Jesus himself. The revolvable weather vane function is a useful side effect of necessity - strong winds might bend a fixed and rigid metal silhouette, even damaging the steeple. Some churches in Northern Germany have a swan instead of a rooster. Apparently this is traced back to Jan Hus's words on the stake, where he called himself a poor goose ("hus"/"husa" in Czech), but predicted the arrival of a swan whom his adversaries wouldn't be able to roast. Luther later came to be seen as the swan in Hus's prophecy, and the swans on steeples symbolize Luther. For literary reference, there's also Hans Christian Andersen's The Farmyard Cock and the Weathercock. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(snicker) I couldn't resist the desire to excise these words from their context in Geogre's post above: "... there is something quite masculine about a cock's desire to get up ...".  :) -- JackofOz 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social changes in the philippines during spanish colonizers?

I don't understand this topic and I need help about it. What are the social changes in the Philippines during spanish colonizers? Need answers right away because we will have a quiz about this topic in our Araling Panlipunan class(Social Studies)WikiPoTechizen 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the History of the Philippines particularly the section dealing with Spanish colonization, PoTechizen? I do have to say that I find your question so broadly based that I find it difficult to produce a tailored answer, or one that could possibly serve a quiz-like format. Perhaps the main thing for you to focus on is the spread of Roman Catholicism among the people of the northern islands, and the resistance to such expansion by the Muslims of Mindanao and the south. Also the Spanish seemed to have behaved with greater sensitivity to local feelings, at least in the north, and there seems to have been none of the brutal subjugation and forced conversions that marked their passage through the Americas. The co-option of local elites led to the creation of the Principalia, an abiding feature of Philippine society and politics. In this regard Philip II of Spain's decree of June 1594 is worth quoting at length;
It is not right that the Indian chiefs of Filipinas be in a worse condition after conversion; rather they should have such treatment that would gain their affection and keep them loyal, so that with the spiritual blessings that God has communicated to them by calling them to His true knowledge, the temporal blessings may be added, and they may live contentedly and comfortably. Therefore, we order the governors of those islands to show them good treatment and entrust them, in our name, with the government of the Indians, of whom they were formerly lords. In all else the governors shall see that the chiefs are benefited justly, and the Indians shall pay them something as a recognition, as they did during the period of their paganism, provided it be without prejudice to the tributes that are to be paid us, or prejudicial to that which pertains to their encomenderos.
As I have said, quite a difference from the Americas. Clio the Muse 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt GDP

What is the forecasted GDP in Egypt for 2007,2008 and 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moatazy (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.economist.com/countries/Egypt/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast They offer more information but it comes at a price. This publication is probably one of the most widely respected Economics publications around. Not quite what you are after but does predict growth so you could always use it to work out the GDP for the years in question. ny156uk 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siena Duomo Mosaic Pavement

Please what are the 2008 dates for the complete viewing of the mosaic floor in the Siena Duomo? Katy Bedford 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Siena Duomo article, the uncovered floor be seen for a period of six to ten weeks each year, generally including the month of September. The 2008 dates may not have been announced yet. See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 13#The Siena Duomo's Pavement.  --Lambiam 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if someone pays a no-limit credit card's monthly payments with the same credit card?

There are some cards out there without a spending limit, so the owner can theoretically spend as much as they'd like.

However, say the times get poor and the owner doesn't have a legitimate income. To keep living as he has been, he uses his limitless credit card.

Then to pay his minimum payments, he cashes it out from an ATM, deposits it into his bank account, and pays it from there. Or he does a "balance transfer" from his credit card to his debit card and back again. This routine could go on for the rest of his life, but would it? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As our credit card article says : "Many credit cards can also be used in an ATM to withdraw money against the credit limit extended to the card but many card issuers charge interest on cash advances before they do so on purchases. The interest on cash advances is commonly charged from the date the withdrawal is made, rather than the monthly billing date. Many card issuers levy a commission for cash withdrawals, even if the ATM belongs to the same bank as the card issuer." - so, no, you can't avoid interest by paying off a credit card bill with the same card or even with another card. Gandalf61 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask about avoiding interest, I asked about whether paying the card's minimum every month with the same card would work. Also, what about balance transfers? Could the minimum payment be transferred to the bank account's debit card and back to the credit card to pay that off? Will anything happen when its owner keeps this up? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 18:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the process described, a cash advance was taken and used to pay the monthly minimum. The downside is there is usually a fee for the advance, and then a higher interest rate than for purchases may be applied from the date of the advance. Money is money to the card company. But each month this is done, the monthly minimum will increase. At any time, the company may decide the borrower is a poor credit risk and disallow further cash advances, or the card may reach its max limit, then the house of cards collapses. User:Donald Hosek on August 29 coined a term for this that I like :"autoponzification," as in the classic Ponzi scheme. Individuals and businesses have sometimes fallen into this practice, leading to economic failure, or perhaps just postponin the inevitable, when they start out with the intention to only do it one month. One can also use a cash advance from a new card to pay the minimum on an old card, but a credit report for the issuance of a new card might trigger a drop in credit rating and a higher interest rate on the old card. The issuer of the card may well be able to take back the "no limit" provision and refuse to allow any higher borrowing level: check the card agreement. Many issuers state that they can change the terms of the agreement when it suits them, and your only recourse would be to cancel it and continue making minimum payments. People sometimes get stuck with a string of payday loans or even juice loans from the mob, with the balance and the payments constantly increasing, without even any additional borrowing, and it rarely ends well. Even bankruptcy is no longer the kind and gentle solution to the problem that it once was in the U.S. The ironic thing is that the less able the borrower is to pay, the higher the interest climbs, to 30% and beyond. Edison 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Farmer's Wife 1796-1797

The book Diary of a Farmer's Wife 1796-1797 (edited?) by Anne Hughes and published in 1964(?) is of unknown provenence. A Google search comes up with some pages saying it is fiction and some saying it is edited non-fiction. Anyone know which is correct please. -- SGBailey 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the "Biography" section of the libraries that I checked. Most pull that data from the Library of Congress, which tells me that the LoC has it in the Biography section. As such, it would be non-fiction. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it is all true. Many biographies are packed full of fictional information. -- kainaw™ 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article List of diarists calls this book "spurious, published 1964". If that's correct, then such made-up diaries were doing well at the time. The Diary of a Young Lady of Fashion in the Year 1764-1765 by Magdalen King-Hall is another example from the 1960s. Xn4 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is listed under "Fake diaries" in List of diarists. Do you think it should be moved? -- SGBailey 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd say it needs a little more research. Xn4 21:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...fake diaries designed to deceive historians into thinking them part of the archival record. One such example is The Diary of a Farmer's Wife 1796–1797 (1964) by 'Anne Hughes' (Jeanne Preston), which was televised by the BBC and screened as an educational programme to show British schoolchildren what everyday life used to be like in rural Georgian England. Ruthven, K.K. (2001) Faking Literature, p. 45.

—eric 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Folio Society later published it as Anne Hughes Her Boke by "Anne Hughes [Jeanne Preston]". It was edited by Mollie Preston with an introduction by Michael Croucher (London, 1981). So a good-quality fake! Xn4 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, based on the his genitive, I'd have to say that the title of the latter, at least, is suspect. Did some people still insert artificial his genitives in 1796? I suppose. One can never rule these things out. However, if it were 1696 it would make more sense to have "Hughes Her Boke." Heck, that spelling of "book" belongs to an even earlier era. Most odde, if trew. Geogre 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gather Anne Hughes was said to be a Herefordshire farmer's wife without any formal education. You shouldn't underestimate the way Prayer Book spellings and turns of phrase hang on in rural areas, Geogre... Thou, thee, thy and their verbal forms can still be heard in everyday speech in some parts of England. Xn4 03:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By no means am I being argumentative, but your answer begs an interesting question -- one I didn't seek when I was working on his genitive -- are there instances of his genitives in the King James Version? I don't think we can search electronically, without much labor, but I cannot recall any. I know the 1787 American BCP, because I got one some years ago, and the 1920 (of course...being a Rite II guy), but I could understand "boke" as an isolate better than "Hughes her." It could be a Middle English holdover, because there was a somewhat rare ME intensifier genitive. (Well, folks, someone has to be interested in things like whether "her book" occurs.) Geogre 10:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Geogre, I only meant it's more or less plausible as a fake, not that Anne Hughes her boke is a genuine survival. As I recall, the his genitive doesn't properly include a her genitive. No, I can't think of any his genitives in the King James Bible. If there are none, we can thank its translators again for being highly literate men: linguists, indeed. Xn4 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia fonts

Hi. I've just used a font of the Utopia family for a presentation and started wondering about this font family. Who designed it and when? How did it get on my computer? I somehow remember that it is an older font, pre-dating the digital era, maybe from mid of the 20th century. Does anybody know more? An article on it would be great. Simon A. 18:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Robert Slimbach. It says "His time at Adobe Systems in California has seen the production of, among others, the "Utopia" (1988). See also [20] for more info on the font. Edison 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish word

Which Spanish word sounds exactly like the French "quoi"? --99.245.177.110 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cua? SaundersW 21:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That answer is wrong. Cua is Catalan, and this is a translation of it. I'm crossing out the answer. In fact, the word "cua" does not exist in Spanish. The Evil Spartan 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this gaping tomb?

Consider the following written in 1856 when he was visiting a natural formation in Malta known as "The Devil's Punch-bowl." "I had to make a precipitate retreat from the Devil’s Punch-bowl, around which, as about the gaping tomb of Wizard Scott, beings not good to gaze upon were beginning to accumulate." The following footnote was added: "Possibly refers to Sir Walter Scott who was known as “The Wizard of the North” after publishing several novels anonymously." If the editor is correct in identifying the wizard as Sir Walter Scott, what does the "gaping tomb" refer to?69.201.141.45 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how to edit you into a new question...
The "Wizard Scott" is referred to by Walter Scott in the "Lay of the Last Minstrel, canto two, XIII
     ``In these far climes it was my lot
     To meet the wondrous Michael Scott,
         A wizard, of such dreaded fame, 
     Than when, in Salmanca's cave,
     Him listed his magic wand to wave,
         The bells would ring in Notre Dame! 
     Some of his skill he taught to me;
     And Warrior, I could say to thee
     The words that cleft Eildon hills in three,
         And bridled the Tweed with a curb of stone: 
     But to speak them were a deadly sin;
     And for having but thought them my heart within,
         A treble penance must be done.
He was a real person, living in the C13, and his burial place is disputed, maybe Home Coltrame, in Cumberland; maybe Melrose Abbey. However his books are supposed to be buried with him.SaundersW 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant article is at Michael Scot, but Scott does seem to be the more common spelling. Tytler's Lives of Scottish Worthies has a chapter on Scott and can be read or downloaded through Google books. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Punch Bowl does not say - is the devil particularly partial to fruit cups? -- !! ?? 00:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Gardner Wilkinson had remarked upon "The Devil's Punchbowl" in Malta some years earlier in his travels in Dalmatia: "The Yesaro, or lake, is a natural sinking of the rocky mountain surface, like that in Malta called "the Devil's punch-bowl' and others in similar limestone formations, where a border of precipitous cliffs surrounds a low piece of ground, which is either cultivable soil, or covered with water." (Wilkinson, Dalmatia and Montenegro: With a Journey to Mostar in Herzegovina... 1848: ch. viii:141) I suppose your footnote reveals the local name for the Maltese "Devil's Punchbowl", a familiar Anglophone designation for cirques and other features, but unlikely in lands where punch had been unknown before the quite recent arrival of the British.. --Wetman 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Company owners

Don't know if this question belongs here or on the science desk but here goes... I'm tying to find the names of the owners of a company based in Shanghai, PRC doing business in the United States and going by the name of Golden Motor or Golden Island Machinery. I need this information because I suspect the company is selling products that do not pass line inspection in the PRC and instead of being held at the end of the line for repair are sold to this company which in turn dumps them on buyers in the USA. How do I find the name of the owners so I can write them a letter and ask them if this is what is going on? Clem 20:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page gives some details of a 'Golden Island Machinery Ltd', described as "a private company founded in 1996, located in Changzhou, Jiangsu province". On your last sentence, it seems a little naive to expect anything but a robust No to the question you are meaning to ask! Xn4 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union of the Crowns

What was the political impact of the Union of the Crowns? SeanScotland 20:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In practical terms the Union introduced a dangerous imbalance in the politics of the 'whole Isle', so to speak. Scotland maintained its functional independence, including its own Parliament and Privy Council, though significant powers slipped away to the south, including control over matters of defence and foreign policy, which remained prerogatives of the crown. The Privy Council was left to micro-manage national affairs in the north, which worked well enough so long as there was no extraordinary developments. But the control and co-ordination of three separate kimgdoms, including that of Ireland, was difficult enough even for the British Solomon. The succession of Charles I brought to the throne a man whose wisdom was not of a highest order, to say the very least. His attempts to dictate religious policy to the reluctant Scots induced a crisis over which his northern Privy Council simply lost control. What happened next was to show the limitations of nations united solely by a personal union; independent yet centralised under an absolute monarchy. The Union of the Crowns was, in the long run, politically unsustainable. Clio the Muse 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

What's the difference between the viewpoints of republicans and democrats? Thanks. --24.76.248.193 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screams of homework but how about checking out Republican and Democrat for starters. Then look at areas such as conservatism and liberalism, socialism - also check out their respective websites and see how they fit into ideological systems such as these. The differences range throughout history form being striking to being barely noticeable. It all depends on the public/situation of the day. ny156uk 22:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither major political party has anything to do with Socialism. Corvus cornix 16:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in North America so right now it's NOT HOMEWORK. You can go ahead and give me article references but I'm looking for a simple comparison. Thanks again. --24.76.248.193 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They slide around. On almost every issue, the two parties have swapped sides at least once over their histories. Specify historical period. Geogre 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really terrific work on this has been done by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal[21] with their D-NOMINATE and DW-NOMINATE programs for multidimensional scaling, which find that Congressional roll-call votes over history can be mapped quite nicely onto two dimensions, and follow the individuals of each party along through time. If you can find the original animated gif of 1879-2000 online somewhere ([22] doesn't come up any more for me) it's a real hoot to "see the two great clusters circle each other, trying to capture the center".[23] "The first dimension can be interpreted in most periods as government intervention in the economy or liberal-conservative in the modern era. The 2nd dimension picks up the conflict between North and South on Slavery before the Civil War and from the late 1930s through the mid-1970s, civil rights for African-Americans. After 1980 there is considerable evidence that the South realigns and the 2nd dimension is no longer important... Finally, the past few Congresses are nearly unidimensional with correct classifications of 90 percent or better."[24] Gzuckier 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you haven't received a straightforward answer yet. I will give it: the Republicans are the conservatives of the United States. They generally support socially conservative measures: they are for the death penalty, and against legalized abortion or homosexual "rights" legislation. They are also economically conservative, meaning they tend to favor lower taxes and the well-being of companies over the individual, and oppose such measures as universal health care. The Democrats are liberals, meaning they favor legalized abortion and homosexual "rights", are ambivalent about the death penalty (but support it less than the Republicans), and tend to support greater government spending and favor the rights of the individual over that of the corporation. Liberals in general tend to be more pacifist (in whatever country they hail from), so Democrats are much less likely to support any armed conflict, particularly the Iraq war. The Evil Spartan 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOP?

What does GOP stand for? It's often used in newspapers and such when talking about government- or politics- related issues, but I don't what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graciepoooo (talk • contribs) 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party (United States) nicknamed Grand Old Party.--Tresckow 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pont de diable - south france

How high is the pont du diable?

Caroline172.203.240.143 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't answer your question exactly, but it crosses a deep gorge of the River Hérault and is said to be the oldest mediaeval bridge in France. There's an image here. Xn4 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Devil's Bridge lists seven "Ponts du Diable" in France, including the above mentioned Pont du Diable, Hérault. -- !! ?? 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, User:!!! Caroline's question may not be about the one I knew of and might make more sense if it's about one of those others in the south of France, especially the one at Valentré. I still don't know the answer to the question, but just look at the Valentré bridge, it's tall. Xn4 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IS the Little Red Book in Public Domain?

I'm attempting to start a Librivox project to record the Quotations of Mao Tse tung as an audiobook. However before the project can begin I need to be sure that it is in public domain. Now while I realize the book was published in 1966 as far as I know the English translation was done by a government agency of the PR of China "Foreign Language Press". Since the 1980s I'm not aware of any new printings from that body. I would think that it would be in public domain just from it being a government document and thats further strengthend by the government basically abandoning any claims for the last 30 years. In addition just about every English translation currently availible in the web makes clear that it is in the public domain. http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10188 --Jacobin1949 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could very well be in the public domain, but the determination of whether it's in the public domain would have very little to do with most of the factors you mentioned... AnonMoos 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

Royalties from book publishers

Are publishers audited to make sure that their tally of book sales are correct? 69.201.141.45 01:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, all registered companies have to be independently audited. I imagine it's the same in most civilized countries. (It might be worth mentioning that if you have employed a "vanity press" to publish your book, you are unlikely to see any royalties.)--Shantavira|feed me 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case indeed involves what was previously called a "vanity press," but what is now referred to a POD (print on demand) publisher. I monitored sales as best I could using the internet. Amazon.com twice re-stocked. I saw some sites through ABEbooks.com display a quantity over 20, yet the publisher says that only 23 hardcovers and 4 paperbacks were sold. I've asked that they check the records of their printer (who I think is owned by the same company).69.201.141.45 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings by Mary Shecut Sease

My great aunt, Mary Shecut Sease, gave my family two paintings that I know of. One was of a carousel, so my mother tells me, and was stored in a closet. The other I remember as it was hung in my father's waiting room (he was a general practitioner). That painting was an impressionistic scene of a stream in autumn with children wading into the stream. Since my father was a philistine, the paintings were not handed down to any of the children. Their fate is unknown to me. Is there a catalogue raisoné of her work? The only info that I found was http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v017/v017p087.html 69.201.141.45 01:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Y

Is someone born in 1992 considered a 90's child or a Millenium child? Is someone born in 1995 still part of Generation Y? What year do you have to be born in to lose the right to call yourself a 90's child? 99? 98? 97? --124.254.77.148 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Generation Y, it's approximately 1978-2000 for the generation. These type of classifications are known to be imprecise; unlike the Baby boomer generation, there's nothing that really makes them any different from other generations, so it's usually whatever people make it up to be. As for the term millenium child, I am unfamiliar with it, and a google search shows it's not really a term with much use yet, and as such is probably undefined. The Evil Spartan 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] I would think that anyone born before 11:59:59 on December 31, 1999, could be called a 90's child. As for Generation Y, there is no commonly accepted end point for the birth years of this generation. Most sources seem to agree that members of Generation Y were born before 2000, while some put its end point several years earlier. So, it is not a clearly defined category. These categories, incidentally, are created and used mainly by marketers to refer to trends in consumption among different generational cohorts. Trends in consumption are often not clear for a generation until it has entered the wage-earning labor force around age 20, so the definition of Generation Y may be clearer 10 or 15 years from now, if marketers still find the concept useful. Incidentally, marketers define these cohorts in broad brush strokes that clearly are not accurate for all members of that cohort. The meaningfulness of these categories outside of the world of marketing is limited. Marco polo 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

literature - notability - serious question

1. I've got to ask - but aren't most of the articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth such as Gondor, Brandir, Ossiriand, Nogrod and literally hundreds others ridiculous fan cruft?, or excessive.

2. Doesn't having effectively ALL Tolkiens legendarium (stopping short of copying the books directly into the wiki), that is every single fact extracted from it, actually represent a real breach of a variety of intellectual property or copyright rules etc.

3. Further to 2, isn't it morally off, to build a entire section of wikipedia, around one persons, life work - what I see there is effectively a rip-off of tolkien's work. What do you think?87.102.21.232 07:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Also in general these articles do not cite sources, contain much speculation, do not cite the books the information was taken from. For example Battle of Fornost and in general the entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth 87.102.21.232 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Unforunately the Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth could be describe as a derivative work of Tolkien's work and as such is an infringment of copyright. see Derivative_work#United_States_law - your comments?87.102.21.232 08:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. In general I would welcome any feedback on what is and is not derivative. Also any help with getting the entire middle earth project properly cited would be good - in general (at risk of repeating myself) It seems that all articles except those which have been labeled 'A Class' lack or are lacking citations.87.102.21.232 09:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. "Isn't it true that you are a dirty rat and that your mother did not like you and that your first girlfriend accused you of body odor" sort of non-question question, isn't it? First, no. A good many are not "ridiculous cruft." A good many are. Trying to measure the whole of something that evolved over time by a single pronouncement is unwise and unproductive. Second, absolutely not. There is no "breach" whatsoever, and that's a pretty weak argument, to tell the truth, because it would mean that, for example, every Cliff Notes or Spark Notes ever made was a horrible crime. Further, it's contradicted by your first question. If it's cruft, then it won't replace the reading experience but rather merely reiterate it, and if it replaces the reading experience, it's not cruft. Third, no. We would have an article on every Shakespeare play, because each has an independent effect on the wider culture, and we would have an article on all the major protagonists for the same reason. The same argument cannot be made for all the items of "Middle Earth," and so I have always thought that many/most of the Tolkeinia needed merging, at best, but there is nothing immoral. As for your fourth point, that's a particular argument. Fifth is your answer to your own non-question question. Sixth, there is a Middle Earth project that is trying to merge, redirect, cite, and manage the proliferation. If they are not working hard enough or severely enough, take your concerns to WP:AN, not here. Geogre 10:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck was that all about ?87.102.21.232 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC) What did I do?87.102.21.232 11:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Why did you answer to say 'fuck off' to me in a long winded way?87.102.21.232 11:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But the essence of "fuck off!" is that it is short-winded, irrational and discourteous. Geogre's answers to your questions, on the other hand, are clearly no more 'long-winded' than the questions and strike me as rational and polite, if also forthright. Abusiveness on this page should be reverted. Xn4 11:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the first sentence doesn't look 'rational or polite' to me. I must have done something..god knows what..87.102.21.232 12:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention to belittle the project - I've reasked below in a different way with some additions to try to make it clearer what I was saying and avoid flames!.87.102.21.232 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a flame. It looks to me like it was an explanation of the question that isn't a question. I would say that with a link, myself: Fallacy of many questions or Begging the question. In other words, he was saying that your questions weren't questions, that they were accusations, just like the hypothetical, "Isn't it true that you stink" questions one hears on the playground are. I.e. you were not asking a question that sought an answer, because you supplied the answer yourself. <shrug> It's not a flame as much as it is an objection to what looks like a prejudiced discussion. You believe that the project is all cruft and immoral, and you crafted questions designed to allow that answer. There are other venues for complaint. Utgard Loki 13:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth#Accomplishments for the best work (and note that A-class here is just an internal WikiProject standard). Most of those articles are cited to varying levels. As for the wider relevance articles, see categories like Category:Tolkien studies, and articles like Tolkien Studies and Tolkien's Legendarium. For the works, see Category:Works of J. R. R. Tolkien. This is all standard encyclopedic content. The in-universe stuff does need to be merged and rewritten according to WP:WAF, but please discuss this at the WikiProject talk page. Carcharoth 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it should be noted that the repeated association above of 'lots of Tolkien related articles' with Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth is incorrect. I started that Wikiproject with an eye towards having a group to clean up and organize the large number of Tolkien pages which already existed (pretty much since the start of Wikipedia). Obviously a work in progress, but I think we can all agree that pages like List of Middle-earth weapons are superior to a couple dozen short unreferenced articles on the same information.
Second, the claim that "every single fact" from Tolkien's work has been reproduced is clearly false hyperbole. Many of the things named in the texts are described, but various details about them and the vast majority of the story are not. There are literally millions of details not here incorporated. Nor is the story retold in more than summary form... and therein lies the flaw in your claims of 'derivative works'. Because Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is not creating another work of fiction incorporating elements from or copying the original. We have commentary and analysis about the original. Which is true of every article on every fictional topic in every encyclopedia. This is no more 'immoral' or a 'copyright violation' than The Complete Guide to Middle-earth or The Encyclopedia of Arda... or Britannica for that matter. It's what Wikipedia exists to do. The extent of the Tolkien related coverage is greater than some topics in Wikipedia, but less than others. You'll find the same proliferation of articles around Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokemon, and dozens of other popular topics. As stated on the 'five pillars' page, Wikipedia incorporates the kind of information generally found only in specialized encyclopedias. Thus, whereas Britannica might have an article on Bats we've got hundreds of them... and hundreds more yet to be written. More referencing and organization is certainly needed, on this and every other topic, but less so now than a year ago and hopefully continuing in that trend. --CBD 12:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say I couldn't find any facts that weren't in this encyclopaedia! You can take that as a compliment if you want. And some facts I found here that I couldn't find elsewhere! For instance I didn't know that Elendil was 241 cm tall! Good luck with referencing all this.87.102.21.232 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate, but overly precise. My recollection is that Tolkien stated that Elendil was about two and a half rangar tall... it's in the Unfinished Tales section on Numenorean lengths and measures. There the 'rangar' is also defined as being about 3'2"... so 2.5 rangar would be roughly 7'11". Converting that to the equivalent 241 centimeters for the imperial-measurement challenged is undoubtedly kindly meant, but gives a degree of precision lacking in the original. As to the info itself, surely how tall someone was is a relevant bit of information... particularly in reference to the character said to be the tallest human ever. --CBD 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok found it (p369-70 do these vary?) "more than man high by nearly half a ranga", man high =6'4" 6'4"+1'7" ok.. I accept that for an article about elendil his height is relevant - but worry about the additional "original research" (note the quotations - using the term approximately) - because the approximate original description does not really convert to a hard and fast figure even in imperial measurements..It's this sort of thing that bothers me in the newer articles (many of which have been created without any references) - it's not that easy to find this stuff. I just looked at a few of the unnacessed articles and found them needing numerous {{fact}} tags. Also "two ranga was taken to be man high" = 6'4" but (from the same page) this was a comment from a later time when men where shorter - so maybe he was taller? Anyway it was just an illustrative example of actually referencing facts and figures that have been infered from the text..I believe a similar problem exists for sizes of armies in some examples...87.102.88.218 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that better references and specificity are needed... though I note that this "newer" article was created in 2002 and the height has been in there for over two years. It isn't at all 'original research' though, just inexact wording. Add the reference and the word 'approximately' and the problem goes away. Try it. :]
On the army sizes, I agree that some of them do drift into original research. One article in particular I've had on my 'to do' list for a while as I think it goes too far in drawing disparate facts together into conclusions not stated elsewhere. That's an issue with all topics, but not, I think, particularly prevalent on Tolkien related articles. You thought Elendil's height an invention... but it actually is in the text. I think you'll find similarly that most of this info can be supported. There is just a tremendous amount of work yet to do in citing it all. --CBD 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK done, while I've got your ear do you know were the second height quote comes from by any chance the "another note as 7 feet"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.88.218 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, 90% of Wikipedia is ridiculous fan cruft. Gzuckier 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say not. I think most of Wikipedia is actually articles about people. There are approaching 400,000 biographical articles on Wikipedia. That number includes articles about music groups, but still, the sheer number of historical and contemporary people makes it logical that it is people (like you and me, just a bit more famous) that make up an exceedingly large proportion of Wikipedia articles. Other large chunks will be taken up by articles about places (from roads to small towns, to schools). I'd guess that fictional topics (books, TV programs, films) only take up about 10% of Wikipedia. That's a guess though. It should be possible to get an estimate for the number book/TV/film articles. My conclusions? Wikipedia is peoplecruft! I mean, what is more logical than for the monkeys to type about themselves? :-) Carcharoth 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "fancruft" is just fan cruft, not necessarily fictional fancruft. If the purpose is to say, as Chris Farley's character used to, "Hey, uh, 'member when he said, uh, Hosta la vista, baby? That was so cool," then it's fancruft. If it's there to be the ultimate collector and fan's revivium, then it's cruft. If it's there because, "Burke's Reflections refers to the History of the Great Rebellion, so we need to help people reading that widely read and important work know who Clarendon was and what this book was," then it's not cruft. A good many of the people articles are fancruft, too, in other words. "Stark Mark is the singer for the neo-goth-dark-numetal industrial dance Viking folk band Düfus" is just more fancruft. Utgard Loki 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
brilliant.

--M@rēino 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

romanians

how many romanian born nationality peoples lived in american old west? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.119.189 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you expect anyone to know (even if "american old west" was a specific unambiguous term, which it isnt)? --Dweller 12:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is imprecise, but the answer must surely be "not many". I'll use 1850 as a prototypical "Old West" year. According to the United States Census, 1850 only 27,019 of 2,244,602 foreigners (1.2%) lived in the West of the US. That same year, there weren't enough Romanians in *all* of the US to bother counting, and 50 years later there were still only 15,032. If we generously assume that there were as many Romanians as Russians in the US in 1850 (1,414), and that they like most Europeans stayed away from the West, we arrive at around 17 Romanian cowboys. You can't reliably do this kind of back-of-the-envelope calculation on numbers this low, so again: "not many". --Sean 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell from Historical Statistics of the United States, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1976, the United States did not distinguish Romanian-born residents from residents born in other smaller eastern European countries before 1900. Also, as of 1900, some foreign-born residents of Romanian nationality would have been listed by country of birth as Hungarian, since Transylvania was then a part of Hungary. According to this source, as of 1900, there were 15,032 U.S. residents born in Romania (not including Transylvania). Incidentally, the foreign-born population from other parts of southern and eastern Europe jumped sharply between 1890 and 1900. (For example, the Greek-born population in 1890 was less than one fourth of the Greek-born population in 1900.) If we (reasonably) assume a similar jump in the Romanian-born population during that decade, then there might have been 4,000 Romanian-born people in the United States in 1890, even including Transylvanians. Since the 1890 Census announced the closing of the American frontier, 1890 might be seen as an end date for the vague concept "American Old West", since the "old west" might connote the existence of a frontier. If 1890 was an end point for the "Old West", it would have marked the high point of the Romanian-born population, since immigration from southern and eastern Europe was accelerating rapidly in 1890. So, how many of the possible 4,000 native Romanians in the United States in 1890 would have lived in the "West"? This would of course depend on how you define the West. Certainly the "old West" would have included the Great Plains, and possibly Texas, but the region defined by the Census as the West excludes Texas and the Great Plains states. If we use the Census definition, then there were about 673,000 foreign-born whites in the West in 1890. This was about 7.4% of the total foreign-born population in the United States at that time. Applying this percentage to a supposed total of 4,000 native Romanians in the United States (assuming that Romanians were distributed regionally in the same proportion as other foreign-born whites), there would be about 300 native Romanians in the Census West as of 1890. If we included the Great Plains states and Texas (and assumed that their share of the foreign-born population in their regions was similar to their share of the total population), then this number could double to 600. However, it is unlikely that the native Romanian population was distributed regionally in the same proportion as foreign-born whites, because migrants from southern and eastern Europe had a strong urban bias in the late 19th century, and the West (particularly the "Old West") had few large cities other than San Francisco. So, most likely the number of native Romanians in the West (however you define it) in 1890 was below 300. At earlier points in the history of the West, the number would have been lower still. Since the U.S. government did not collect numbers of native Romanians before 1900, however, it is impossible to find an exact number for the "Old West", however you define it. Marco polo 16:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

literature - notability - serious question (re ask)

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth See post two above. (reasking in another way to avoid flames)

Taking Macbeth#Characters as a guide it looks like the project middle earth has gone way too far (since there are no articles for minor characters, the 'walking wood') etc. (By the way I found this http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Earth which personally I think represents an approximate example of articles that would be notable..)

The current contractions of articles to lists doesn't seem right either.

What I was trying to ask was "should the project be this extensive?, or not?"

as well as "doesn't the extraction of every last iota of information from the text become dubious in various ways.."

Main point:
What I forgot to mention was to say that maybe the project should be migrated to a 'middle earth' specific wiki such as http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?FrontPage or http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Main_Page

Is this right or wrong, and IF right where is the right place to suggest it...87.102.21.232 11:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really the right place to ask this question. The WikiProject itself is a good start, followed by other venues. The question of whether to move content to other wikis, for this and other fictional WikiProjects, is as old as Wikipedia, and not likely to be resolved any time soon. I'll say more back at the WikiProject talk page. Carcharoth 12:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not right to try to make an announcement on something that contains so many individual articles. Arguing from the general is a sure way to make a mistake. Let's suppose, though, that we were only looking for qualities that this particular fiction had that made it like or similar to others. We could compare it to Star Wars or Star Trek, if we were so inclined (although the former was influenced by it significantly), where similar variety has been presented in the articles. Ok, massive consolidation occurred in those areas, but deletion did not, and there were no questions of morality (despite MemoryAlpha and a dozen Star Wars projects existing). Or we can compare these works to Shakespeare. For qualitative purposes, I'd say that the Tolkein stuff has already exercised a much, much longer influence than TV-show-related stuff or most science fiction novel stuff. It has shown a deeper and longer influence than Foundation, and its world (adapted, as it is, from already archetypically approved tales told by the Germanic tribes) has inspired repopulation more than any other framework of tale since the Greek myths. Any particular is debatable or junk, but the whole looks like it ranks above America's Next Top Pop Tart Model contestants and Big Brother 25 Dutch edition participants. If overly granulated coverage is your top concern, we have much to choose from. Utgard Loki 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the depth of coverage that bothers me - and wondered if in the future such articles would be deleted as non-notable - Tolkien certainly has affect more than one generation of readers - so I'd expect some coverage, but this much? take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tolkien_literature_stubs_etc for some links especially "Category:Unassessed_Tolkien_articles" - I've asked there for unbiased input..87.102.88.218 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. If you don't like them, why do you read them? Why not just ignore them? Corvus cornix 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
theft - that's why - sorry I haven't got a real answer to that - I'd be able to like them if they cited their sources, as it stands they make me unhappy - ok?87.102.81.184 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Man's a Man for A' That

I'd like to find a list of recorded versions of the song A Man's a Man for A' That by Robert Burns. I've heard a version of it before and it's bugging me because I can't remember who the artist was. Wikipedia's article doesn't have a list of versions; anyone know where I might find one? (Or can you name any of the most famous recorded versions?) Thank you in advance. --60.241.217.147 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a guess, but I'd be surprised if Harry Lauder didn't record it. -- JackofOz 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one. A 3-CD collection called Scotland Sings! 60 Scottish Favourites has A Man's a Man for A' That on CD2 wi' Jamie Nicol & the Scots Fiddle Orchestra. Xn4 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors' Plot

What are the particulars of the Ambassadors' Plot in which Sidney Reilly and Bruce Lockhart were implicated in 1918? --Ghirla-трёп- 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to know part of the answer to this, but it's all astonishingly complicated, like everything to do with Reilly. The books to get hold of are Ace of Spies: the incredible story of Sidney Reilly (later called Reilly, Ace of Spies, to match the name of the TV serial based on it) by Robin Bruce Lockhart (1967) and the same writer's later Reilly: the First Man (1987); The Adventures of Sidney Reilly: Britain's Master Spy: a Narrative Written by Himself, Edited and Completed by His Wife (1931); Gordon Brook-Shepherd's Iron Maze: the Western Intelligence Services and the Bolsheviks (1998); Memoirs of a British Agent by R. H. Bruce Lockhart and his later The Diaries of Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart (ed. K. Young, 2 vols. St Martin's Press, London, 1973 & 1980); Andrew Cook's Ace of Spies: The True Story of Sidney Reilly (2004). Some of these contradict each other - you have to work out why their versions are different. Xn4 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the plot discussed at Sidney_Reilly#Lockhart_Plot, or another plot? -- !! ?? 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's also called the Lockhart Plot. Essentially, it was a planned counter-revolutionary coup against Lenin. In some versions, Reilly intended to become the new head of government himself. I've looked at that section of the Sidney Reilly article, and it seems to me to give a good start to the thing for Ghirlandajo, although it lacks references. Xn4 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland and the English

In his campaign in Ireland Cromwell behave much more savagly than he did elswhere in the British Isles. His conduct was said to be based, amongst other things, on derogatory attitudes that had developed since early contacts between the two nations. What is the background here?Irishbard 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen it. For example in the GPL3.0, point 15, Disclaimer of Warranty, there's the usual "...PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO..." yadda yadda.

Just curious, is there a legal requirement that disclaimers have to be in all caps? Or is it just common practice of people trying to cover their behinds as thoroughly as possible, as in "SEE, I'M DUMBING THIS PART DOWN AS FAR AS I CAN FOR YOU SUCKERS: DON'T SUE ME."? 84.129.163.13 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Wikipedia's own disclaimer prevents me from giving legal advice, but I've never come across any state or nation where all-caps would be treated any differently under the law. Personally, I think they hope to give the impression of "THIS IS SERIOUS. WE KNOW WE WROTE IT SO YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT, BUT IT'S SERIOUS." --M@rēino 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion is that "IT IS REALLY HARD TO READ LONG SENTENCES THAT ARE ALL IN CAPITALS THAT IS WHY WE DO IT SO YOU WILL GIVE UP TRYING TO READ IT BEFORE YOU REALISE THAT THE WARRANTY IS USELESS AND GIVES YOU NO EFFECTIVE RIGHTS WHATSOEVER". But I may be wrong. DuncanHill 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian women in the Second World War

I've just started to research this important topic and would be grateful for some pointers. Fred said right 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HDI for N Ireland

hi

im looking for the HDI for Northern Ireland. anyone know?

thanks, --Plague of Death 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Human Development Index, then it is calculated for states, not provinces, so Northern Ireland would be included in the figure for the United Kingdom. DuncanHill 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i know that it is calculated for states but England, Scotland and Wales all have their own different ones so that brings me back to my orngional questin --Plague of Death 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles for those countries do not appear to give sources for the quoted HDIs, but I notice that the .939 figure given for both Scotland and Wales is stated to be from 2003, and the .940 quoted for England is for 2006, and is the same as the 2006 figure for the UK as a whole. DuncanHill 18:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Were the Nuremberg Trials Televised?```Momynym

I cannot find information on when the Nuremberg trials were televised. From when to when? I remember the end of it being televised when I was a child in the 1950's--but what, exactly was televised? It seems the all of the trials were actually concluded by 1949. I am not talking about any movie. Thank you for any information you are able to provide.````Momynym

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=155682275"