Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

[[:|{{{1}}}]]

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

October 15

Global Warming/Climate Change

Are there any website that specifically gathers news about climate change/global warming? 202.168.50.40 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes go to www.BeatTheHeat.nrdc.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.171 (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the links at the bottom of the Global Warming and Climate Change pages? Could you be a little more specific? Do you mean new scientific findings or events that appear to be climate-change related? DirkvdM 06:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. It should really go there. Xn4 12:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to identify a piece of music

This is a long shot, but here goes: there's a piece of classical music I often hear in cartoons, comedies, etc. as a kind of parodic expression of resolution. Typically, there's some moment of tension or emotional crisis, which is then (too) suddenly resolved to the participants' satisfaction, at which point this piece comes in. It's a kind of soaring, string-laden thing. Wish I had a soundfile or youtube link to point to, but sadly I don't. Does anyone know what the hell I'm going on about? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be Samuel Barber's "Adagio for strings". --Petteroes 06:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that's not it (at least I don't think it is, judging by the sound clips of the Adagio I've listened to. It's more dramatic and, shall I say, 'vertical' than that. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A long-shot answer, but it might be the "love theme" from Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet Overture-Fantasy. It's more often associated with romantic circumstances, but it seems to fit the "tension-resolution" criterion. -- JackofOz 07:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you're a wonder. That's the one. I downloaded it from this page and the theme I was searching for came in at 13'20". I hadn't heard it in a romantic situation before. Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Strange you haven't heard it in a romantic context - it's considered one of the greatest of romantic tunes, from the pen of arguably the most romantic composer of them all. I guess it shows you just how far the commercial world has sunk in pilfering peerless music and using it for irrelevant purposes. But it's great that you know what you're listening to after all this time. Tell all your friends - Tchaikovsky forever! -- JackofOz 11:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The juridic problem of "The Double Murder"

First of all, english is not my first language, so just ignore my bad grammar. Here's the hypotetical juridic problem: John lives in Norway. He hates his wife Linda, who's just after his money and is having an affair with another man behind his back. He plans to kill her, and writes down his plans (something which later would be used as evidence in court). Meanwhile, Linda escapes to another country, under false name, with her lover and a good amount of John's money. Her disappearence doesn't go unnoticed, and with the investigations of John's home (and findings of the written plans of murder), John is put on trial and charged for the murder of his wife. The strictest penalty in Norway is 21 years, and this becomes John's sentence. But when John has done his time, and is finally a free man, he coincidentally meets his "murdered" wife on the street - very much alive. He gets mad with rage, and ends up killing her in front of many witnesses. Again he stands before court with the charges of killing his wife. What would happen? --Petteroes 06:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Double jeopardy may be relevant here.~~ --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prohibition of double jeopardy doesn't apply because the charges are not the same. John has already been tried on the charge "that on or about 7 April 1986 he did willfully and unlawfully cause the death of Linda," but he has not been tried on the charge "that on 15 October 2007 he did willfully and unlawfully cause the death of Linda." —Tamfang 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, strike that. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only someone who knows Norwegian law could answer your question, but John's case clearly supports the general principle that a conviction for murder is likely to be unsafe without a dead body. If the original trial had been heard in the UK, the circumstances seem to me to show enough reasonable doubt that Linda is dead that John should have been acquitted. Xn4 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of an interesting problem in that prisoners who later prove their innocence are often compensated with money to make up for their lost time. If John's compensation and new murder trials came up at the same time, the most logical compensation for his wrongly-taken *previous* 21 years would be to give him his *future* 21 years back. --Sean 15:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the first conviction to matter (much, see later) there would have to be a special law written that correlates the two (and there's no good reason any politican would propose or back such a law). So (assuming Tamfang is correct, that Norwegian law does indeed consider the two crimes to be entirely distinct, which is very likely) then they'll be treated entirely seperately - he's convicted then freed then compensated in the first matter, and then convicted on the second matter. So (in abstract) the second sentence is unrelated to the disposition of the first matter. In practice the first conviction and sentence, even quashed and compensated, would in this case surely be mitigatory for the second matter, so he'd get very much less than the 21 year maximum (and if his lawyer is any good, they can make a good case for his being temporarily insane, bumping the whole thing down to a lesser unlawful-killing conviction (whatever the Norwegian equivalent of manslaughter is). -- PrettyDirtyThing 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I disclaim any specific knowledge of Norwegian law. —Tamfang 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea I'm afraid, but it would be deliciously ironic if he was punished more severely because of recidivism. Random Nonsense 10:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also this related article. --Anon, 01:36 UTC, October 19, 2007.

The "i" in iPod and iTunes

What does it stand for? --Petteroes 06:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific, but it presumably refers to the internet in a glancing way. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep: Apple's tradition calling things "iWhatever" began with the iMac, because the iMac was much easier to connect to the Internet than other computers of the time. This was than extrapolated to the iBook, a laptop version of the iMac, and from there to the iPod. Given that the name iPod was so distinctive, it made sense for the counterpart program to have a similar name, so that became iTunes (and it makes for a download system to be called "Internet Tunes"). This was then expanded across Apple's entire suite in a fairly nonsensical way - iPhoto and iDVD have almost no internet connectivity, and the name iWeb is something of a tautology (you can't have the World Wide Web without the Internet, plus it sounds awfully close to "interweb"). See also internet-related prefixes. Laïka 10:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is not a coincidence that "i" here can stand in for the personal pronoun. "I web, I pod, I movie" etc. I think the personal affirmation aspect of it is probably meant to make it sound "easier" as well ("I can do it"). --24.147.86.187 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this sense it can be related to the trend of prefixing things with "my" to create a friendly and non-technical terminology,. Eg. "My Computer" instead of "filesystem root directory", and "My <companyname>" for a web-based application where users can log in and handle personal details and such.risk 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Apple will never come out with the iRobot -- that name is taken by the Roomba people. --M @r ē ino 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Isidore of Seville

Does anyone know what miracles he performed in order to be sainted? Thanks a lot. --Pyreforge 10:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Isidore of Seville doesn't help you, except that it tells us Isidore wasn't canonized until nearly a thousand years after his death. That may be a record. Xn4 12:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to perform miracles? He is a Doctor of the Church because of his writings, his contributions to liturgies and monastic/Church regulations, etc. Wareh 12:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our saint article indicates you must do at least 3 miracles to be canonised. --Sean 15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here are some miracles: "St. Isidore appeared to him one night in a vision, and ordered him to eat a book", "Isidore of Seville appeared to them in a vision..." (re the removal of his relics from Muslim territory). But given how widespread his acclaim as a Doctor of the Church for his learning alone in the 7th century, I'm still left wondering how consistent this requirement has been (it's a firm requirement now; but Canonization#Historical development of the process leaves things vaguer). Wareh 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many local saints were being venerated before official canonization procedures were formally established: de facto saints, if you will, rather than de jure. --Wetman 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billeting Affair?

After the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660 Scottish politics was dominated for a time by the Billeting Affair, when the earl of Middleton tried to bring down his rival the earl of Lauderdale. What was this exactly? Donald Paterson 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend: see here:

In September 1662, parliament passed an Act of Indemnity which enabled Charles opponents to purge their contempt for a price (the proceeds of which would go to Middleton and his cronies). Some especially obnoxious covenanters were exempted from the act and declared unfit to hold any public office...

Middleton now planned the selection of the exempted, by a ballot or billet in the parliament. Members would each nominate twelve people for exemption and those with most votes against would be exempted from the Act of Indemnity... Lauderdale duly headed the list followed by his associates...

When Middleton’s envoys reached London with the Act, they were first summoned by Clarendon who asked if they were mad. The King met them with a resounding rebuke, the Act was not even opened, and the envoys sent packing back to Scotland... [Middleton] was finally dismissed in May 1663.

This seems to be a Scottish version of the English Indemnity and Oblivion Act of 1660. See also John Middleton, 1st Earl of Middleton and John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale. -- !! ?? 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole affair, Donald, was a calculated act on the part of Middleton to rid himself of the one man he conceived to be the chief obstacle of his ambition. In his capacity as Secretary of State for Scotland Lauderdale had to be close to the king in London, which meant that Middleton, the High Commissioner to the Scottish Parliament, had a free hand in the north. It was on his initiative, and his initiative alone, that Parliament was persuaded to exempt twelve as yet unnamed individuals from the Act of Indemnity when the measure was first debated, persuading the assembly that this was the 'will of the king.' Charles was subsequently persuaded that it was the 'will of Parliament. Middleton and his closest political associates, who included, most notably, Sir George Mackenzie of Tarbet, made sure that Parliament in the final vote on the matter produced the 'right kind' of list, headed by Lauderdale. Middleton was now so confident of his success that he planned to nominate Tarbet for the position of Scottish Secretary, which provides some measure of both his conceit and his presumption.

Lauderdale had been well aware that some move was being made against him, and he made sure that he had reliable agents to keep him alert to the actions of his political enemies. Now aware that the Billeting Act, in the keeping of Tarbet, was in its way to London for royal approval, he approached Charles and asked him in a casual fashion what if he himself had been 'billeted.' Charles replied that no one would dare attack one of his servants in such a fashion. Lauderdale thereupon not only told the King that he had in fact been 'ostracised' but that Middleton had gone on to touch the Act with the sceptre, implying that it already had royal consent. The reports we have probably underestimate the full degree of the royal anger; for Charles had been duped. Even Clarendon, another of Lauderdale's enemies, recognised how inept Middleton and his associates had been. A process now began that led to the fall of the Middleton faction and the further ascent of Lauderdale, who by the late 1660s had emerged as the virtual dictator of Scotland, a success he owed in part to 'St. Billeting's Day', as he ever afterwards referred to Middleton's attempted political coup. The whole intrigue is neatly summarised in King Lauderdale: the Corruption of Power by R. C. Paterson. Clio the Muse 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Australian federal election

If Labour wins on November 24, do they take control immediately, i.e. Kevin Rudd becomes Prime Minister as soon as the results are clear? Or do we have a window period similar to the Americans Nov-Jan thing? I've just realised that although I really SHOULD know this, I was eight years old when we last had a federal party switch. 220.235.129.132 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor-General who can, strictly speaking, appoint just about anyone whenever he feels like it. In practice the GG's appointment of the PM is much like it is in the UK - once the dust of the election has cleared (once it's obvious who has won and who hasn't) the leader of the winning party (or coalition) goes to see the GG and the GG offers him the job of PM. As to the timing - Australian federal election, 1996 says the election was on March 2nd, but Prime Minister of Australia shows Howard becoming PM only on March 11th. I guess (but it would be nice if some article somewhere, say Australian electoral system, actually said for sure) that the delay is due to slow returns from outback votes, where there's a big delay getting votes from the polling place to the counting place. -- PrettyDirtyThing 15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I undertand it, the official 'becoming of a PM' in Australia is when s/he is sworn in at the first session of parliament after the election. Before that, however, s/he has a de facto power as PM.Steewi 03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That ~~last sentence~~ entire post is certainly not true. Once the election result is without doubt, the Governor-General swears in the new PM and the new Ministers at Government House. The actual date can vary depending on various factors, and is a matter of agreement and negotiation between the PM who's just lost and the one who's just been elected, but the new one can certainly pull rank. When the Gough Whitlam government was elected on Saturday 2 December 1972, the results in some of the electorates where his would-be ministers and other Labor candidates were standing were unclear, but the overall result was without doubt. Whitlam wanted to waste no time in getting on with implementing his mandate, so he had William McMahon booted out of his offices, and had the G-G swear him and his deputy Lance Barnard in as a two-man ministry on Tuesday 5th December - see First Whitlam Ministry. Once all the votes had been finalised, the full ministry was sworn in on 19 December - see Second Whitlam Ministry. In most other cases, there's a longer gap between the election and the swearing-in. In 1983, when Bob Hawke defeated Malcolm Fraser, the election was on 5 March and the swearing-in took place 6 days later, 11 March. In 1996, when John Howard defeated Paul Keating, the election was on 2 March, and the swearing-in took place 9 days later, 11 March. (Most people don't realise that the Hawke-Keating period lasted exactly 13 years, to the day, 11 March 1983 - 11 March 1996).

As for Parliament, the only swearing-in that takes place there is the swearing-in of newly elected Members of the House of Representatives (and, when their time comes - which is usually the following 1 July, but immediately in the case of ACT and NT Senators - Senators). The government must comprise members of the parliament, and it is accountable to the parliament, but it is not a creature of the parliament but of the crown (represented by the Governor-General; which is why the G-G can sack a government, eg. Sir John Kerr, but the Parliament cannot. The most a parliament can do is to express a lack of confidence in the government on the floor of the House of Reps, and the PM is then duty bound to offer his resignation to the G-G. There is no precedent that I know of where there's been an expressed lack of confidence but the PM didn't resign - there would be a real constitutional crisis if this ever happened).

There is a maximum period allowed between the election date and the convening of the new parliament. Section 5 of the Constition says it's 30 days after the day appointed for the return of the writs. (In 2004, the election was on 9 October and the parliament met for the first time on 16 November.) In the meantime, the government, once sworn in, gets on with the business of governing. Prior to the swearing-in, they aren't a government, and all they can do is announce what they intend to do once they are sworn in, but they have no power to implement these promises until they are sworn in, because the previous government, despite being beaten at the polls, is still the government, and the Public Service, which actually gets things done, takes their marching orders from the government of the day without regard to political allegiances. To counterbalance the possibility of a government that's been defeated at the polls making major policy decisions prior to the new government being sworn in, they're bound by the caretaker provisions, which operate from the announcement of the election until the new government is sworn in. -- JackofOz 04:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the procedure is much the same as in the UK, then there's another slight wrinkle, which is that a prime minister who loses an election doesn't automatically lose his or her position. The office is held from the crown, and before a new PM can be appointed (here, by the Queen), the old one needs to resign. As an example, the Conservatives lost the British general election of 28 February 1974, with the Labour Party winning more seats than the Conservatives, but Edward Heath delayed his resignation until 4 March, hoping to form a coalition with the Liberals. He didn't resign until he found that wasn't possible. The Queen then sent for the leader of the Labour Party. Xn4 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal principle

Is there a formal legal principle that describes a defense of "the law was too complex, or too ambiguous, for a reasonable person to be able to follow it" (no, I'm not involved in legal action, so I'm certainly not looking for legal advice). One can imagine this might be claimed for a particularly complex piece of tax code (it's not unknown for different parts of a tax authority to make contradictory rulings as to the interpretation of a section of the code) or one that relies on subjective judgements rather than prescriptive tests (reading this Slate article got me thinking about how the publisher of saucy material can really know in advance whether his intended publication will be lawful). It would seem to be natural justice that someone should be able to know (with due application of dilligence and engagement of appropriate legal/professional advice if necessary) whether an action they propose to take will or won't be lawful. This isn't a million miles from the principle of laches, another legal principle wherein "I tried my hardest to obey the law, M'lud" is a reasonable defense. Is there such a principle (and what is its name) or is this merely used at best as an ad-hoc, last-ditch defense? -- PrettyDirtyThing 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar case comes to mind - a few years ago someone (I really can't remember who) found a bug in some important piece of software. He proposed to sell this information to the software's owner, and consulted a lawyer who confirmed this was legal. But the software vendor complained to the authorities that his proposal was a veiled extortion attempt, and I believe the guy did some jailtime. This doesn't seem just to me, as I can't figure out how the guy was supposed to know his actions were going to be later judged to be illegal (there was no obvious direct precedent, he went to a lawyer, did nothing underhand or dishonest, and courts won't give you a declaratory ruling before you act). -- PrettyDirtyThing 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire: ignorantia juris (or legis)non excusat. -- !! ?? 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of ignorantia juris non excusat is by no means absolute. It is not at all unheard of for a person to cite the vagueness of a law or other provision in their defence ("vagueness" is a term used in such cases). For this to work, they would also have to demonstrate that they had not received fair warning that their conduct was in violation of the law - if they knew how the law was meant to be interpreted, then this defence fails. Also, if a person has sought legal advice from a lawyer or public official and then acted on that advice, this could be an exculpation if it turns out the advice was wrong. But I don't know that there is a legal principle that would cover all cases of this kind.--Rallette 10:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laches doesn't seem particularly relevant - there it is the plaintiff's delay that excuses the defendant, not the defendant's attempt to obey the law. Lisiate 03:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

religion/King James Bible

In the book of Genesis where does it show:

1. lust of the Eyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.184.41 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it in Genesis, but it is in 1 John 2:16. DuncanHill 15:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is implied in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 4-6), where Jesus says that looking lustfully at a married woman is adulterous. Steewi 03:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manditory fine arts training for anybody interested professional degree (law, medicine...) - Where, when and how many years.

I once remember hearing in a lecture-recital that at some point in history (19 century?) in some place (germany?) it was a requirement for anybody interested in doing a professional degree (law, medicine...) to have some defined fine arts training (2 years?) in order to apply. Does anybody know how to confirm the details of where, when and how many years? Where it was taking place - country/city/university. When it was occurring - years specifically or approximately. How many years of fine arts training? Other interesting facts greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.63.176 (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The curriculum of most (all) medieval universities in Europe entailed a mostly fixed programme that included much of what might now be called the liberal arts (with something of maths and science to boot) - see Medieval university#Characteristics. After that one could take a professional qualification. But I don't think any would have fine art on the curriculum, that being "beneath" the lofty academic rubric - even luminaries like Michelangelo were in essence jumped-up tradesmen. -- PrettyDirtyThing 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The medieval trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) was followed by the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy); after which you might study philosophy and theology. -- !! ?? 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James I and England

Why was James I such a disappointing king? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.103.200 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing to whom? Jane Austen describes his reign as follows:

James the 1st

Though this King had some faults, among which & as the most principal, was his allowing his Mother's death, yet considered on the whole I cannot help liking him. He married Anne of Denmark, and had several Children; fortunately for him his eldest son Prince Henry died before his Father or he might have experienced the evils which befell his unfortunate Brother.

As I am myself partial to the roman catholic religion, it is with infinite regret that I am obliged to blame the Behaviour of any Member of it; yet Truth being I think very excusable in an Historian, I am necessitated to say that in this reign the roman Catholics of England did not behave like Gentlemen to the protestants. Their Behaviour indeed to the Royal Family & both Houses of Parliament might justly be considered by them as very uncivil, and even Sir Henry Percy tho' certainly the best bred man of the party, had none of that general politeness which is so universally pleasing, as his attentions were entirely confined to Lord Mounteagle.

Sir Walter Raleigh flourished in this & the preceding reign, & is by many people held in great veneration & respect — But as he was an enemy of the noble Essex, I have nothing to say in praise of him, & must refer all those who may wish to be acquainted with the particulars of his Life, to Mr Sheridan's play of the Critic, where they will find many interesting Anecdotes as well of him as of his freind Sir Christopher Hatton. — His Majesty was of that amiable disposition which inclines to Freindship, & in such points was possessed of a keener penetration in Discovering Merit than many other people. I once heard an excellent sharade on a Carpet, of which the subject I am now reminds me, and as I think it may afford my Readers some amusement to find it out, I shall here take the liberty of presenting it to them.

Sharade

My first is what my second was to King James the 1st, and you tread on my whole.

The principal favourites of his Majesty were Car, who was afterwards created Earl of Somerset and whose name perhaps may have some share in the above-mentioned Sharade, & George Villiers afterwards Duke of Buckingham. On his Majesty's death he was succeeded by his son Charles.

from: The History of England from the reign of Henry the 4th to the death of Charles the 1st. By a partial, prejudiced, & ignorant Historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaundersW (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Clio's thoughts on this, but in the mean time I should say very nearly all English kings have been disappointing. Hasn't it been downhill all the way since Alfred the Great? In the words of Wilde, "Most men and women are forced to play parts for which they have no qualifications. Our Guildensterns play Hamlet for us, and our Hamlets have to jest like Prince Hal. The world is a stage, but the play is poorly cast." Xn4 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, Xn4, and that the glory of noon is always, or almost always, followed by by the disappointment of midnight; but with James it had been all midnight and all disappointment! I'm exaggerating, of course, though not much. I really do hate to take issue with my beloved Jane, but I find it difficult to determine why exactly she likes James, beyond the fact that he married and had children! Besides, those events fell into the Scottish part of his reign, which, on the whole, was quite successful. But it remains true that a successful Scottish king was to be a disappointing English one.

Perhaps there was a certain inevitability to this: for he had to follow one of the greatest monarchs in all of English history. Even so, Elizabeth's final decade had been anti-climatic, and the English received their new king with considerable expectations. But James did little to endear himself with the public, having few skills in self-presentation. He endured occasions, like the coronation, rather than celebrating them. He had too many Scottish companions and spent too much time hunting, neglecting state business in the process. Scottish favourites went, and English favourites came, with no better result. Most important of all, he had a poor understanding of the workings of English government. The absurd and dangerous notion of the Divine Right of Kings-which he bequethed to his son-put him at variance with the chief trends of English Common Law and constitutional history. The problem was that his Scottish experience of government was incapable of translation into an English context. His northern parliament was really no more than a grand feudal council, and this is how he attempted to treat its more politically mature English counterpart. The practice in Scotland had been to present proposals for laws to the king first so he could select those he approved of, which were then simply voted through. No English parliament was ever going to tolerate being treated in this arrogant fashion. James waged war with parliament; James lost.

But perhaps the most important reason behind James' failure to impress the English lies somewhere else altogether. You see, when he came to England it had been over fifty years since a male in full vigour of life had occupied the throne. Henry VIII, for good or bad, cast a shadow of heroic proportions across English history. But James was not only physically unimpressive he was also personally timid. John Oglander, who saw him at close hand, was later to write in his memoirs that "King James I of England was the most cowardly man that I ever knew." Now, who would have said that of Henry VIII?! Clio the Muse 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right, Clio, the shade of the great Jane shouldn't feel too slighted. She finished her History on Saturday, 26 November, 1791, when she was fifteen, and instead of putting her name on it wrote "by a partial, prejudiced, & ignorant Historian". And there was also the tongue in the cheek. Of Charles I she wrote - "I am obliged in spite of my attachment to the Scotch, to consider them as equally guilty with the generality of the English, since they dared to think differently from their Sovereign, to forget the Adoration which as Stuarts it was their Duty to pay... The Events of this Monarch's reign are too numerous for my pen, and inded the recital of any Events (except what I make myself) is uninteresting to me... As therefore it is not my intention to give any particular account of the distresses into which this King was involved through the misconduct & Cruelty of his Parliament, I shall satisfy myself with vindicating him from the Reproach of arbitrary & tyrannical Government with which he has often been charged. This, I feel, is not difficult to be done, for with one argument I am certain of satisfying every sensible & well disposed person whose opinions have been properly guided by a good Education — & this argument is that he was a STUART." Xn4 08:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply superb, quite superb! Thank you, dearest Mr. Darcy, for achieving what I would not have believed possible: deepening still further my love of Jane Austen. So says yet another partial, prejudiced and ignorant Historian, also known as Clio the Muse 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On", a novel

I'm trying to find somewhere to buy this certain novel online, however, it's proving quite difficult. The novel is, (I'm almost certain of this), called "On", (and you can imagine the difficulty that creates when trying to search for it online), and it set in the far-off future where some accident has rotated the earth's gravitational pull by ninty degrees, so that instead of everything being pulled down, it gets pulled east, and during the course of a few seconds, nearly all of human civilisation is destroyed. The novel then follows the hero, some years later, after he falls off the top of a hill, drops several miles down before landing in a strange new part of the great cliff-face of the world.

I remember flicking through it in a book shop once or twice, but the internet claims it doesn't exist. If anyone here has heard of this novel, and can tell me the name of its author, and where I can get a hold of it, I would be most appreciateive. Thanks, Ninebucks 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking on Usenet's rec.arts.sf.written (try including "YASID" in subject line)... AnonMoos 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Roberts wrote a novel titled On in 2001. I found it with the help of this search engine. And there's google book search's result. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Gospels

What do the Gnostic Gospels say about the Resurrection? MindyE 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosticism was far from being a coherent unified belief system -- it occurred in numerous proliferating versions, some of which were non-Christian, or only very nominally Christian. However, some versions of Gnosticism were Docetic... AnonMoos 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnostic Gospels, the texts themselves, say practically nothing about the resurrection as far as I can recollect. They are mostly lists of sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus, but contain very little of a "history" of His actions, including the crucifixion and the days following. Those rare ones that do make references to it, such as the Gospel of Judas are, as AnonMoos suggests, influenced by a Docetic viewpoint. Christ says in this latter one, for example, "you will sacrifice the man that clothes me," indicating that "the man," or the physical being, was but a shell for the true person beneath or within. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I will have to double-check, but I thought the Gnostics had quite a lot to say about the Resurrection, both as a literal and a symbolic act. Some called the literal view the 'faith of fools'. It was, so they insisted, a spiritual vision rather than a literal seeing. Does the author of the Gospel of Mary, for instance, not view the Resurrection as visions received in dreams? In the Apocalypse of Peter the Apostle sees Christ while in deep trance, who explains that "I am the intellectual spirit, filled with radiant light." The Gospel of Philip also seems to ridicule those who take the Resurrection literally-"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error." Clio the Muse 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnostics, yes; the Gnostic Gospels, no. The Gnostics had a number of writings of various qualities in terms of the influence they had on the movement and the adherents. I'm taking the question just as it's worded because to ask what the Gnostics thought of the resurrection is, as you've pointed out, a big topic about which they had "quite a lot to say." The Gospel of Mary has Mary recounting the the grieving discpiles information she received in a vision, yes; but as far as I remember it does not address whether or not the resurrection actually happened.

The gospels are all notabily silent on the event itself. It's the same with Peter and Philip's attributed work... the Docetic content may be implied from the texts, and the significance is undoubtedly seen as symbolic; but the actuality of it (in addition to the spiritual meaning) is rarely, if ever, explicitly addressed. A relevant quote (similar to the one you mention, but about Christ) from the Gospel of Philip reads, "Those who say that the Lord died first and [then] rose up are in error, for he rose up first and [then] died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die." The question is more about the order of events (spiritual or literal) than their historicity; without getting too much into the doctrinal position, what is being demonsrated here is the detachment between body and spirit. Once the spirit has served its purpose, what happens to the body is of lesser consequence. The exact passage you quote is dealing with the importance of Baptism. It is necessary to "die" and be "reborn," (i.e., resurrected) before physical death. The passage is: "Those [...] go down into the water. [...] out (of the water), will consecrate it, [...] they who have [...] in his name. For he said, "Thus we should fulfill all righteousness." (Mt 3:15) Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing." ◄Zahakiel ► 03:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zahakiel. I shall have to refresh my memory of the Gnostic texts! Clio the Muse 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorky and Lenin

I've just read your page on the Russian writer Maxim Gorky which touches on his relationship with Lenin and his attitude towards the Bolshevik Revolution. Does anyone (Clio?) know any more about this? Fred said right 18:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in Orlando Figes' excellent book A People's Tragedy. Gorky was well-known and respected as a revolutionary but was appalled at the excesses of the Bolsheviks. He had known Lenin since 1902 and raised money for the predecessors of the Bolsheviks. After the revolution, Gorky served as an intermediary to top Bolsheviks for intellectuals and others unjustly imprisoned and helped find jobs for writers and artists in the new Russia. He was fiercely critical of the Red Terror. Because of his reputation, the Bolsheviks could not deal with him as they had with their lesser-known critics. But in 1919, Lenin sent a threatening letter to Gorky and shortly thereafter, his newspaper was shut down. Gorky left Russia in 1921 but found himself a pariah among the largely White (anti-Communist) exiles of Western Europe. He returned to Russia in 1932 and was welcomed back as a Soviet hero. He died in 1936, perhaps murdered by Stalin to prevent him from exposing the show trial of Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. -- Mwalcoff 02:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fred. For one thing, while Lenin and Gorky, had a long acquaintance, and shared some general ides, their individual visions were quite different. Gorky's idea of revolution was much more bound up in notions of brotherhood and freedom, which had very little in common with Lenin's political dialectics, or with his notions of party discipline. Gorky admired Lenin's intellect but hated the way in which he constrained the complexity of life into a narrow set of abstract theories. The two men first clashed over politics, and the future course of the revolution, in 1909 and 1910, specifically on the question of workers' education. For Lenin the workers had no value as an independent cultural force, but only as disciplined cadres of the party. But Gorky, along with Alexander Bogdanov and Anatoliy Lunacharskiy, saw Marxism as a form of religion, to be expressed in new forms of comradeship and union, a theme he takes up in Confession, his novel of 1908. It's hardly any great surprise, then, that Gorky did not settle down comfortably with the form the Revolution took in Russia after November 1917.

In Novaya Zhizn-New Life-, the independent socialist newspaper he published in Petrograd in 1917 and 1918, Gorky time and again challenged the brutishness he saw around him in his Untimely Thoughts column, describing it as an outburst of 'zoological instincts', of ancient hatreds given life by the brutality of the war and the rhetoric of the Bolsheviks. The crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion and the Red Terror further uderlined that the Bolsheviks would not be diverted from the most oppressive forms of dictatorship. But what he found most intolerable was the government's indifference to the famine brought on by the forced grain requsitions of War Communism. He finally decided to go into exile, an action that Lenin had been urging upon him for some time.

The ambivalent relationship he had with Lenin-one of love and one of hate-was fully evident after the latter's death in 1924. It left Gorky with feelings of guilt and regret; with a painful sense that there were issues between the two which could now never be resolved. Soon after he wrote to Romain Rolland, saying "Lenin's death has been a very heavy blow for me. I loved him. I loved him with wrath." It was to cause him to reassess his whole attitude towards the Bolshevik Revolution and all that followed; that Lenin had been right and he had been wrong. It was the beginning of a new path of self-deception. Clio the Muse 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Instruments Invented by Americans

So, I got into an argument with a music major the other day over how many musical instruments have been invented by Americans. I've got Kazoo, Sousaphone,Electric guitar, Melodeon (organ), lap guitar, dobro, Drum Set, ukulele, Chapman stick and Ben Franklin's Glass harmonica. I know there is a keyboard instrument of some type that had a very prodigious sound (it could be heard up to 3 miles away?!) that was American. There is also the Banjo, but its African in origin and not American per se.... And that is to say nothing about Native American instruments. Do you guys know any more? Thanks as all ways. Zidel333 19:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Appalachian dulcimer is generally held to be of American origin. — Lomn 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this counts, but Roger Powell "created the Powell Probe; the first remote, hand-held polyphonic synthesizer controller..." --LarryMac | Talk 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moog synthesizer and Electro-Theremin were both invented by Americans, the Diddley bow is an American instrument of African origin. Rockpocket 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the phonograph as an instrument for creating music? --Sean 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your loud keyboard instrument is a Calliope. I think the moog os also american. -Arch dude 03:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more here. They're not named, though. DirkvdM 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while Edison was the first to build a phonograph it was invented by a Frenchman, and that's what the question was about. DirkvdM 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither of them invented using it to create music, which is why I linked to the definitively American invention of scratching. --Sean 13:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the ukelele was developed in Hawaii before it became part of the US. DirkvdM 07:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The drum kit is an interesting case - basically, it's just a collection of separate instruments. Of course there have been ensembles of percussion instruments all over the world for a very long time, but several played by one person is another thing. A xylophone is percussive, but not the same thing, really - it has notes. I'd be surprised if no Africans ever came up with this idea. Or what about the Japanese? DirkvdM 07:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hammond organ is definitely an American invention GaryReggae 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US-based Moog company also invented the Keytar. --M @r ē ino 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three more: the Pedal steel guitar (if Hawaii counts as "America"), the wonderful Vibraphone, and the Telharmonium monster. Pfly 23:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that the Electric Bass was invented by Leo Fender in sunny California. Incidentally, well into the 1970's it was referred to as a "Fender Bass" on many records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.227.118 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Dance Picture

Hey! I'm trying to find a copy of this picture I've heard about; it's a photo of a modern dancer, maybe Martha Graham or Isabella Duncan, pulling off a move upside down so that her skirt is flared and the tip of her foot is stuck out so that she looks like a calla lilly. Could someone help me find the picture online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.138.251 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably thinking of Isadora Duncan rather than Isabella Duncan. I can't begin to answer your question, but if you go to Google images and search all the names which seem at all possible, you may be able to find it. Xn4 09:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant Isadora Duncan...I've googled both Duncan and Graham but haven't found the picture...I can't think of who else I could google. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.138.251 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of my depth here, but a lot more possible names are suggested in Modern dancers. Xn4 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be looking for a photograph of Loie Fuller. She danced in the early 1900s and was known for the great swirling images she created using yards and yards of cloth in her costume. Google "Loie Fuller", and then press "Images". She does have a dance called, variously, "Lily en Fire", "Dance of the Lily" and "Lily Dance", though I could not find photographs specifically of it. Bielle 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello"

How would you write the music notation for Inside Out by Phil Collins? It starts with him hitting on toms and then to the bass drum and then clashing the cymbals. He then starts knocking on the hi-hat, beating two notes on the kick bass drum, and popping the snare.

How would you write that in actual music notation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.152.111 (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone more musically inclined than I can answer your question, but in the meantime you might glean some info from Percussion_notation. -- Diletante 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Anyone know any website where you can actually drum notation from different arists are availible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.152.111 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the top 100 from 911 tabs. REmember Google is your friend :) schyler 00:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Harmonica tune - Phantom/Haunted Fairground?

I'd ask this on the Entertainment desk, but I suspect that the people on the humanities desk are more likely to know. About 7 or 8 years ago, I was surfing through radio stations in London on a school trip. I happened across an eerie piece on glass harmonica (I'm pretty sure about that bit) called something like 'The Haunted Fairground' or 'The Phantom Fairground'. Since this was the first piece I'd ever heard on glass harmonica, I now find myself wondering if the piece was any good, or if it was just the shock of hearing a different sound (and being young); I'd like to hear it again. However, Google only turns up 'Phantom Fairground' which seems to be a recently written piece specially composed for some person, and unlikely to have been on the radio there and then (although I could be wrong). 'Haunted Fairground' doesn't seem to exist. Has anyone encountered such a piece? Skittle 23:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the glass harmonica but I'd never heard of this piece. It seems to be by one Ian Hughes - see here. It's called "Phantom Fairground". He’s written some film music – [1], [2]. -- JackofOz 04:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's the one I turned up too, but I couldn't find enough detail to work out if it was the one I remember. I got the impression it was quite a recent piece being mentioned in that article, but rereading I think I'm wrong. If I could only hear it, I think I'd know whether it was or not! Thanks for the effort. Skittle 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pity. The only other piece of music I can think of that has "haunted" in the title is Geoffrey Toye's ballet The Haunted Ballroom. The Waltz from the ballet is probably this now little-known composer's best-known work. I no longer have a recording of it, so I can't check, but I don't remember ever hearing a glass harmonica in the orchestration, and I've never read any reference to it if he did - but it's possible. (This is also my cue to mention William Bolcom's Three Ghost Rags for piano, in particular the first one, Graceful Ghost, which is great fun for pianist and audience alike). -- JackofOz 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't answer Skittle's question at all, but Halloween approaching, and given the spooky question on ghosts somewhere below ... for "haunted" works, there are also the operas The Haunted Manor (Straszny Dwór) by Stanisław Moniuszko and The Haunted Tower by Stephen Storace, as well as Study for ‘The Haunted Palace’ after Edgar Allan Poe" (Étude pour 'Le palais hanté’ d'après Edgar Allan Poe) by Florent Schmitt. Glass harmonica sounds like a good choice for orchestrating a haunted fairground, and I now wonder what Ligeti's Lux Aeterna would sound like, if performed on 16 microtuned glass harmonicas. Probably still not as eerie as the real deal. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, Mozart wrote some tunes for the Glass Armonica Edison 05:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did indeed, but none of them was called "Phantom Fairground". -- JackofOz 05:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chortle. Oh, that's so dry. Xn4 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something, something else and another thing, Oh My!

One of the more awkward things about consuming media from a culture you didn't grow up in is that you don't always get the references people make. I'm fairly good at them by now, but there is one that always annoys me because I kinda recognize it but can't place it. As the section title hints at, it's the "A, and B, and C, Oh My!" expression. People use that all the time. Where does it come from, and what is the original text? --Oskar 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In The Wizard of Oz Dorothy, Scarecrow, and the Tin Man are traveling through the forest, and worry about the "Lion and tigers and bears. Oh my!" GreatManTheory 00:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that's it! Yes, now that I know, it feels pretty obvious. Thank you :) --Oskar 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a term for a meme that's been around so long, many people forget the original usage. Like "What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate," or "We don't need no stinking..." They're from Cool Hand Luke and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, respectively. -- Mwalcoff 02:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usual term is meme... 130.88.47.48 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More cowbell is also a meme, but people remember where it came from. I'm thinking of an equivalent to dead metaphor, but specific to memes. -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term for the use of a such a phrase with some type of variation (as alluded to by the original question) is snowclone. --LarryMac | Talk 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the meme is verbal, then the term you're thinking of is Idiom -- an expression whose meaning is not obvious from the literal words used. --M @r ē ino 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

Bass Set

Which of these is best for an aspiring Bass player. I can already KIND OF play guitar but I want to play Bass. Which is best from this list? Thank you very much. schyler 00:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a longtime former bassist, I would hope you had a chance to play them first, but if you're just getting started it's not quite as big a deal. I think both the Washburn Taurus and the Dean Playmate are probably good picks, although I add the Dean based on an affinity for the old Baby Dean guitars of the 80s, and not on the bass perse. Wolfgangus 12:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would second Wolfgangus' recommendation to play them first. Especially at the low end, you need to actually try the bass you're going to buy since the quality can vary so widely. Go to your local music store and try bunches. You may also want to look at shops which have second-hand instruments since that'll give you more quality for less money (or at the least protect you from depreciation). Finding someone locally who already plays bass can also help you in selecting an instrument. Donald Hosek 18:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women Guitarist

Hi. I have an interesting question that no one seems to know the answer. It's probably a bit of a stupid question but here it goes: Are there any hard rock women guitarists out there? I can't think of any. Obviously there are known women to play guitar and even electric guitar but they seem to reside towards the side of country. Any women rock guitarists?Jk31213 02:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female guitarists would be a good place to start. I'd particularly call to your attention Carrie Brownstein, Brody Dalle, Mary Kaye, Lori Linstruth, and others. Those were just the first ones I checked that seemed to fufil your criteria. --Ybbor ^Talk 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you draw the line between rock and pop, Emma Chaplin (of The Long Blondes), Kate Turley (The Fight), Betty Cisneros (Go Betty Go) Molly Lorenne and Toy Valentine (The Faders) all play guitar, although they are mostly alternative rock rather than hard rock. Courtney Love played guitar, and her band Hole had a number of female bass guitarists as well. Laïka 16:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just off the top of my head: Kim Gordon, PJ Harvey, Holly Golightly, Le Tigre, Sleater Kinney, Kim Deal. There must be thousands. It's true that they're fewer than men, but that's true of women in rock generally. --Sean 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are alt-rock or indie guitarists. The questioner specifically asked for hard rock, which is a completely different genre. The one that comes to my mind is Marnie Stern. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 22:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Joan Jett? She's hard rock isn't she? You see I'm an author and I'm thinking of writing a book about a woman hard rock guitarist and I just thought that was so original but now I guess not. But then again, Joen Jett is not really known other than her song I Love Rock and Roll.Jk31213 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have a problem in that hard rock is poorly defined -- the Wikipedia article on the subject basically says it ended in the 1970s. Personally, I'd say that hard rock is an umbrella that includes metal, punk, and grunge. For some reason, though, everyone who comes to mind is a bass guitar player:
- Sean Yseult is a woman despite her name, and few have rocked harder than she did in the metal band White Zombie.
- Kira Roessler was in Black Flag, 'nuff said.
- Melissa Auf der Maur did some good grunge work for Hole, and some extreme hard rock in the Black Sabbath tribute group "Hand of Doom". --M @r ē ino 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissie Hynde? —Tamfang 02:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slum fiction

What do social realist novels, like Morrison's A Child of the Jago, reveal about Victorian attitudes towards poverty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.86.116 (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your best approach is really to read the book and answer this question for yourself, but I'll say a few words. As a journalist born in the East End of London, Arthur Morrison was better placed than most people to write about an underworld area of the East End. One strand you will see in the book is that Victorian society drew a clear distinction between the 'deserving poor' (those thrown into poverty through no fault of their own) and the 'undeserving poor' (such as those ruined by the evils of drink). Also remember that A Child of the Jago is a work of fiction and can't necessarily be treated as if it were a sociological study. You will see some 'Victorian attitudes towards poverty' in the book, but at least as revealing is the controversy over it. Middle class readers were astonished and disbelieving about what was depicted, and critics claimed that Morrison had exaggerated the truth for dramatic effect. In a preface to the third edition, he replied that he had understated the problems of the area rather than exaggerating them. Xn4 09:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What they reveal is poverty as a source of prurient entertainment; the shocking for those who enjoyed being shocked! I cannot think of any better judgement on this whole literary trend than that passed by G. K. Chesterton-"The missionary comes to tell the poor man that he is in the same condition with all men. The journalist comes comes to tell other people how different the poor man is from everybody else." It's the literary version of the traditional 'good works' of the rich parish family, who dip into the poor homes with the obligatory 'basket' and just as quickly dip out again, with one important difference: the middle class readers of A Child of the Jago or Edwin Pugh's Tony Drum, a Cockney Boy, or Richard Whiteing's No. 5 John Street, bring no basket and do not dip, at least not in any practical sense. They read, they are shocked, they may even sympathise; but in the end they leave things pretty much as they are. Morrison is Dickens without the moral message, just as slum fiction is voyeurism without social purpose. So, I leave Chesterton with the last word on the whole slum fiction oeuvre, "They are not a description of the state of the slums. They are only a very dark and dreadful description of the state of the slummers." Clio the Muse 01:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

When was constitution formed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.171 (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose constitution? Stockmann 13:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP and contributions suggest you are in Pakistan. The present constitution of Pakistan was promulgated in 1973, with a significant amendment in 1985. Algebraist 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to constitutions in general, have a look at Constitution#History_and_development. -Elmer Clark 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural pessimism

In "The Great Gatsby" Fitzgerald makes an oblique reference, in the character of Tom Buchanan, to the theories of Lothrop Stoddard on the decline of the white race. Is there a background, a la Spengler, to this kind of cultural pessimism? Stockmann 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a background but I'm not sure Spengler is the source in this case—Stoddard is very different from Spengler on the whole, and American racial alarmism has its own rich and independent path which in many ways is different from Spengler. We have an article on Lothrop Stoddard, but you might also look at the page on his mentor, Madison Grant. The two are very different in the specifics of their theories and the focus of them, but the general alarm is quite the same. Those two fit very well into the history of American scientific racism (Cf. Samuel George Morton, Josiah Nott, George Gliddon, much less those in the early eugenics movement), though they are rather extreme cases (and always a little bit more fringe than the rest of their contemporaries).

But as for larger cultural causes, there are indeed many. World War I was one of them, in a similarity to Spengler, but obviously the situation between a writer in the US and a writer in defeated Germany is a bit different. Grant's beliefs were rooted in the European immigration movements in the late 19th century (which he effectively lobbied to stop by the 1920s), whereas Stoddard's specific beliefs were heavily informed by the Great Migration. In any case, their feelings on cultural decline are linked inextricably to theories of racial decline; for them the decline of the white (Nordic) races was simply the decline of culture, since all culture game from that race in particular under their views. --24.147.86.187 14:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also, it might be said, wider concerns of sexual anxiety here, fears at one and the same time of miscegenation and inadequacy. I'm thinking specifically here of Henry Champley, one time foreign editor of Le Temps, and his wonderfully eccentric White Women, Couloured Men, his bizarre and salacious travel book, published in 1936. In this he urges white women to beware of the dark races; for his travels in the USA and the Far East have convinced him that "The coloured people have discovered the White woman as an idol worthy of being desired above all else." The problem for Mr. Champley is that the white woman has also discovered the coloured races. She is therefore urged to resist the tempations of racial mixing and promiscuity in favour of 'heroic humility', which, I assume, means being at the disposal of dear old Mr. Champley!

Actually this whole cultural trend has a wider resonance than Stoddard's specifically American concerns. It's already evident before the First World War, in work like The Conflict of Colour, where Putnam Weale warns his fellow Britons against the perils of the Japanese alliance. In the mid-1920s, independently of the American school, the poet Leo Chiozza Money published The Peril of the White, saying that "The whites of Europe and elsewhere are set upon race suicide and internecine war." Is it surprising that Fitzgerald allows the ridiculous Buchanan to voice such views? Always remember Nick's thought in Gatsby "I was tempted to laugh whenever he opened his mouth." I dare say Tom and Mr Champley would have got on well, though. Clio the Muse 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Identity Cards

The debates surrounding the issue of identity cards in the UK little mention seems to be made of the previous system, abandoned in 1952. Why was this given up and what does this tell us about recent proposals? 81.129.83.132 13:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British national identity card may help. It refers to the identity card system introduced during the First World War (quickly abandoned after the war), and the case of Clarence Henry Willcock, prosecuted in 1951 for failing to produce an identity card issued under the National Registration Act 1939. In dismissing an appeal against his conviction, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard was moved to say that the the cards were an annoyance, and tended to make people resentful of the acts of the police and turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers.

The old cards were little more than a bit of paper with your name and address written upon it and an official stamp (generally without a photograph). In addition to the problems highlighted by the Lord Chief Justice, they were relatively expensive to administer, and not much of a help to the police. The proposed new cards are a different beast entirely, of course. -- !! ?? 14:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing was just so profoundly un-English, the kind of challenge to native liberties that only sat well with benighted Continentals. If you want a good contemporary view of these cards you could do no better than watch the 1949 Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico, a perfect barometer of the times. Clio the Muse 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, it was one of those things (like rationing) which was brought in to help the war effort, but then proved hard to shake. Once you have something like this, it's hard to get rid of it (even when it was introduced for a specific reason that has now gone). There was a general feeling among the public (so I understand) that the government was trying to hold on to the powers it had gained in the war. 79.65.86.14 08:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Marble Cliffs

This book is considered by many to be a parable of Nazi tyranny-your own page says that it is remarkable that it was not censored during the Third Reich-but how true is this and what do we know of Junger's real attitudes towards the regime? Captainhardy 14:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Jünger wasn´t exactly a friend of them. He refused a seat on behalf of the Nazis in the Reichstag. The Gestapo even searched his house and he was loosely in contact with the plot to kill Hitler however he was against the republic of Weimar and a nationalist. I guess he wasn´t censored because of Jünger´s high standing (he held the Pour le Merite and had written In Stahlgewittern). So he was kind of a posterboy of the right. His son died in Italy fighting in a penal unit due to antinazi sentiments.--Tresckow 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually printing was stopped in 1940, though existing editions were not withdrawn. To be perfectly honest I think the anti-Nazi message of this little novel can be overstated, and Jünger himself never made any direct claim of the kind. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the book reflects the character of the author in more ways than he might have cared to allow. It is detached, abstract and coldly intellectual; a work of aristocratic condescension; of a man who would never soil his hands in the dirty business of politics. For each and every contemporary analogy, On the Marble Cliffs is balanced, and more than balanced, by forms of Teutonic mysticism; of Blut und Boden images and ideas that would just as easily have been appreciated and understood by the likes of Alfred Rosenberg. In the end the message is one of despair, of vindictive despair; that the humane values are not worth preserving. The book, for all of its lyricism and beauty, is cold and inert; the work of a man who merely watched while others acted. As much as I admire Jünger, and I do admire him, in the end his intellectual detachment comes dangerously close to an absence of true moral courage. Clio the Muse 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-Hungary

A-H was the only great power that didn´t try to secure colonies. While that was a wise decision for the ailing empire I wonder if the Jingoism of that time didn´t at least cause public discussions. However I never found something about it. Does anybody have informations?--Tresckow 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at the article Austrian colonial policy, though I can't vouch for the article's reliability. It does look as though there were a few attempts at colonialism during the 18th century but that Vienna abandoned colonial aspirations during the 19th. I will look a little further, but, having lost Belgium in the Napoleonic Wars, the Habsburg monarchy was reduced to a small coastal strip in Italy and Dalmatia. Landlocked Austria and Hungary themselves of course had no seafaring tradition or know-how, which were essential to a successful colonial enterprise. I suspect that perpetual unrest in the Italian possessions may have discouraged Vienna from using Venice or Trieste as a base for colonizing efforts. Marco polo 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, Admiral Wilhelm von Tegetthoff was an advocate for Austro-Hungarian colonialism, but the government remained opposed to a colonial enterprise. Of course, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, dominated as it was by Austrians and secondarily Hungarians, had its own internal colonies, such as its Italian possessions, Galicia, arguably the Czech and Slovak lands, Ruthenia, arguably Transsylvania, and its South Slavic possessions. During the late 19th century when the rest of Europe was scrambling for Africa, Austria-Hungary was occupying Bosnia. Marco polo 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that page on Austrian colonial policy is devoid of references. It might have been something worthy of deeper investigation. As it stands it does not fill me with that much confidence.

Anyway, Marco, I know you will not mind me saying so, but you seem to be looking at Austria and Hungary here from the standpoint of the treaties of St. Germain and Trianon, which reshaped them as land-locked countries. Remember the pre-war Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Austrian Empire before that, was not so much a nation state as a collection of territories that owed alliegiance to the Habsburgs. Of the two states that emerged after the Ausgleich of 1867 Hungary was by far the more 'national'; but Austria still preserved its old supra-national character. It should not therefore be viewed as an exclusively German state. By this measure the Dalmation coast, with its Slav majority, was still Austria (there is still a Slav minority in the present day Republic of Austria). In fact the polyglot character of the Empire was a source of frustration to many of the German speakers, who in The Linz Program of 1882 called for the complete Germanisation of the Austrian state. One of the signatories, Georg Schönerer, went on to form the Pan-German Party, an early source of inspiration for Adolf Hitler.

So, Tresckow, why no Austrian colonial enterprise? Perhaps you have already gone most of the way towards an answer in your use of the word 'Jingoism', though 'Nationalism' would probably have been better. For it was these things, the emotions these forces engendered, that represented the greatest danger to the old Austrian Empire, the one thing that it had to avoid if was to survive as a system of dynastic loyalty, and nothing but a system of dynastic loyalty. Such national passions that did exist within the Empire were not directed towards the Habsburgs, but towards Pan-Germanism or Pan-Slavism. In other words, there was no specifically 'national constituency', the very thing that elsewhere gave rise to the demand for overseas possessions. Besides, in attempting to contain all of the centrifugal forces that threatened to tear it apart, the Empire, of necessity, had to confine its ambitions to Europe. Locked out of Germany and Italy in 1866 it looked more and more towards the Balkans, from where the greatest threat to its security and integrity seemed to come. Who could have thought of distant colonies with the Serbs and the Russians knocking at the gates? Colonies, moreover, would only have made the national tensions and conflicts even more acute. So, Austria, more a state of mind than a nation, marched on the Balkans, annexing Bosnia Herzegovina in 1908 in the last gasp of decrepit imperial ambition of the old kind. Overseas empires were for young nations. Clio the Muse 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio is of course quite right that Austria and Hungary, as then defined, technically had seacoasts before 1918. What I meant was that their ethnic heartlands, the areas we now know as Austria and Hungary, have never had seacoasts. Since the empire's ruling elite largely came from those heartlands, the empire's elite lacked a strong naval tradition. The coastal parts of greater Austria and greater Hungary were home to subordinate peoples whom the ruling Germans and Hungarians might not have trusted with a colonial effort. I appreciate Clio's point that a colonial effort might have aggravated national tensions, though it need not have, if each of the peoples had been given a stake in the colonies. British imperialism did not, it seems to me, aggravate tensions among the English, Welsh, and Scots. If anything, by opening up military careers and opportunities for trade or emigration, the empire may have given the different British peoples a common cause. An Austro-Hungarian colonial empire might have done the same. Marco polo 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting conjecture, Marco. I'm not sure that the British example is a good one, though. Let me just take the case of England and Scotland. Well before the Scots were admitted to the English imperial club in 1707 there had been a steady process of convergence between the two nations, which shared the same language and, since the Reformation, the same Protestant outlook. The Parliamentary Union of 1707, in removing the disabilities previously applied under the Navigation Acts, ended the last obstacle to Scottish commercial development by allowing them access to all of the established English markets, to begin with mostly in North America. The Scots did not create the Empire but they were well placed to take full advantage of its opportunities, and to aid in its future expansion.

Now, contrast this with the Austrian Empire. There was no common language; there was no common culture; there was no common religion; there was no common outlook. There is, in other words, no basis for convergence, a convergence that would have had to make way for at least a dozen differing national communities. I can see issues arising about opportunity of access; about imperial strategies; about the need for degrees of capital investment, about the kind of investment required; about the location and the administration of colonies; about naval and shipping priorities; about imperial security; about the language to be used; about this, about this and about this! In other words, more tensions, more pressures; more than a weak and weakening empire would have been able to withstand. But, in the end, this is all speculation. None of what I have said here can be put to any meaningful empirical test. It cannot be known; it did not happen. And as a great Austrian once wrote-Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist! Clio the Muse 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you make interesting points. I think Clio is right about the possible problems caused by colonies. However I am not sure about this as a reason: Since the empire's ruling elite largely came from those heartlands, the empire's elite lacked a strong naval tradition. As did Germany despite a tradition of naval trade in old Hanse cities like Hamburg. Germany totally lacked serious experience and yet created a strong and capable fleet to protect it its colonies and too, foolishly, endanger British naval supremacy. I wonder about the Act of Union. It seems similar to the Ausgleich. I guess the language induced cultural differences in A-H made it impossible to work as well. The Nicobar information was really interesting.--85.180.30.218 22:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, 85.180, the Union of the Crowns of 1603 was closer to the Ausgleich, in that two states owed allegiance to a single monarch, who retained control of the foreign policy and the army. The Act of Union of 1707, on the other hand, had the effect of creating a unitary British state with a single parliament, closer in political structure to the Austrian Empire as it existed prior to 1867! Clio the Muse 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Could someone explain to me the exact difference between a single member and group constituency? If a constituency is the body of voters in one area I don't understand how only one single peson can be involved. (I'm pretty new to poly-sci)

Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.244.22 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know which nation(s) you are considering, but this terminology might distinguish between electoral districts that return a single member to a parliament and those that return several members, allocated from party lists according to a system of proportional representation. Marco polo 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can also have a group constituency even without proportional representation. For example, the City Council might have five members elected at large; anyone can run, and the top five vote-getters citywide are elected. Arrangements of this type were popular in the South (in the U.S.) during the Jim Crow era. Geographic districts, each returning a single member, would have meant that, despite the disenfranchisement of most blacks, one or more districts would have elected black officeholders, because almost no whites lived there. To exclude blacks from office, many town, city, or county legislatures were elected entirely at large, so that the comparative handful of black voters couldn't influence the election.

Less common is a system combining single member and group constituencies. I'm on the board of a nonprofit where some members are chosen by geographic districts and others are elected at large, by all the members of the organization. Something simlar was in effect in New York City at one point (though now discontinued). There were geographic City Council districts, each electing one member. In addition, each borough (a broader unit encompassing multiple districts) elected two Councilmembers, with the top two vote-getters being seated. The system had a tinge of proportional representation, however, in that the two candidates seated from a borough couldn't be from the same political party. This was an artificial measure to lessen the Democratic Party's dominance. It meant that there were generally at least four Republicans on the Council, because four of the five boroughs would elect one Republican and one Democrat. The borough of Manhattan sometimes elected one Democrat and one candidate from the now-defunct Liberal Party. It's most common, however, for a legislative body to have either single-member districts with plurality election or what you've termed "group constituency". JamesMLane t c 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize: A single-member constituency is a district that elects one person to a legislature, city council or whatever. A "group constituency" presumably refers to a district that elects more than one. -- Mwalcoff 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a city council with members elected "at large" (with no defined districts) be considered a single group constituency? Corvus cornix 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, although people would probably just say they elect members on an at-large basis. -- Mwalcoff 02:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They might even omit "on a basis". —Tamfang 02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy: ways of not answerering a question

Can someone out there suggest ways of not answering question like "how much do you earn?" "what is your religion?" or "where do you come from?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.101.106 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are virtually infinite ways of evading questions, but the questoner will know that you are evading the question. You can respond with your own question, or with a dismissive remark, or with deflecting humor. Examples for each of your three questions: 1) Isn't it a little crass to be concerned with others' income? I make a decent living. I'd rather not give specific numbers. I don't want to embarass you by asking the same question. 2) Who cares about religion any more? Religion is such a dull topic, I'd rather not get into it. Religion bores me. Why are you so interested in religion? 3) I don't come from anywhere really; I think of myself as a world citizen. I've lived so many places I don't think of myself as "from" any of them. What does it matter where a person has lived? And so on. Marco polo 20:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfectly proper to say, nonbelligerently, "I'd rather not say," when someone asks you about your income or your religion. (It would be an unusual response to a question about where you come from, but if you don't want to answer it, you're still entitled to decline to do so.)

If you don't want to be so obvious, you can answer with a lie, one that's so outlandish it's obviously not true, and turn the exchange into a joke. "How much do you earn?" "I get paid seventeen cents an hour. Someone told me there might be some sort of law that says the company has to pay me more. I've been meaning to look into that." "What's your religion?" "I worship Britney Spears. We're now in the period of the Great Tribulation, as foretold in Scripture."

As a catchall nonresponsive response: "If I tell you that, I have to kill you."

I generally agree with Marco polo's examples, except that "Isn't it a little crass to be concerned with others' income?" is distinctly hostile. I wouldn't normally respond that way without good reason, i.e., a desire to put down the questioner because of his or her past conduct. JamesMLane t c 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, generally, you can just be vague or use 'social humour' which isn't necessarily actually funny. Unless the person asking is blind to your social clues, or really doesn't care. Things like 1)"Enough" or "Not as much as I'd like" 2)"Something religiousy" or "It's my set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." 3)"Just down the corridor. Didn't you see?" or something vague like "The South". Generally give people clues that you don't want to answer and you're fine, except in a few circumstances. Skittle 21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had good luck with simply ignoring the question and changing the subject with a vague expression on your face. "How much money do you make?" "Hmm? I love your shoes, do you know if they make them in red?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A diplomatic formula I have often used is "I'm afraid I can't help you". If pressed, you say "I just can't help you". It works for almost any awkward question. You can even use it in a formal context like a public inquiry. Xn4 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some people, it comes naturally: [3]. risk 23:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One approach would be to say "A gentleman/lady doesn't ask questions like that". They'll either:

agree that they've overstepped the bounds of decorum, apologise, and withdraw to a nether place
~~admit~~ boast that they're not a gentleman/lady, in which case you have the absolute right to have nothing further to do with them, or
argue that they are a gentleman/lady, but that it's ok for such a person to ask questions like this. In that case, you would politely disagree, bid your adieux, turn, and leave. -- JackofOz —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A handy retort is "It all depends what you mean by...." This can lead to a rather more interesting conversation anyway.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a select variety of approaches! Except for the occasions you may choose to answer, FisherQueen's non sequitur solution has the advantage of completely ignoring any perceived faux-pas and of preventing further irritation or embarassment. Both can just move on as if it never happened. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz makes a good point. I can remember being told off as a child for asking people what was called 'the question direct' - that is, almost anything about themselves. I still don't do it much, unless there's a very good reason, and I don't feel awkward about not answering such questions if I don't want to. Xn4 13:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on Marco polo's answer way up at the top there... I wouldn't use those for the religion question, because if the other person is religious, to say something like, "Religion is such a dull topic; I'd rather not get into it" or "Who cares about religion anymore?" could be construed as offensive. I'd use one of the other evasive answers above that just doesn't mention relgion at all. 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pirates of the Early 20th Century

Does anyone have information regarding Atlantic Ocean pirates in the early 1900's. I realize privateering was pretty much dissolved by the late 1800's but I was hoping there was something going on during this time. Anything at all? Thanks Beekone 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have it in my mind that in the early twentieth century traditional piracy was more likely in the Pacific and the Far East than in the Atlantic. See, for instance, The Black Flag: True Tales of Twentieth-Century Piracy by James Hepburn (Headline, 1994) ISBN 9780747210177 Xn4 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think piracy has historically been mostly confined to the marginal seas, rather than the oceans themselves. Trinidadian Boysie Singh was a Caribbean pirate of the mid-20th century.--Pharos 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transference of a soul from body to body

I don't remember where this idea came from; I believe I either watched a documentary on TV or read it online, but for all I remember about it, it could be a dream; but I recall a theory that certain human bodies (possibly the majority of them) are actually empty husks. It also contends that a fully developed soul can move from body to body at will, thereby gaining hundreds of years of human experience. I find this to be an interesting idea, and have been pondering about it, here and there, for over a year now. The vast amount of information on the soul, religion, and mysticism has made it difficult to find a point of reference for this, and any information about it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tom 68.58.186.184 21:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was the plot of Child's Play. --Sean 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See reincarnation. --24.147.86.187 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Wikipedia entries on Soul and Spirit? It gives a lot of data from various traditions. It seems, from your question, that you're already aware of the vast amount of information on this concept, or at least that a lot of information exists, so points of reference can be hard to come by without a more specific question :) ◄Zahakiel ► 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that there is such a 'thing' as soul. I go for the 'empty husk' theory myself, especially when dead!--88.110.33.229 15:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low Income and Equity

Hi there, I am not sure if this the right place to ask but I have 2 questions.

I am a single parent with a high school education and i am relying on government subsidies for survival. I have two children, 6 and 4 years old that must be cared for.

My questions are:

What monthly payments can i expect from my municipal, provincial and federal? I mean in Canada and What kinds of social programs are available to my family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.32 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean In Toronto, Ontario and financially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.155 (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answers will depend on exactly where you live in Canada, and on familial, medical and financial information that it would not be wise to put on the Ref Desk. Each municipality and each province has different guidleines, different budgets and different attitudes. The subsidies for Toronto, for example, are generally higher than for, say, Chatham, because the cost of living in Toronto is higher than almost anywhere else in that province.Check the Blue Pages (Government Listings) in your local telephone directory for Family Services, or Social Services (the names also vary) or call the general inquiries number for any of the three levels of government and ask for the relevant department. Wherever you start, that level will likely be able to tell you about the other two and how they interact in your area. Bielle 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Canadian equivalent of the Citizen's Advice Bureau? This link doesn't seem to think so, but if it had a different name and was not linked to the UK system, it wouldn't necessarily feature there. If such a thing exists, that would be the place to ask this question... Skittle 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

bangladesh iran

Was it true that some historians say that Bangladesh was part of Persia in the ancient times?

Oh, some 'historians' will say just about anything! As far as I am aware the Persian Empire, in its many guises, never stretched that much further east than the banks of the Indus River. Clio the Muse 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In pre-Muslim times, Greeks and Persians made it about as far as Delhi. After the Muslims arrived, the most likely candidate is the Mughal Empire, which did extend to Bangaladesh. "Some historians" might call the Mughals Persian because they spoke Persian. I say no -- Babur, the first Mughal, was a Timurid, and while the Timurids did rule Persia, they were Mongols, not Persians. The name Mughal means Mongol, and neither Persia nor India nor Bangladesh should feel ashamed for having fallen to the same Mongol family -- the Timurids and the rest of the Mongol Empires were by some measures the largest the world has ever seen. --M @r ē ino 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of Christian liturgical calendar day?

At what time of day would the liturgical calendar day begin for Christians? I am aware that the civil Gregorian calendar day is considered to begin at midnight local civil time, whenever that might be, but what about the time that the day is considered to begin for religious purposes?

It would start at sunrise, wouldn't it? So the specific time of day would change throughout the year. Perhaps canonical hours might help. Adam Bishop 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do they do if they're really far north? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.229.240 (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if there is a different ruling buried in church statutes, but local practice here is that the liturgical day of the Church of England begins at midnight. Thus Midnight Mass celebrates the beginning of Christmas from midnight on December 25th, and the new fire is brought into the church to light the Paschal candle at midnight on Easter Sunday. (It's rather a high church.)SaundersW 08:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly ignorant about this, but in a book I can check later at home (and may be misremembering) I thought it was mentioned that vespers (?) services sometimes include readings relating to the feasts celebrated on the two adjacent days, and thus serve as the pivot. All I find online is here ("At Vespers, the prokeimenon functions as the turning point of the service: liturgically, the old day (Saturday) ends, and the new day (Sunday) begins..."), and perhaps that can be explained by what I read at Midnight Office: "an All-Night Vigil is celebrated every Sunday (commencing in the evening on Saturday), and so the Midnight Office and Compline are usually omitted." If no one more knowledgeable can help, I'll consult my source at home this evening. Wareh 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add some more confusion. This site (http://www.catholicliturgy.com) states that The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day. Also Solemnities are counted as the principal days in the calendar and their observance begins with evening prayer I of the preceding day. Some also have their own vigil Mass for use when Mass is celebrated in the evening of the preceding day. This Catholic site shows the two stats being used together. For Sundays and Solemnities, the liturgical day runs from 4:00 p.m. of the calendar day before to midnight of. the day itself – a period of 32 hours. It appears that the calendar change in the Catholic Church in 1960 is behind this. From ancient times, the day was understood to begin and end at dusk. ... Now the liturgical day began with Matins. [4]

However this site (The orthodox church in America) says Transition to a New Liturgical Day. It should be noted that the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts takes place at the end of a liturgical day. Thus, if the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be celebrated on a Wednesday, the stichera for the saint commemorated on Wednesday will be chanted, as is customary, at vespers on the eve of that day (Tuesday evening). Another Orthodox site states In the Orthodox Church the liturgical day begins in the evening with the setting of the sun. This practice follows the Biblical account of creation: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen 1:5). SaundersW 18:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion here is understandable, because what we have is a meeting-point between two traditions. In the Jewish system, the day begins at sunset, so a "day" is a period of darkness and then light. This is therefore true for all the sacred days of the Hebrew calendar, including the weekly Sabbaths (that begin Friday nights) and the annual Day of Atonement (that begins the sunset before what modern calendars would consider the real "day"). In the later systems such as the Roman calendar, the day begins at midnight, and Roman Catholicism and most forms of Protestantism have adopted this reckoning - for the most part. Some groups continue to use the sunset-to-sunset reckoning, and some elements of those that don't (as with the aforementioned Vespers) reflect this earlier thinking. Since the question is about the "Christian" reckoning, we do have to fall back on the age-old filters of: "What groups do you mean?" and "What events are you considering?" ◄Zahakiel ► 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question, and one I'd never thought about. As you say, Zahakiel, there is an older tradition that follows from Judaism with the day beginning at sunset, and a later one with some hangovers. The Catholic liturgical calendar adopted a changeover at midnight far later than the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, and now I am wondering when the Anglican church, or Church of England, or whatever it was at the time, made the change. Fascinating... thanks! SaundersW 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely some traditions consider the "new day" to begin at dawn, extending through the period of light and period of darkness until the following dawn? -- !! ?? 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be some, but an intensive internet search failed to find reference to it, and Zahakiel's reasoning would explain why the day begins at dusk in older traditions. So, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to find a tradition that does consider dawn the start of the new liturgical day. SaundersW 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caspar Contarini

I'm hoping to write an article on the mentioned person, but I really can't find many substantial sources. Can anybody help fill me in on this figure or at least point the way to a good source? bibliomaniac 1 5 05:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gasparo Contarini?—eric 05:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you re still looking for a source, Bibliomaniac, I would suggest The History of the Popes: Their Church and State by Leopold von Ranke. Clio the Muse 22:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman built a redirect from Caspar Contarini, but shouldn't that be Caspar/Gaspar Contarinus/Contarenus? For more sources, John Patrick S. J. Donnelly in his translation of The Office of a Bishop lists in the bibliography:

Gilbert, Felix (1969) "Religion and Politics in the Thought of Gasparo Contarini" in Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe OCLC 164536949
Gleason, Elisabeth G. (1993) Gasparo Contarini: Venice, Rome, and Reform OCLC 44954863
Logan, Oliver (1978) "The Ideal Bishop and the Venetian Patriciate: c. 1430– c. 1630." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 29: 415–50.
Logan, Oliver (1996) The Venetian Upper Clergy in the 16th and Early 17th Centuries: A Study of Religious Culture OCLC 59649652
Matheson, Peter (1972) Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg OCLC 350831
Ross, James Bruce (1972) "The Emergence of Gasparo Contarini: A Bibliographical Essay." Church History 41: 1–24.
Ross, James Bruce (1970) "Gasparo Contarini and His Friends." Studies in the Renaissance 17: 192–232.
Minnich, Nelson H., Elisabeth G. Gleason (1989) "Vocational Choices: An Unknown Letter of Pietro Querini to Gasparo Contarini and Niccolò Tiepolo (April, 1512)." Catholic Historical Review 75:1–20.

—eric 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Somme

What did the British army learn, if anything, from the battle of the Somme and how were these lessons applied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.13.61 (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, the Battle of the Somme was the sharpest learning curve in British military history. What did the army learn? It learned how to be an army in the modern sense, in the first place; and in the second, it learned how to beat the Germans, a lesson applied not immediately but in the Hundred Days Offensive, the centre piece of which was the Battle of Amiens in 1918.

On 1 July 1916, the opening day of the offensive, the generals did not know their business and the soldiers did not know their business. There were too few heavy guns, and they were given too many targets. The initial bombardment, moreover, was too prolonged, giving the Germans time and opportunity to prepare a counter-response. Infantry tactics were amateurish and wasteful, with too many casualties for virtually no gain. But some units, under more imaginative command, were developing system in the midst of chaos. Major General Frederick Ivor Maxse, the commander of the 18th Division, noted for his skill in the training of infantry, experimented with the creeping barrage, allowing his men to advance under artillery cover, thus capturing all of his major objectives. Afterwards he wrote "With sufficient time to prepare an assault on a definite and limited objective, I believe that a well trained division can capture almost and 'impregnable' stronghold..."

This and other lessons were absorbed into the new tactical manuels, issued in February 1917. The creeping barrage; realistic and co-ordinated infantry attacks; effective support by tanks; concentrated machine gun fire; aircraft used in close support of ground troops; keeping the enemy off balance, and again off balance-here were the elements of the British Blitzkrieg. The first signs of the application of the new methods came with the Battle of Arras in 1917. At Amiens in 1918 they were the cause of the 'Black Day of the German Army.' Not at all bad for a country with little in the way of a professional military tradition, one that had been able only to field four divisions in 1914, dismissed as a 'contempable little force' by none other than the Kaiser himself. Clio the Muse 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Success and failure

Why did the Communists succeed in Russia in 1917 and all the other European revolutions that followed their example fail? 81.129.82.68 10:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to consider that in 1917 the Bolsheviks effectively seized power in a vacuum, quickly gaining the support of Russia's vast peasant population with the promise of peace and of land. In controlling central Russia they had the three ingrediants of victory: space, space and yet more space. Even when they were on the retreat they could fall back on a hinterland which still alowed them to absorb each and every shock. Trotsky, and the new Red Army, controlled the railway system and the interior lines of communication. The counter-revoltion, in contrast, in the shape of the Volunteer Army, suffered from problems of leadership, of popular appeal, of communication, and of co-ordination. Though the Whites attracted some foreign intervention this was too little to make a difference, with forces landing on the periphery of the old Russian Empire, too far away from the Bolshevik centres of power.

Now, look at Germany and Hungary, where revolution was attempted on the basis of the Soviet model. In Germany the political revolution of November 1918 failed to transform into a full-scale social revolution for the simple reason that there was never a power vacuum; that the old elites, including the military, were not swept aside, merely stunned for a time. The left, moreover, was divided, with the moderate SDP, fearful of the extreme Spartacist League, willing to enter into an alliance of convenience with the conservative right. Communist attacks on the new state were fitful and badly co-ordinated, quickly delt with by the emergence of the new Freikorps formations, which had the support and encouragement of Gustav Noske, the Socialist Minister of Defence. The Uprising of January 1919 was quickly crushed, and its leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht killed. Even the formation of the Bavarian Soviet Republic in April, yet another disastrous political adventure, had no chance at all against the forces of the organised right.

The formation of the Hungarian Soviet Republic came about under very specific political circumstances: the Communists under Bela Kun did not seize power; it was handed to them by those, including the majority Socialist party, who felt that Russian support was the one sure way to save Hungary from the demands of the victorious allies. But Lenin was in no position to aid his fellow revolutionaries. Surrounded by hostile powers-and facing a counter-revolution in Hungary itself-the Soviet Republic fell to an invasion by professional Romanian forces. In political terms it was never more than an illusion. Clio the Muse 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia was ripe for a revolution. Any revolution. The primary goal was to get rid of the bloodsucking Tsars. Later that year, it turned communist/state socialist (whatever). For any revolution to succeed you need a highly disgruntled population. Russia had that. Other European countries didn't because they had already disabled their royal oppressors (in various ways). Had communism been a current ideology around the French revolution, then France might have become a Socialist State. Actually, one might possibly argue it did, but under a different name. But that notion just popped up in my head, just something to ponder on. DirkvdM 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, one more factor was of course WWI. Royalty had been gotten rid of, but now this terrible war had broken out, so maybe this new experiment called democracy wasn't such a good idea after all. Even in a moderate country like the Netherlands, Pieter Jelles Troelstra thought that a revolution was imminent (which came to be known as his big mistake). I suppose it failed because the misery wasn't as bad as in Russia, despite the war (especially in the neutral Netherlands of course). And then stories came through about atrocities in Russia, so that cured any desires to adopt that system (which isn't communism, by the way, but that's a different discussion). Yet another ideology made inroads, which led to WWII. That was even worse than WWI in many ways, so that alternative was out the window too. Communism saw some rise in popularity as a result, but that faded in the next decade. So, in a funny way, we have Stalin and Hitler to thank for the democracies we live in. DirkvdM 08:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One or two points of clarification. There was no possibility of France becoming a 'Socialist State' during the Great Revolution, even if the doctrine had been in currency, for the simple reason that the political procees at work was dominated by bourgeois notions of the rights of property and the responsibilities of the citizen. Even the most radical leaders, men like Robespierre, placed definite limits on the state's right to interfere with private property, or to attempt unwarranted regulation of the economy. Those who went too far in their radicalism; those who defied notions of what was right and proper, men like Jacques Hebert, to take an obvious example, went to the guillotine. Communism and Socialism, in the modern sense of the term, only begin to take shape with Babeuf onwards to Saint-Simon and then to Marx.

No, sorry, Dirk; we do not have Hitler and Stalin to thank for the 'democracies we live in', a truly bizarre suggestion! Where there was a strong civic tradition; a strong system of public law and forms of representation, democracy remained strong, even during the most difficult years. It remained strong throughout western Europe; in Scandinavia; in Czechoslovakia, up until the Munich Agreement of 1938; in the United Kingdom and in the British Dominions; and in the United States. It was weak where it was associated with defeat, as in Germany; or in feelings of defeat, as in Italy. It was weak throughout much of eastern Europe because of the absence of a democratic tradition; because of economic backwardness; because of ethnic tensions; because small, self-interested and corrupt elites stood isolated against the mass of the uneducated peasantry. The only fully democratic body in Russian history, the Constituent Assembly of 1918, was killed off by the Bolshevik dictatorship. People like the English, with centuries of parliamentary development behind them, were never, ever going to fall for the 'smelly little orthodoxies', as George Orwell puts it, promoted by the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Clio the Muse 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the first bit: you say that communist/socialist ideals were not in vogue at the time, which is also what I said. About the second bit, you say that there was never a real threat to democracies in western Europe, which is also what I say. I just addressed the question why that might be (despite the two world wars) and it occurred to me that if there hadn't been the horror stories associated with the alternatives, they might have gained more momentum. (It would have been interesting to see how communism would have worked out in the Netherlands.) Btw, I got this notion that democracy was still regarded as something rather experimental in the first half of the 20th century and that communism and fascism were seen as alternatives from Geert Mak, and although I value your knowledge, he is a recognised historian/writer, so of course he has more authority on the subject than you. Ah, I see in the article that the book I read, 'In Europa', has been translated into English. So here's my second book tip to you. :) As for "people like the English, with centuries of parliamentary development behind them", what other such people are there? Isn't England quite unique in that respect? DirkvdM 06:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, dear; Geert Mak, the man who combines historical analysis with travelogue, making sweeping generalisations about the past, liberally seasoned with factual errors! I am not saying that Travels Through the Twentieth Century is a bad book; I am saying that it bears all the marks of journalese, the stable in which it was born. It lacks weight; it lacks depth; it lacks substance. There must surely be a higher standard of scholarly analysis in the Netherlands than that! His point about communism, fascism and democracy is, quite simply, muddle-headed nonsense. Politics, and political choices, are not a question of experimentation and fashion. One has to consider the specific circumstances which led to a given set of outcomes; what objective factors, what structural factors, in other words, were behind the failure of forms of extremism in, say, the Netherlands and their success in Austria, another small country.

Look, Dirk, its obvious that history is not your 'specialist subject', if I might so express it, meaning no disrespect. But there is an issue here going beyond that of expertise. When I was an undergraduate, precocious and opinionated in every way, I was told by one of my professors to take nothing for granted; to question everything; to interrogate and dissect sources; to consider all judgements suspect until they could be cross-referenced and proved; to weigh, to analyse, to think. Above all, not to accept authority as authority, little more than a brick wall of the intellect. You may question anything I write here; you may seek to prove me wrong by pointing at alternative ways of looking at things, or drawing attention to some facts that I may have passed over in haste. But please, please do not assume that publication is the measure of wisdom. Many more bad books have made their way into print than good ones. We need to acquire the wit, the judgement, the skill and the maturity to tell which is which. Can I suggest-again with all due respect-that the truly important thing, the only important thing, is to think for youself; to move out of the box, to reach your own considered and unique conclusions, and not to believe something because Geert Mak, or any other author, says so. Oh, and finally, Dirk, Clio is also a published author; so you are at prefect liberty to disregard all of this! Clio the Muse 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that one should always question everything - after all you're talking to a philosopher. :) That is actually one of my credi (hmmm, which source to believe now - my spell checker says 'credos', but Wiktionary says 'credi'). But if that is all you do you'll go nuts (I speak from experience - feeling all (all!) certainties slip away from under you is a pretty scary experience). You also have to 'for the moment' assume to be true which is most likely to be true. So I have to make a judgement about which sources are most likely correct. You're certainly well-informed, because else your assertions would have been attacked much more often. But even with a lot of knowledge you can still make mistakes when you start interpreting. For that you don't only need knowledge, but also experience (knowledge can be found in a book, but insight comes with the years), and Geert Mak has the advantage of age over you. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that as far as I can judge Mak is a more reliable source. But a better way to be certain is to have two independent (the tricky part) sources. And I also heard in Andere Tijden (one of my favourite tv shows, with a lot of historical footage and stories by people who had first-hand experience, rather like Mak's book) that in the 1930s in Germany there was a split in society between the nazis and the commies. Complete with images of their marches (I mentioned those before).

It also makes a lot of sense. That democracy was a fairly recent experiment in most European countries is true (right?). And that despite that the two (or two of the) most horrible wars in history took place after about a century is also true (right? - just tell me where you think this goes wrong). And communism and fascism/nazism were fairly recent 'inventions'. That people were divided and struggling as to which road to take makes a lot of sense. The old order that had ruled for centuries had been gotten rid of and now the alternative(s) (democracy and capitalism) had led to all this misery (first WWI and then the stock exchange crash and then there was also the Spanish Flu, which had little to do with it, but tell that to the people). This is why I find the interbellum such a fascinating period in history. The future of whole world (quite literally) hung in the balance - it was rather a chaotic situation that could have spinned off in a completely different direction. Also, the fast changing society that we live in now had been prepared for for centuries with the rise of the true sciences, but the social change that was needed to let that have its full effect only came in the first half of the 20th century, with some preparatory moves in the preceding century, such as a first taste of democracy and capitalism (and even socialism already to some extent), but also with the theories of evolution that told us that the world we live in is nothing special and that everything can change. I suppose that last phrase is the most essential. That was to a large extent a new insight - if we don't like something, we can get rid of it. The two world wars each shuffled the cards and out came the society we live in now (in the West) - liberalism with a socialist 'correction'. Decolonisation and the sixties and such were just 'finishing touches'. DirkvdM 07:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age and wisdom; not even Clio can beat that! Some of the issues you have raised would demand a lengthy response, that cannot really be justified here. I would just ask you to reflect on two things: German democracy was tainted from the outset by association with defeat, a point I have already made, but even so it was killed in the end by a stab in the back, not by frontal attack. Clio the Muse 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should try to avoid making a Latin plural of credo, which is of course a verb and not a noun. If you need a plural of credo then perhaps credos... the only reason for preferring credi would be if it were the historic plural, but it isn't, except possibly in Italian. Xn4 20:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign policy of Elizabeth of England

What were the main factors shaping the foreign policy of Elizabeth I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abe Goldberg (talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounbds too much like a homework question to be answered here. Can you focus your question more narrowly?--Wetman 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spain, France, Scotland, the Netherlands, the Pope and the marriage question. That should get you started. --Dweller 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other factors, Dweller, that you have not touched on which give Elizabeth's foreign policy a unique piquancy, factors which come far closer to home; namely, the question of the Queen's legitimacy and the question of her succession. And both of these found substance and expression in the person of Mary Queen of Scots, her greatest and most dangerous rival. But for this Elizabeth may not have intervened in Scotland in 1560, thus securing the victory of the Reformation; and but for this she may not have intervened in France in 1562, giving support to the Huguenots against Mary's Guise relatives in the Wars of Religion.

Although Mary's execution in 1587 removed a source of friction with the French it only served to increase that with Spain. In need of an alliance with the French, she pursued this end with a high degree of consistency, not deflected by the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. She even used the question of her possible marriage in a quite calculating and cynical attempt to ensure the continuation of the French connection. For the great task, that which surpassed all others, was to keep Philip II from re-establishing control of the Netherlands. And what a remarkable act it was: even after the execution of Mary-which put her at variance with most of Catholic Europe-Elizabeth managed to preserve good relations with France and Scotland, despite their connections with her dead rival, thus reversing centuries of antagonism under the most unpromising of circumstances. Philip was kept at bay, out of the Netherlands and out of England. It truly was the Golden Age! Clio the Muse 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, all of that's covered in my list, lol. I think we both forgot to mention Ireland. But more fundamentally, Abe, you need to consider time. Elizabeth reigned for a very very long time and over such an epoch the themes, pressures and urgencies ebbed and flowed. New problems arose as old were dispensed with, alliances were made and broken. And don't forget, as her reign wound up, the marriage question diminished in favour of the succession problem. There, between my grudging terseness and Clio's generosity, I think you have plenty of material to get delving into the books with. :-) --Dweller 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both. I now have a good idea of the areas and themes I should be looking at. Have you seen that movie, Clio the Muse? Is it any good? Abe Goldberg 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been released in the UK yet, Abe. I did see Elizabeth, though: great drama; terrible history. I do not suppose the sequel will be any different. Clio the Muse 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a historical marker

How do you properly cite information from a historical marker, monument or plaque? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.137.222.48 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you just cite it like any other real-world artifact? --Sean 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"George Washington Slept Here". (1974). Pennsylvania Board on Landmarks. Historical marker, corner of Maple and Broom Streets, Podunk, Pennsylvania.--Pharos 19:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Zeppelin Flight

I noticed that for June 22, 1910 we have recorded the first Zeppelin flight. There is significant amounts of conflicting data in the actual Zeppelin page. It says the first flight was on July 2, 1900. The closest date to the one listed here is in the "Pre World War I" section and states;

"Prior to World War I, a total of 21 Zeppelin airships (LZ5 to LZ 25) were manufactured. In 1909, LZ6 became the first Zeppelin used for commercial passenger transport. The world's first airline, the newly founded DELAG, bought seven LZ6s by 1914. The airships were given names in addition to their production numbers, three of which are LZ8 Deutschland II (1911), LZ11 Viktoria Luise (1912), and LZ17 Sachsen (1913). Seven of these twenty-seven ships were destroyed in accidents, mostly while being transferred into their halls. There were no casualties. One of them was LZ7 Deutschland which started for its maiden voyage on June 19th 1910. On June 28th it began a pleasure trip to make Zeppelins more popular. Among other aboard were 19 journalists, two of which were reporters of well known British newspapers. LZ7 crashed in bad weather at Mount Limberg near Bad Iburg in Lower Saxony. Nobody was injured.[8]"

I would like to know which one is correct. Thank you! Beekone 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking User:Skysmith who added that "fact" in July 2004. Rmhermen 19:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beekone, the Zeppelin made its maiden flight on 2 July 1900 at Friedrichshaven on Lake Constance in southern Germany (Cassell's Chronology of World History, 2005 p.458.) The 1910 date would seem only to refer to the first commercial flight of the LZ7 Deutschland. Clio the Muse 22:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be totally clear this wasn't the first commercial flight of any Zeppelin, just th efirst commercial flight of that particular model? Thanks, Clio. Beekone 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it was that particular model, though on this I have, like you, only the Wikipedia page to draw on for information. You might be advised, depending how serious you are, Beekone, to do some further research. Clio the Muse 22:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aaawwwwwwwww, man Beekone 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Beekone! By way of compensation I can offer you two sources: Zepplin: Germany and the Airship, 1900-1939 by Guillaume de Syon, and Airships in International Affairs, 1890-1940 by J. Duggan and C. Meyer. Clio the Muse 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone...?

I'm finding someone scholar in ancient (I know his creed and tenets ,I just don't know his greek name) ,before plato ,from north africa ,(perhaps egypt) who was accepted by greek philosophers and scientists and was known among them,also they accepted him one of theirselfs,. maybe he was philosophy teacher of Empedocles... .Flakture 16:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only North African philosopher that I can find who was known to the Greeks and who (slightly) predates Plato is Aristippus, who was a Greek from the Greek North African colony of Cyrene. Marco polo 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The details you've provided don't suggest much; it would be helpful if you'd spell out the "creed and tenets" you say you know about. Works like West's Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, when discussing Egyptian influences, usually compare, say, the eschatological ideas of the Book of the Dead to what we find in the Orphic gold plates. There's not a named Egyptian authority. The relevant side of Empedocles' thinking is probably most directly treated in Peter Kingsley's book, but I don't remember anything relevant in the Empedocles testimonia. Wareh 18:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a tangent, but -- Moses was a North African philosopher known to the Greeks who predated Plato. Since he maintained that his philosophy was taught to him by a monotheistic God, though, I doubt the Greeks of Plato's time accepted him as one of their own. --M @r ē ino 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another tangent, maybe closer to what you want -- the goddess Ma'at of Egypt was generally considered to be the equivalent of Plato's Logos. --M @r ē ino 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama

So what, aside from denying the Communist Party sovereignty, has the Dalai Lama done to incite the wrath and bad will of the Communists for those also who can appreciate him? Clem 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have you read Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama? That goes into detail as to his activities. Corvus cornix 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the majority of it but found no answer to my question there. Clem 00:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denying the Communist party 'sovereignty', as you have put it, Clem, is sufficient cause for Beijing's wrath and resentment. Beyond that, the Dalai Lama is not just a spiritual leader but a symbol of Tibetan national identity, a symbol of Tibet itself, of an ancient tradition that the Communists have systematically tried to destroy ever since the failed uprising of 1959. Clio the Muse 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what reason do the Communists have for not granting Tibet autonomy, at least to the extent suggested by the Dalai Lama of dealing with matters of territorial defense and foreign affairs but leaving the Tibetan people to otherwise rule themselves? Clem 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a degree of autonomy, if you can call it that, in the administration of the Tibet Autonomous Region. But the Communist Party has a very clear idea of what it considers to be China, and Tibet is part of China. The return of the Dalai Lama would give rise to unacceptable political forces, representing a challenge to the integrity of the unitary state. Clio the Muse 00:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political forces in what respect? I can not imagine it would be economic political forces since the business men I deal with everyday in and around Shanghai exhibit the absolute worst possible example of "...unacceptable political forces,..." in regard to the integrity of the unitary state that I can possibly imagine. Clem 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan nationalism; any kind of nationalism that threatens the integrity of the Chinese state, the domination of the Han and the control of the Communist Party; any political force, in other words, that would undermine the unity of China. I am merely laying out the bare political facts; I am not attempting to justify them. I would be happy to clarify any empirical matters, but I have no interest at all in debate for the sake of debate. I have no comment to make on your business contacts, or indeed what they tell you about the political health of modern China. As far as the broader issues are concerned I suggest you take the matter up with the authorities in Beijing...or read a good history. Clio the Muse 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to debate either... just an impromptu observation. Just seems misplaced all the concern over Tibet given the situation in and around Shanghai in terms of upholding the Communist ideal, the complaint being that under capitalism the advantages Communism is said to represent are far better implemented and expressed by governing and regulating bodies as a reality rather than as an ideal. Kind of makes one laugh at what Communism is really (by fact of demonstration) all about. Clem 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So according to some Dalai lama should be the leader of an independant tibet - would that be democratic? - since it wouldn't would US/UK then have to invade?87.102.3.9 12:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clem, to be quite honest, I think you are best not to attempt to unravel the mysteries of Chinese Communism. I certainly have no idea what it stands for, other than to perpetuate the monopoly of power by a corrupt and self-regarding oligarchy. Traditionally Communism, even in the midst of its bleakest excesses, paid lip-service to an ideal of human liberation; to a notion of justice and the greater good. The Chinese Communist system merely seems to provide the setting for forms of unregulated capitalist development not seen in England since the 1840s, a period the historian Eric Hobsbawm refers to as the 'bleak age of the bourgeosie'; a time when there was little or no help for the 'casualties' of progress; the time of Gradgrind and the Work house. Communism seems to have brought most of the Chinese people nothing; no social security; no state health system; no guarantee of employment; no decent housing-nothing, not even the Work House. Beijing, at the present, is being turned into a huge Potemkin village in preparation for the Olympic games, with the poor and the helpless being swept aside, many into privately run 'black prisons.' Yikes....I must have been bitten by the soapbox bug tonight, so I will stop just there! Clio the Muse 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite alright. ~~Sometimes~~ Most of the time I likewise can not help but to let a constructive (hopefully) opinion grab an opportunity to be heard. If we can stave off WWIII long enough then I have hope that Beijing will finally see the light and come around. Clem 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic calendar and agriculture

Something puzzles me about the Islamic calendar, which is the only pure lunar calendar in widespread use, and so totally out of synch with the seasons of the agricultural year. How could the timing of vital agricultural events (plantings, harvests etc.) be maintained under a purely lunar calendar? Was there traditionally widespread use of alternative calendars or other season-determining methods for agricultural purposes in Islamic communities?--Pharos 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details of Middle Eastern calendars, but harvests, plantings, etc, can still be judged by the changes in the weather, without specific reference to a particular date on a lunar or sidereal calendar. This would result in a reference such as "planting occurs one month after the main thaw" (timing is arbitrary, not sourced). Harvest, of course, happens when the plants to be harvested are ripe to be picked. The offset between a lunar calendar and a siderial calendar is only a few weeks, so, although the name of the month may be different every year, you can still use the month as a reference - for example, planting occurs 4 lunar months after harvest.Steewi 01:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, pre-Islamic solar calendars have remained in use among the populace in some Muslim countries. See, for example, Iranian calendar and Egyptian calendar. During some web searching, I found hints that the Julian calendar may have remained in use in Syria and Lebanon. As Steewi points out, farmers the world over have used cues from the local environment such as the flowering of wild plants, the return of migratory birds, and so on. Marco polo 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Islamic calendar, it says that it is currently 1428AH. Yet the algorithm explained at Kuwaiti algorithm says it is now 1431AH. Which is correct, and could someone who knows fix whatever is broken please. -- SGBailey 15:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on Talk:Islamic calendar says: Islamic Calendar is used only for Ramzan Fasting, Haj pilgrimage and Eid festivities. For all other purposes Gregorian calendar is used. Another, in repsonse to the question of whether a Muslim's age is given in lunar or solar terms says: most Muslims state their age in solar years. And see especially the section Talk:Islamic calendar#Seasons and farming. Pfly 07:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses, guys. It's helped me find a good source on the subject, and I've added a small section at Islamic calendar#Uses. Feel free to help improve it.--Pharos 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts

Why are people scared of ghosts? I know that if I were ever to see a real ghost (which I find extremely unlikely, as I haven't believed in them for almost two decades), I'd be scared too, but why? Why this irrational fear of the unknown? What can ghosts do to people? In the end, for the fear to make sense, the end result would have to be death, permanent illness, insanity, or a curse (bad luck or something). But it seems it's none of these end effects people fear - it's the ghosts themselves. Can it be that they have so completely rationalised their view of the world that if something completely doesn't fit into it, it's bound to be scary? JIP | Talk 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a bit more prosaic than that. Ghosts are (obstensibly) dead people and lots of people are afraid of death, dying, dead people, bodies etc. Ghosts are also pretty much an unknown in terms of our understanding and lots of people fear the unknown or things they can't understand. Exxolon 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If people had completely rationalised their worldview, they would be able to fit ghosts into it as well. Wouldn't someone who hadn't (a young child or a caveman or something) be more afraid of ghosts and the unknown than someone who had? Recury 20:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are phobias rational? They're often understandable, but rarely logical. --Dweller 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that you think it's unreasonable to be afraid of a ghostly apparition. It's not that it doesn't fit into your belief system, it's that you have no basis for predicting what it will do. If you believe in ghosts then you probably also believe that ghosts have a certain appearance and act in a certain way, and depending on those beliefs you might identify the apparition as a ghost and conclude that it was harmless. Absent such information what you're seeing isn't a ghost, but something unrecognizable that's as likely to kill you as give you the time of day. -- BenRG 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like to point out that our cultural mythology, shall I say, includes plenty of examples of people being harmed by the spirits of the dead. There are many examples ghost who for whatever reason try to kill or otherwise harm the living. The example that comes to mind most readily is the Ingmar Bergman film Fanny and Alexander in which the dead antagonist returns at the end to harass his former victims. However, as I do not believe in ghosts, I know that if I saw a ghost I would probably infer that I am mentally ill. This for me would be the major fear; a fear of what might emerge from my own mind. You might also be interested in Sleep paralysis. I had this once, complete with a hypnagogic hallucinations. It is terrifying. The hallucination appears very believable, but much of the fear is created without concuss control. I suspect our fear of such things is instinctive for humans. --S.dedalus 00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BenRG. A.Z. 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freud's concept of the Uncanny is perhaps relevant here. Basically when something should be familiar but is for some reason very much not it produces horribly awful feelings. Horror movies play on this all the time, and it is a known problem in robotics that robots which appear human-like but don't have the right biological/social cues creep people out a lot more than a robot that looks like a toaster. Things like ghosts, zombies, and vampires—common in many cultures—are all classic examples of the "uncanny", dealing with human forms that are in between life and death, and probably play with our pscyhological/cognitive systems which are trained to recognize healthy vs. sick individuals. --24.147.86.187 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When confronted with a ghost it's best not to instantly assume the supernatural, especially if you happen to be either investigating a mystery that involves a large ghostly dog, or investigating a mystery accompanied by a large dog. Pesky kids!! 38.112.225.84 14:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatarstan Airlines logo

Does anyone knows about the image of the Tatarstan Airlines logo (Tatarstan)? What kind of fictional winged horse is pictured and what's the history behind it? --Scriberius 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article Aq Bars (the coat of arms of Tatarstan) says it is actually a Snow Leopard 84.67.223.64 21:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Scriberius 06:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Testament and afterlife

Hi. Someone told me that the OT doesn't mention an afterlife. Is that true? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. See our articles on Sheol and Gehenna. Gandalf61 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's more truth to the assertion if you mean the 5 books of Moses, rather than the OT. --Dweller 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and see Jewish eschatology for detailed discussion. Gandalf61 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Norwegian Dialects

<removed> Please do not post the same question to multiple reference desks. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British military commissions and regiments

I'm working on an article on Lt.-Col. Thomas Mullins, the goat of the Battle of New Orleans. At the beginning of the American campaign, Mullins, a captain in the 7th Regiment of Foot and veteran of the Peninsular Wars, was breveted lieutenant-colonel and given command of the 44th Regiment of Foot after that regiment's lieutenant-colonel was called upon to command a brigade. After a good showing in the Chesapeake campaign, Mullins royally screwed up on the eve of New Orleans when he failed to have his regiment collect fascines and scaling ladders for the assault on the American positions. A last-minute dash to get them undid the regiment's formations and disordered the British positions on the field, and Mullins wound up shouldering much of the blame for the bloody failure of the attack. When the 44th returned to Dublin, he was court-martialed and found guilty of disobeying orders. However, there are some loose threads I can't quite pin down. Although Mullins commanded the 44th during the battle, the report of wounded in the London Gazette refers to him as "7th Foot — Captain T.T.A. Mullins, slightly". The report appears over the name of Frederick Stovin, deputy adjutant general, who subsequently prosecuted Mullins at his court-martial. Furthermore, though secondary sources seem generally to agree that Mullins was cashiered after his court-martial, he appears again in the Gazette in 1817, exchanging his captaincy for half-pay. What mystery of the British regimental system allowed Mullins to command the 44th while remaining nominally in the 7th, and however did he keep his captaincy after doing what he did? Choess 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything i find refers to Mullins as "Captain of the 44th Regiment of Foot" including Historical Record of the Forty-Fourth: Or the East Essex Regiment[5]. Mullins was found guilty on two counts: "For...having shamefully neglected and disobeyed the Orders he had received..." and "For scandalous and infamous misbehavior before the enemy..." but acquitted "For scandalous Conduct in having said... 'It is a forlorn hope, and the Regiment must be sacrificed.'" I can find nothing on the exact sentence of the court martial, but if you can get ahold of a copy, try: Louisiana Historical Quarterly, volume IX, January 1926 OCLC 1782268.—eric 07:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, "royally screwed up" is much too slangy. Clarityfiend 07:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another side note, goat? I know some British Regiments have goats as mascots, but giving one command of the regiment seems to be taking things a little far! DuncanHill 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, no, that's not the prose I plan to use. I should be able to get hold of Louisiana Historical Quarterly in a few days. Choess 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey (rather than goat) would be consistent with the good old "lions led by donkeys"! Xn4 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

101

The 101 (number) article says that entry-level courses are often designated with this number in some countries (heard it a lot in Buffy). What does that stand for? One would expect 102 or 201 to be the next level up, but the articles don't say anything about that. DirkvdM 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it stands for anything. I think it was just what the entry level rooms were numbered as. First floor, first room. I think that is how it started but don't quote me SGGH ^speak! 08:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was from "Year 1, Course 1"; the second first year course would be 102, and the first second year course would be 201. Laïka 09:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My alma mater operates this way. Of course, at some point, the whole sequence thing breaks down (there's not, frequently, a 105 that falls in a sequence with 101-104), but patterns of this sort persist on the small scale. For instance, I had a course sequence that ran 210-211-310 (at which point I stopped, though a 311 existed). By my third and fourth years, though, available options meant that anything beyond the first digit (designating the expected year of the class) was fairly meaningless -- my later semesters would have schedules akin to "382, 420, 474, 497". Finally, graduation requirements included a minimum number of upper-level courses (those of 300- and 400-level). We engineers laughed at those students whose majors were of such little rigor as to make this requirement a real concern. — Lomn 13:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine had 001-099 classes for first-year students, and then if you were in a four-year program, second year started at 200, third at 300, and fourth at 400; if you were in a three year program, the next two years of classes were labelled 100-199. The numbers assigned were completely random, as far as I know - first-year classes were usually 002 or 020 (001 and 010 were, I think, fast-track courses to replace an unfinished high school class). I had a 234, a 248, a 324, a 491, and even a 148, among others. Adam Bishop 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. 491 means fourth year, 91st course? And that's for a certain subject. So psych 101 means the first psychology course in the first year, and psych 491 would mean the 91st (!) psychology course in the fourth year?? Or does the 91 stand for the whole study and is the '4' just added on to show in which year it is given? DirkvdM 18:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any standards body decreeing exactly how courses are numbered. The last two digits are more than likely arbitrary. Perhaps at some schools, the second digit is a subject indicator - say "Math 301" is a third year geometry course, and "Math 321" is a third year probability course. And to be even more confusing, in many instances, you can take a 300-level course in your second or fourth year, as long as you've met the prerequisites. --LarryMac | Talk 19:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At my school, the first of the three digits indicated the course level, so 0 was remedial (in other words, you really shouldn't be taking it unless you went to a bad high school), 1 was intro, and then it went up from there, with 5-8 generally denoting post-bachelor classes and 9 being a usually for PhD research. If you were good at sweet-talking the dean, though, you could take any level you wanted at any time, in any other.

The other two digits had no intrinsic meaning, except that "00" and "01" were usually the broad courses that covered the whole field, while "02" through "99" were sub-fields (for instance, Advanced Econ might be 301, while International Macroeconomics might be 329.) --M @r ē ino 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At my university when I was a student, the last two digits were mostly arbitrary but related courses were often given related numbers. Within one year the same course might be offered at different difficulty levels, if enough students were expected to fill several classes. Thus if you wanted first-year algebra and you weren't a math student, you could take Math Elective 109; math students in the General Program took the slightly harder Math 119; math students in the Honours Program took the still harder Math 129; and if the university decided to offer an even harder "enriched" version for the serious math geeks, it might be Math 139 (see note). Second-year algebra included Math 219 for General students and 229 for Honours, and I think there was a third-year Pure Math 329 that was abstract algebra or something. On the other hand, first-year computer science was Math 132, and there was no implication that it was harder than the lower-numbered Math 129; that part of the numbering was just arbitrary.

(Note: I did this example because it was one where I could actually remember the course numbers after 35 years. Math 139 is fictional: the university did offer enriched versions of some courses, but not all departments assigned them separate course numbers, and in math they were just designated as "special sections" of the same-numbered Honours courses.)

--Anonymous serious geek, 00:21 UTC, October 19, 2007.

The original Jews in Palestine and the proclamation of Israel

How did the original Jews in Palestine react to the proclamation of the state of Israel? Did they cheer on the influx of their brethren or did they go "Those bloody foreigners are going to cause all hell to break loose"? A combination of the two I suppose. And how many of them were there anyway? And did they have any say in the whole thing? DirkvdM 08:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the original Jews in Palestine"? There was a continuous Jewish presence in the Holy Land from the Babylonian exile to today, but prior to the the First Aliya, the numbers were very small. Of those that moved during the First and subsequent Aliya waves, by definition most were Zionists, so by the time the clock rolled round to 1948 and the proclamation of the State the proportion of "original Jews" would have been miniscule... and some of them may have been Zionists too. --Dweller 09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means the Sephardic Jews and Kabbalists who were the main Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine/Israel region in the 19th-century before about 1880, and who were culturally rather different from the modern-minded Eastern European Jews who made up the majority of early Zionist immigrants. I don't really know about early attitudes of the old-timers to the newcomers, but I think that most of the old-timer groups ended up getting assimilated to the later arrivals through intermarriage... AnonMoos 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, hardly any non-Muslims ever had any meaningful "say" in any political matters in the non-European parts of the Ottoman empire. AnonMoos 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant having a say in the notion of starting a jewish state. Were they asked what they thought about it? DirkvdM 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't mean anything as specific as that. I just know that there were Jews in Palestine in 1945. I just don't know how many and what they thought of the whole thing. Before then, there was a mere trickle, not the millions that came later. But now I realise I really meant those that lived there in 1945 but were not descended from the post-1880 immigrants. So, I suppose, the non-westernised Jews. Was this such a small group that they had already become a minority within the Jewish community by 1945? And I suppose my question regarding their reaction should also extend to the earlier immigrants, although I meant the later, much larger influx when they started taking over the country by sheer numbers alone. Before that, the zionism of the newcomers might have been ignored as an excusable bit of idealism, but of course WWII changed that. DirkvdM 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, understood. The numbers were tiny, as I described above. However, Zionism as a political movement is relatively new, but longing for the restoration of a Jewish state is as old as the Babylonian exile, it fills Jewish prayers, rituals and customs. The euphoria among the Jewish world in 1948 when the State of Israel was declared would have pervaded the long-standing inhabitants of the land. --Dweller 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Aliyah with its various subarticles for some more information about historical demographics (also British Mandate of Palestine#Immigration). Wareh 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The various waves of migration to Palestine/Israel from the First World War onwards took the Jewish population to over 550,000 by 1945. The vast majority of these people, I think it safe to assume, were either Zionists, or were sympathetic to the general aims of Zionism. They were not likely, therefore, to think of those who came after as 'bloody foreigners', especially those who had survived the Holocaust in Europe. Besides, those who had settled in Palestine before the war were very well aware of the dangers of all hell, and would presumably have been anxious to increse their strength against a future recurrence. As far as the general Jewish celebration of Israel is concerned I do believe, though I confess that I am not an expert in this area, and I would appreciate some clarification, that there are orthodox Jews who do not identify with the secular state, believing that it is only with the advent of the Messiah that they will attain the Promised Land. Next year in Jerusalem Clio the Muse 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Neturei Karta and their ilk remain a vociferous and media-friendly fringe (for that matter, they're friendly with many odd bedfollows. They are extreme both in their views and in the extent to which they are marginal. --Dweller 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know about them, but I was not thinking so much about opposition to the state of Israel, more forms of religious belief which take issue with, or reject the claims of, secular Zionism. Clio the Muse 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very complicated issue. In addition to religious objections to Zionism, many secular Jews in Europe opposed Zionism before the war as well. Specifically the Bundists, named after the General Jewish Labor Union, were internationalist socialists who opposed nationalism and saw Zionism as seeking to run away from rather than fight against anti-semitism and for socialism in Europe. Needless to say, this position became rather untenable after the Holocaust and Bundists in Israel joined with Labor Zionists. This early secular opposition to Zionism was very much out of favor with Israeli intelligentsia, especially I think due to the below-the-surface feeling that European Jewish society perhaps bore some responsibility for the Holocaust due to their complacency in the light of warning signs. I have heard anecdotally from one Israeli Holocaust scholar that she only heard about Marek Edelman, the Bundist deputy-commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising from colleagues overseas, he had been ignored by Yad Vashem in Israel until the museum's recent renovation - a sign of a maturing intellectual culture, she believed.

More relevant to the original question is the religious objection to Zionism. This was painful even for Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews after the Holocaust. In the classic novel The Chosen, one Brooklyn Hasidic Rabbi orders his son to cut off all contact with his best friend, because the friend's father, who the Rabbi otherwise held in the highest regard, spoke publicly in favor of the creation of a Jewish state. One interpretation of Jewish law does preclude the founding of a Jewish state in the holy land before the Messiah, but a major theme in the history of modern Judaism has been the impossibility of obeying every tenet of a 5,000 year old tradition in the modern world. Just about everyone has to pick and choose what commands they are going to follow and what rules are made to be broken, and the Holocaust was such a cataclysmic event that only some of the ultra-Orthodox could not justify acquiescing to the creation of a Jewish state in light of it. As for the Jews of Safed, I don't know, but they were Sephardic rather than Ashkenazi in origin, and closely tied to Jewish mysticism. Even today the Sephardic ultra-Orthodox are ambivalent about Israel. I imagine that the Jews of Safed in 1947 would have been strongly opposed. The secular, socialist ideology of most Zionists would have been very foreign to them, as would certain elements of their Ashkenazi tradition. And, its possible that they may have detected an undercurrent of exasperation directed towards them by the Zionists, many of whom had come to Palestine to build a new civilization away from religious traditionalists. This is my gut feeling, but it may be incorrect or an oversimplification, I really don't know. This is a difficult issue in many ways, and I was probably not wise in tackling it at this hour. You might be interested in an article in last weeks NYTimes Magazine about the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn, whose situation may parallel those of the Safed community in some ways. GabrielF 09:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is the Jews of Hebron, whose community dated at least to the Middle Ages, were long opposed to Zionism. That didn't stop them from being massacred in the 1929 Arab riots. -- Mwalcoff 02:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another overview of the numbers (in an obvious place - silly me) is in the first table here: Palestine#Demographics in the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods. About the 'cheering or fearing' (to give it a short name), the fact that the original inhabitants and the newcomers were closely related doesn't necessarily say much if they have been separated for a long time. Liberia and Sierra Leone are indications of that (although those are different in several respects, but I mention them because the origins of the states are very similar). Also, the Palestinians are Arabs, yet received little support from their brethren in neighbouring countries. Part of the answer would lie in if the original Jews foresaw what was going to happen (as I indicated in my original question). The second table in above link shows there weren't that many Jews in Hebron. The majority was in Safad, so it would be interesting to know what they thought of zionism. Of course there may also have been disputes about how to make the zionist ideals become reality. DirkvdM 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communist slowdown

Why the communist world suffered an economic stagnation during the 80s? Was it just because of Soviet internal problems or "long-term economic inviability" of communism? --Taraborn 11:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the Soviet case it is pretty clearly a result of decades of poor management and corruption under Leonid Brezhnev combined with the oil dollar dropping out in the 1980s. Things were extremely poorly managed in the 1970s and began to stagnate sharply (see Brezhnev stagnation) but because of the oil profits they were able to get by without major difficulties or without total collapse; once the market shifted and the petrodollars became worth less, the tether that was holding up a disfunctional economy pretty much snapped. Whether Communism could be managed better in the long term is a question I think is quite hard to answer, but Brezhnev didn't even try. --24.147.86.187 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cost of the arms race was another factor in Soviet economic troubles. As it was the most important export market for eastern Europe, the Soviet Union's economic decline also affected eastern European countries. The eastern European countries, deprived for years of capital for reinvestment and cut off from the latest technologies made low-quality products inefficiently and therefore had difficulty selling their exports to the West. A lack of capital and technological improvement led to stagnation and economic decline throughout the Soviet bloc. Marco polo 15:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taraborn, I've pasted below my response to a question I answered in August on Gorbachev and his attempted reforms which touches on you are looking for here. I hope it is of some use. Regards Clio the Muse 00:11, 19 October 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]

I can't believe I missed this one... Thank you very much Clio, excellent response as always. --Taraborn 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Clio the Muse 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against the Germans

In his secret diary Albert Speer write "Of course all of these trials are judgements by the victors on the defeated. In various ways I keep hearing that German prisoners of war, contrary to law, are also being put to forced labour in armaments and supply bases. Who here is the judge?" My question what happened to these prisoners of war, and was what happened a crime against humanity? Alte Fritz 11:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Prisoner of war#World War II for some of what he was talking about. Algebraist 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tragic story, Fritz, one that deserves to be better known; and, yes, it was a crime against humanity, which involved, sad to say, the western powers as well as the Soviets. Anyway, you will find all of the details in Giles MacDonogh's After the Reich: from the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift (London, 2007), specifically in Chapter 15, headed Where are our Men? Briefly, of the eleven million soldiers taken prisoner on or before May 1945 a million and a half never returned; most from captivity in the east, but also well over 100,000 in the west. When Germany surrendered the Allies decided that the state had ceased to exist, so newly captured soldiers were defined as 'Surrendered Enemy Persons' or 'Disarmed Enemy Persons', which meant in practice that they had no protection as POWs under the Geneva and the Hague Conventions. Therefore almost half the soldiers taken by the British and Americans, both of whom had signed the Geneva Convention (the Russians had not), had no right to the same levels of subsistence and shelter. They were used, quite freely, as slave labour; and many died as such, while the likes of Fritz Sauckel and Albert Speer stood indicted at Nuremberg for this very crime. While the Americans were seeking to prosecute the perpetrators of the Malmedy massacre, where some hundreds of POWs had been killed by advancing SS units, anything up to 40,000, yes, 40,000, Germans were allowed to die of starvation, exposure and neglect in muddy, open-air camps scattered along the banks of the Rhine. A tragic story indeed. Clio the Muse 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent article in the New York Review of Books, titled "Cruel Allied Occupiers", explores this topic. The book being reviewed is called "After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation", by Giles MacDonogh, as Clio mentioned. I learned a great deal reading the review. I had known that there was a massive westward migration of Germans from the east after the war, but that is only the tip of the icerberg, it turns out. I'm not sure I'll want to read the book though -- sounds thoroughly depressing, even if much needed. There appears to be an online copy of the article review at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=20693 Pfly 07:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fact that these things are so little known a case of 'history is written by the victors'? DirkvdM 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In part, I think. But also that the victors were better able to hide and then cover up their atrocities, while the defeated could not. Pfly 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Germany, the defeated also chose not to emphasize their suffering for a long time. When Günter Grass wrote Im Krebsgang in 2002, both its topic and its success were noteworthy to the media. This article from 2002 (unfortunately in German) comments on the changes of self-perception in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Their own experiences were still very present in the minds of most Germans during the 1950s, but not part of the public or medial discourse. The 1960s saw the rise of a generation who hadn't experienced the war as adults, it was the decade of social and cultural changes, often subsumed under the term "68-er Bewegung", including a new self-identification. Public opinion leaders saw their past selves as perpetrators bearing a collective sense of guilt. If addressed at all, German suffering (whether through expulsion, human rights abuse or bombing of civilians) was pictured as just punishment. The left vehemently criticized Western powers, especially the United States, but never in the context of World War II. As for the right, well there was a Cold War going on, and when the Springer tabloids and opponents of the 68-er did report about atrocities, these were always only committed by the Soviet victors. To mention suffering by German people was seen as counting up against the German nation's own collective guilt. Belonging to an organization of displaced Germans was equaled to being a revanchist cold warrior.

Times have changed again, and the article quotes the reaction to Grass's new book by one of the most influential editors of the Bundesrepublik , Rudolf Augstein: "It is appropriate again to commemorate the dead who perished among the 12,5 million displaced people during their flight to the West." ---Sluzzelin talk 09:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article providing some context here is Vergangenheitsbewältigung. When he published Crabwalk, hardly anyone knew Grass had a far more relaxed attitude toward his own Vergangenheitsbewältigung than he had always demanded from his country and its politicians. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is really interesting, Sluzzelin, and I personally welcome the rise of a new critical consciousness amongst the Germans, evidenced in the work of Jörg Friedrich and others, a willingness to cast off absurd notions of 'collective guilt' (and they are absurd), to view the past in more fully rounded terms. After all, it can only deepen our understanding of the crimes, all of the crimes, that arise from war. MacDonogh's book also provides a sobering assessment of the savage ill-treatment of German civilians, guilty and innocent alike, by the Czechs and the Poles. These things can no longer be passed over in dishonest silence. Clio the Muse 23:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new consciousness has been characterized as "the new normalcy" (or ingenuity, or even shamelessness). Some elements came a bit earlier, some later: Historification of the Nazi past, pluralism of historical images (which was still very controversial in the late 80s), appreciation of empirical studies instead of moral judgment, elevation of self-identity to an equal level with partner nations, a farewell to pacifism, and acceptance of positive patriotism. Now Germans have also entered the international culture of victimhood.

From a scientific and historical point of view, I don't see how I could possibly disagree with you, Clio. At the same time, I can think of very few nations who conducted a discourse so brutally open toward their recent past the way the old Bundesrepublik did. Maybe it is time for a change of tune, but I always found Germany's relentless exposing of its history very remarkable. In comparison, some of the nations I grew up in, do indeed carry baggage "passed over in dishonest silence"! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the Netherlands, German soldiers were used to clear minefields. A clear violation of human rights, one would say. But the only means to do this (quickly enough) was by people, who of course ran severe risks, and leaving the mines in place was no option. So why not let this be done by people who were part of the organisation that put them there in the first place? This makes perfect sense to me. Using them for other forced labour could be excused by 'they did that too', but of course doing onto others what they did onto you is no valid excuse. And letting them starve is of course totally inexcusable. An important issue considering what is a fair punishment is how guilty the German soldiers were, considering they had no choice. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to shoot someone else, then how guilty are you of murder if you choose to save your own skin? Let's assume they are innocent. Then who are guilty? The higher ranks, those who gave orders. I don't know if one could unintentionally get into such a position, so for safety I'll say those who made an effort to climb in the hierarchy took an active part in the slaughter and were in my eyes guilty. Guilty of something so horrific (I mean war in general, even without the concentration camps and such) that they should get life sentences (real life sentences, so no pardons). And letting them work for their keep and for reparation also makes perfect sense. Not the death penalty, though, in case at some point you go "Oops, administrative slip, we got the wrong guy". DirkvdM 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardwicke's Marriage Act

Hello, can you help me please. I need to know why the Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753 was considered necessary and what the long term implications were. Thanks all. Isobel A —Preceding comment was added at 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't appear to have an article on the Act, but we do have one on Hardwicke, at Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke. Unfortunately that doesn't help much. The Act curbed the practice of clandestine marriages, expecially those in the Fleet Prison, and so it protected landed estates. The Act provided that the only valid marriages in England were conducted in the Church of England by banns or by marriage licence, in front of witnesses, and that those under 21 had to have parental consent. Before this, the simple exchange of vows was all that was needed, the attraction of clandestine or Fleet Marriages was that they offered some security, allowed people to marry without attracting the attention of parents, masters, poor law officials or other authorities. They were also cheaper than church marriages. So, essentially, the Act reinforced social control, by making it harder for the poor, servants, and those who had quarrelled with their families, from marrying who they wished. DuncanHill 13:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now find we do have an article on the act, at Marriage Act 1753. DuncanHill 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created redirect. Lanfear's Bane 13:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Act certainly derived from clear moral concern but it also appealed to aristocrats who were determined to defend their legacies from gold-diggers. It brought about a secularized status of marriage, as the law made clear that the church had failed in its regulation of marriages. Clergymen who disobeyed the Act were liable to up to 14 years transportation! For more information see: Harth, Erica, 'The Virtue of Love: Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act',Cultural Critique (Spring 1988), 123-54 LordFoppington

The long-term implications? Let me see, now. Oh, yes, it led to a boom in the Scottish marriage industry! Clio the Muse 02:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, inspiration for a lot of literature in the Eighteenth Century! Garrick's The Clandestine Marriage springs to mind! Lord Foppington 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White House coup

Where can I find more information about the 1933/4 White House coup against Roosevelt? Keria 14:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found our article White House Coup? DuncanHill 14:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now how come that didn't show up when I searched for it? Thank you very much Duncanhill. Keria 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, I'd not heard of it before, and it's fascinating stuff. DuncanHill 15:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good short article on it at The Straight Dope. Donald Hosek 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed fascinating. It instantly reminded me of Seven Days in May (one of my favourite movies of all time, although I've never read the book), and when I looked there, I found that the book was actually inspired by the Business Plot. The things you read here! -- JackofOz 04:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White people

How many white people are there in the world? A single figure will do. I'm not talking about semites, latinos or asians, only white people. These include: bleak russians, red brits, europeans, european americans, europeans elsewhere, and all who are white. — Adriaan (T★C) 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British census and normal British ethnic monitoring forms include "semites" (i.e. Jewish and Arabic people) as white, and I strongly suspect "latino" people would generally be classified likewise. DuncanHill 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also White people. There is no obvious objective way to say who is or isn't "white". It depends who you ask. Friday (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, how many white people are there (a) in total, (b) excluding semites and arabs, (c) excluding latinos, and (d) excluding semites, arabs and latinos? — Adriaan (T★C) 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article explains, there is no single worldwide definition for who is "white". A person who is called "white" in one place may be considered not white in another place. Friday (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are bleak russians, what are red brits ?87.102.3.9 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy but time consuming to multiply the population of white countries by their white ethnic percentage, and then sum the populations - at a guess 500 to 1000 million.87.102.3.9 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Adriaan says bleak russians, he may mean White Russians! But I don't think the red brits are Redcoats. Xn4 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Adriaan is playing with stereotypes of British & Russian people, Russians may be perceived as "bleak" both because of the Russian climate and the gloomy nature of their national literature. British people are often stereotyped as red in colour, especially in hot sunny places such as South Africa (where I seem to recall Adriaan comes from). DuncanHill 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that modern genetic science teaches us that race is not an objective, biological fact, but rather a social relation that we impose collectively. As such, the criteria for inclusion or exclusion varies. Joseph R. Roach, a theatre / performativity historian, has done some interesting research that reveals how someone would change races while taking a hypothetical train journey through the American southern states a few decades ago; they'd be white in one state and non-white in another, depending on the legal definition. DionysosProteus 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol yes I wasonly playing around, I am just referring to white people in general. This is really a difficult question now. All I was basically wondering, is how many people are of ethnic European descent. Aren't there any statistics that give a thorough overview of differing statistics, taking in mind that "white" has different meanings in different places? — Adriaan (T★C) 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thinking about how to answer your question. Are you now looking for people of European descent, or are you looking for "white" people excluding "Semites" and "Latinos"? If you are looking for people of European descent, it might be possible to come up with a rough estimate, but this number would include European Jews (who are after all of European descent and whose ancient background is only partly Southwest Asian) and Latinos (many of whom are mainly of European descent). Understanding this, do you want a number for "people of European descent"?

Or did you want a number for "white" people excluding Semites and Latinos (who are mainly white). If so, how do you define white people? Which peoples of the Caucasus count as white? What about Turks (who aren't Semites)? What about Kurds and Iranians (ditto)? What about Spaniards (who may be genetically indistinguishable from many "Latinos")? What about South Asians? (Some people consider them "white".) How about the Berbers of North Africa (not Semites)? What about the various minority peoples of Russia? Central Asians? Where do you want to draw the line? Wherever you draw it will be arbitrary. Marco polo 17:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a statistic that covers all definitions. I.e. exclusively European, European + Semites, European + Semites + Latino, Only European + Latino, All Caucasion, and so forth... — Adriaan (T★C) 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that difficult - about 75% white in the USA of 300million = 225million, probably about 85% in canada pop~30million, 80% in russia of 140million, then add the european countries, plus whatever in southafrica 10% white of ~50million, all that's left is south and central america - I'll leave it to you to decide how white they are, and find out the amount of native/european settler mixing... Add another couple of million for diaspora - did I miss any?87.102.3.9 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did, apart from little matters like the fact that we actually have some non-white people in Europe, plus all those problems listed by Marco Polo above. And do you count cablinasians? Algebraist 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Plus what about central asia - are kazahks white - it's a matter of doing the research - in which I can recomend looking at the demographics section for each continent/country and doing the sums - I only meant to give an estimate, and maybe you can find the percentage of whites in europe - (do I have to do it all? - getting tetchy now). Clearly if I'm counting 'whites' I'm not including people who claim to be "african/asian/european" ..87.102.3.9 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus on the subject of Mr. Woods - whites generally aren't buddissts - for all the details check the interested parties - perhaps stormfront would have the data - this is getting silly.87.102.3.9 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions of "white" (a cultural/racial group), of "Latinos" (a grouping which contains many cultures and many races), and even of "Semites" (a linguistic group tied into some racial groups) are not clear cut at all. And you are not going to find consistent statistics on these categories as they vary from country to country for political and local reasons. In the end I can't really see what your "statistic" is going to do—it is going to have a margin of error of hundreds of millions of people depending how you define a super huge category like "Latino" and whether you are using, say, categories based on self-reported data or not. --24.147.86.187 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had about fifteen those white folk on my porch the last night, jeez those honkeys sure know how to read and write - talkin' about how many whiteys there were and all that, saying they wanted a number and niggas shed might catch light if they didn't find out. Looks like the black man has to do all the numbers work this time.

87.102.3.9 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There actually are genetic definitions of race which do make sense from a genetic perspective, but they don't match up with the cultural sense of race (so, e.g., Indians and Persians are part of the same "race" as Europeans, while Africans are divided into two separate races). Before the Dawn [6] is an interesting look at genetic anthropology which can be an enlightening look at these matters. Donald Hosek 21:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on This article, there are roughly 300,000 white people. -Arch dude 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not white people, they are pale pink people. Rockpocket 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleak Russians and Red Britons! I see we are entering into a twilight zone of silliness! I'm sure you must known, Xn4, that there is White Russia and there is, well, White Russia. Speaking of the latter, do you think, does anyone think, that when Russia was Red they were still white; or were the whites red and the reds white? Now, as far as those lovely old-fashioned Red Brits are concerned, should I count those under the bed? The trouble is the poor dears are so hard to find, I think they must all be there (not mine!), having been chased into hiding by Cat Woman and The Joker. Alas, I certainly know lots of Blue Brits, even one or two Yellow ones, but not too many Reds. OK, OK, I'm overdoing it, I know; but this is just too, too funny! Lothrop Stoddard, anyone? Clio the Muse 22:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Adriaan's defense, he appears to be South African and that country was unusual in that it had strict legal definitions on what constituted a "White", "Black", "Asian" and "Coloured" person. While the rest of the world would often hesitate to define an individual by a colour classification alone, one would find that South Africans (of all races) were much more comfortable using such classifications. It was also easier for them to do so in a meaningful manner, as the political situation served to restrict inter-racial mixing. I recall confusion among European and North American friends while discussing the difference between a "black" and "coloured" person in Apartheid South Africa. They were utterly perplexed by it, but it seemed logical enough to someone who had little experience outside that regime. This is changing, of course, but you can't just change a country overnight - it takes generations. So, from that perspective, I actually kind of understand what Adriaan means when he asks for this data. However, since the rest of the world doesn't really have a recent history of such racial segregationism, its very difficult to get global statistics in the manner one would for the South African population (at least until fairly recently). Rockpocket 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit the term 'red brit' does ring a bell (apparently we have red flushed faces) - probably from too much port.. As for 'bleak russians' - is this a common turn of phrase?87.102.3.9 23:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I used to think 'white' was simple to define. - I'd guess the only people who have real (qualms) about saying who is and isn't white - are whites themselves - am I right??87.102.3.9 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was Black Russians? Now those I've heard of. And sure enough, we have one, two, and even three articles on Black Russia[n]s. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all the technical definitions, rather like a judge said in a pornography trial, "I know it when I see it". And I am sure most people know what Adriaan wants for all our 'only race is the human race' posturing. He clearly defines what he wants (not Semites (Arabs and Jews), not Latinos (Latin Americans with mixed native ancestry) etc). So I am sure it's possible to give an approximate answer. Europe's population is about 730 million, America's 350 million. Another 30m for Canada, 20m for Australia. Ignoring a few white countries, but also ignoring the non-white population in Europe and America, around 1.1 billion seems a reasonable estimate. Cyta 07:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bit over (white ~75% in USA..) let's say 1billion (exactly!)87.102.7.57 12:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else probably pointed this out already, but just to make sure: Southern Europe (ie Latinos) is part of Europe, so you contradict yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkvdM (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. Latino helps here. Spanish/Italians speak latin languages - they're not usually consider 'latinos' since they don't have south american indian ancestors..87.102.7.57 12:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 Billion was more or less what I suspected. Sorry if my question was a bit vague, but as that other guy pointed out, to us South Africans, we are really outspoken about racial issues, and everybody knows what race they are: you are either black, coloured, white, asian or indian in South Africa. There aren't any one drop rules or stuff like that. I think that many people with visible black ancestry will define themselves as coloured. I have witnessed before on internet forums how people get mad at us South Africans for making a line between black and coloured people, but if you are here, you will understand. Blacks don't want to be called coloured, and coloureds don't want to be called black. But that's about it. And when we have polls, people don't "want" to be any other race that what they are, so, even though they might look white to an objective person, they know they are coloured and will also note so. Hmm. So I think that if all people were South African, we could have a fairly accurate statistic of how many whites/blacks/coloureds/etc there are. But thanks all for your help. — Adriaan (T★C) 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puh-leeze. Accurate? Objective? You've just basically said that in your country, certain racial lines have become extremely firm, no doubt in part because your country instituted forcible social segregation and oppression by one of the races up until 1990! Wake up! Your country's "racial views" are not possibly "objective", the entire point with "race" is that there a multitude of different categorization schemes based on biological characteristics, social class, and political/legal questions. Do not mistake the view of the world from your country as being the way the world should be viewed. "Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature". --24.147.86.187 14:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the guidlines for this desk - something about diatribes.87.102.7.57 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Ctya, fearing my attempts at sardonic wit are in danger of being lost, I think I should make my observations a little clearer. I confess the wording of the question made me laugh, particularly the part about red Brits. However, I personally do not hold, have never held, to the contention that the 'only race is the human race.' I am white (well, rosey pink, actually-definitely not red!); most of my friends are white, and that includes a number of Jewish/Semite and Latino people too! The real point-the point I think others have made-is that the question is unanswerable; and Brits are only red in the hothouse! Clio the Muse 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation with numbers

Simple question, what is the general for where to place a comma when discussing an amount of money within a sentence. Where do you place a comma for the amount of $1000.00? Here $1,000.00 or is no comma needed?

Lori Kleppin 209.174.185.98 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Lori Kleppin[reply]

I would write $1,000.00 as you did, but I have also seen $1000.00 The comma makes it easier to read. DuncanHill 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Or you can add a half-space instead of the comma, although I don't know how to do that in wiki-markup. This has the advantage of making the number easier to read without risking looking like a . or confusing people from countries that use , and . the other way round in numbers! Skittle 17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those other countries follow the SI rules, I believe. DirkvdM 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the disadvantage the the space looks like a space between words and therefore makes the number harder to read. --Anon, 00:31 UTC, October 19.

Well no, because it's a half-space so doesn't create as much space between the digits as would be between words. Skittle 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For how we do it on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Large numbers. Algebraist 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The different conventions are discussed at Decimal separator (which also deals with the thousands separator). But this question may be better asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics! -- !! ?? 17:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more a language question than a Mathematics one. -- JackofOz 03:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's economics, and that's a science (so they tell me), so maybe it should go there. But doesn't all this uncertainty about this mean it should go to the miscellaneous desk? DirkvdM 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's about the placement of commas and/or spaces, which in my mind is a punctuation issue, ergo language. It overlaps with mathematics, but I really can't see how it's an economics question in the slightest degree. -- JackofOz 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For another thing, why place the unit before the value - all other units are placed after it. That's also the order in which it is read out (you don't say 'dollar one thousand'). No need to specify decimal numbers either if they're all zero. So 1000 $ makes more sense to me. Or 1,000 $. Or 1.000 $ if you follow the SI guidelines. DirkvdM 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to take that argument a little further and see where we get. Do we look at "1000" and say "one zero zero zero"? No; we read to the end, realise that it's a 4-digit symbol for a particular number - this all happens in a micro-second, of course - and say the name of the number, "one thousand". -- JackofOz 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't entirely get what you mean, but I regard 1000 as one entity, just like 'word' is one word, not w-o-r-d. $ is the next entity. So 1000 $ becomes 'one thousand dollar'. And $ 1000 would then be 'dollar one thousand'. Btw, also note that I use singular, because it's not about 1000 dollar bills, but about a single unit. But that's something that varies a lot between languages and even within one language (such as Dutch). I believe that English is consistent in this, just consistently wrong - not sure if that is better or worse. :) DirkvdM 18:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First European Union

Thinking of the present meeting of the heads of government of the European Union in Lisbon, and the moves towards ever greater forms of political integration, I was wondering if we have not already been down this raoad? Was the Holy Roman Empire not the first attempt at a 'universal state'? If so what went wrong? 217.43.14.168 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances of the Holy Roman Empire and its predecessor, the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne were very different from those of the present European Union. Before the founding of those medieval empires, there were no nation-states as we now know them, whereas the European Union is a kind of confederation of nation-states. The Frankish Empire, which gave rise to the Holy Roman Empire, was united by the force of arms under a single autocratic, but feudal ruler, Charlemagne. I don't think that it was a self-conscious attempt at a 'universal state' or that Charlemagne was concerned with reconciling different national interests (which didn't exist at that time). Rather, it was formed in a simple quest to maximize the territory under the control of Charlemagne and his heirs. Charlemagne's empire was the precursor to the Holy Roman Empire that reunited pieces of Charlemagne's legacy under Otto I. Again, there was no notion of competing national interests (though there were competing dynastic and local interests). It was a matter of autocratic and feudal rule over a diverse collection of territories. The Holy Roman Empire broke down largely because, unlike the European states that survived beyond the early modern period, the empire never broke free of the feudalism that was the basis for its structure. Because the empire was a feudal entity, the emperor had little power beyond the power he held as a full sovereign over part of the empire (such as the Kingdom of Bohemia or the Duchy of Austria). Even in the lands where they were sovereign, these rulers may have been limited to the income that they could draw from their own personal lands to fund their military activities. Beyond this small power base, the emperor had to rely on the loyalty of his vassals. However, many vassals of the emperor were outright rebellious. During the early modern period, the constituent states of the empire began to modernize and to replace a feudal structure with forms of absolutism, albeit mainly on a small scale. Especially after the Thirty Years War, these absolutist states were effectively independent, and the Holy Roman Emperor was little more than a figurehead. It is from the absolutist states of the late Holy Roman Empire that the modern nation-states of Germany, Italy, and Austria are ultimately derived. However, it can't be said that the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire was due to separate national interests. Rather, it was due to divergent dynastic interests. Dynastic politics no longer play a role in Europe, so I'm not sure that useful analogies can be drawn to the European Union. Marco polo 20:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the coup de grace that brought a formal end to the Holy Roman Empire was Napoleon's demand that its last emperor dissolve it in 1806. By that time, the empire had ceased to be much more than an occasional talking shop for member states, but it stood in the way of Napoleon's quest for dominance over Europe. In a sense, a relic of Charlemagne's medieval dynastic imperialism was forced to give way to Napoleon's modernized dynastic imperialism. Marco polo 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great answer, Marco. Clio the Muse 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What went wrong? A universal ideal fell to earthly realities; to factions and fragmentation; to Guelphs and to Ghibellines. What did Gibbon say? Ah, yes, It is the duty of the patriot to prefer and promote the exclusive interest and glory of his native country; but a philiosopher may be permitted to enlarge his views and to consider Europe as one great Republic. Onward the Guelphs! Clio the Muse 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." --Voltaire put it bedt. Rhinoracer 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us don't agree that the dissolution of an empire (or a phony empire) is, in itself, an occasion to ask what went wrong. —Tamfang 03:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

private music theory website

I'm looking for a private website about music theory which is published by a male American (I guess, he's a composer). The home page states "contradicting music theory for over 20 years". The content is solely about critizism and rather large in quantity. What's the URL or the author? I have retrieved that site about two years ago. --Scriberius 20:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"contradicting music theory" does not appear on any page indexed by Google - if the site does indeed say this, it must be quite obscure. -Elmer Clark 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, something like that. Yes, a lot of theories are presented. 10:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriberius (talk • contribs)

What currency

What was the name of the currency used in Spain around the 15th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.56.226 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the peso, short for peso de ocho or piece of eight [7] , or maybe the real? SaundersW 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not necessarily clear from the article, the Spanish real was in existence at the time, although there was a smaller-valued coin called the maravedí which was also a contemporaneous currency. The 8-real coin, aka pieces of eight, was introduced in the late 15th century. The term "Peso" however, came about later. Donald Hosek 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peso is Spanish for "weight", it doesn't come from "pieces of eight". See Spanish dollar and Peso. Corvus cornix 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzhugh Brundage: American Historian

I'm writing a news article involving Fitzhugh Brundage, a historian who specializes on Lynching in the American South. I can't find much information about him on here, does anybody know about him? A list or link to a list of his published works would be especially appreciated. Thanks in adnvance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short bio of Professor Brundage here, with a picture. His personal web site is here. I'm not sure he would be too thrilled by the idea that he specializes in lynching, but it clearly is one of his interests! Xn4 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Clio the Muse 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reasons why america entererd wars

was America justified in entering the Spanish-American War and World War I? 141.151.175.75 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to judge for yourself by pondering on the Spanish-American War and the section on World War One in the History of the United States (1865-1918). The first was an act of imperialist ambition, the second an act of self-defence in response to one German provocation after another. Clio the Muse 01:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The excuse/justification for intervening in Cuba was the sinking of the Maine (you remember the Maine, right?). But to this day the cause of the sinking is unknown. Some people, like Sarah Vowell in Assassination Vacation have drawn parallels between the Maine's sinking justifying the US invasion of Cuba and, on the other hand, the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq justifying the US invasion. Pfly 07:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish-American war is just about the only imperialist aggression I can see some merit to -- the Spanish empire of 1898 was pretty decayed and rotten, and seriously overdue for being tossed onto the trash heap. On the other hand, the fairly predictable consequences of the Spanish-American war were the sordid episodes of the Platt Amendment and the Philippine-American War... AnonMoos 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germany not only attacked the US, but also declared war on them, after the Japanese had done it. Pretty much the same way the USSR was drawn into the war (the two biggest mistakes of the Nazis, apart from starting the war in the first place). Before that, the US helped the allies with supplies and loans, but didn't participate because of the Monroe doctrine (the US will not interfere in Europe if Europe doesn't interfere in America (the continent, I mean)). But when both Japan and Germany declared war and attacked, it's safe to say there was sufficient justification. Concerning the sinking of the Maine, some say the US did that themselves to blame that on others and thus create an excuse for war. To follow up on Pfly's Iraq analogy, there are indications that the CIA deliberately let '911' happen (and even partook a little) to create an excuse for war. DirkvdM 08:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Dirk, Japan was one of the Allies in the First World War. DuncanHill 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, wrong war. How big a difference one letter can make. And I suppose Clio's one but last link also put me on the wrong track because I didn't know there were already serious enough submarines in WWI. Maybe Verne's fantastic portrayal of them in the late 19th century also has something to do with that. Shame on me for not knowing this. DirkvdM 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many of the traditional cultural icons of Britian are actually imported?

While researching the meaning of being British, I couldn't help but think that quite a lot of the traditional cultural icons hailed from foreign lands before Britain claimed them as it's own.

I'm just wondering if anyone would have any more information about an object/food which would usually be associated with the United Kingdom, but in actuality came from elsewhere?

Here's a rough list I have compiled:

Bangers n mash (sausage - Sumer (iraq) potatoes - Peru)

taxicab (might be from Paris)

football (china)

The rose originated in Central Asia and spread across the northern hemisphere

HP sauce produced in Elst, the Netherlands

HP sauce originated in the UK in 1896. It was produced in the UK from 1903, and only in 2006 commenced production in the Netherlands. -- JackofOz 03:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haggis arrived in a longboat from Scandinavia

The first cheese may have been made by people in the Middle East or by nomadic Turkic tribes in Central Asia.

Tea (china)

Tea Cup - imported from the Japanese port of Imari

Sugar - New Guinea

Cow’s milk was first used for human consumption in the middle east

Lace tablecloth - Flanders & Italy

The Bobby - The first police force comparable to present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France

Punch & Judy was derived from Italian street entertainment.

The Bus - France 1826

The Mini, designed by Sir Alec Issigonis (Greek)

Blackpool Tower

Freddie Mercury - Zanzibar

baked beans - According to alternative traditions, sailors brought cassoulet from the south of France, or the regional bean stew recipes from northern France and the Channel Islands. Most probably, a number of regional bean recipes coalesced and cross-fertilised in North America and ultimately gave rise to the baked bean culinary tradition familiar today.

The BBC has labelled Tikka Masala as "Britain's national dish"

Does anyone have any more?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.151.193 (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Enoch Powell said in a speech to the Royal Society of St George on St George's day, 23 April 1961 - "What do they know of England who only England know?" He was (of course) alluding to Rudyard Kipling's poem The English Flag (1891). Xn4 00:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chutney - Nunh-huh 02:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the cultural exchanges and suchlike of Europe's complex history, plus England's history as a colonial empire, just about all of the cultural icons you can think of will be foreign or also used somewhere else. If you want something that is actually British, it would have to be something invented right there in Britain itself. 130.56.65.24 02:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did football really come from China? I assume as it's the simplest game to play there will have been versions everywhere, but I think it is disputable that it's form in England was imported. Surely we can claim rugby and cricket. And parliamentary democracy? The stiff upper lip? Cyta 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St George (Anatolia), apples introduced by the Romans, rabbits introduced by the Normans, Roast beef (rôti de boeuf)... SaundersW 08:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Family, I seem to recall they have significantly large amounts of 'continental' genes. (pardon me Your Majesty - just stating a fact)Richard Avery 10:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football comes from China? There's documentary evidence of football being played in England before China was "discovered" by the West. --Dweller 10:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Teddy bear came from the USA, as did the Crossword puzzle and the expression "stiff upper lip". Rhinoracer 14:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the one true form of crossword appears to be an entirely British creation. Algebraist 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Genesis: You shall desire your husband

A group of us were discussing the scripture as part of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden story. Of course, no corresponding command exists to desire your wife. I am interested in a discussion of what it means, apart from the obvious. I am particularly involved in a Jewish explanation. I would like to know where to research it.75Janice 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)75Janice75Janice 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the idea here is that God was condemning women to be subordinate to men ("I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Gen. 3:16, emphasis added). Way to go, God! Way to cause millennia of patriarchy! What a jerk, right? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should remember that any version of the bible is colored by who translated it. I wouldn't be surprised if the bolded phrase was a result of the suppression of women (some jerk of a translator putting it in - by himself or by church order, after all it was the general view for quite a long time), rather than the cause. Have you read the original Hebrew scripture? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't an excess of female emancipation in the society that produced the Hebrew scriptures either, despite characters like Sarah, whose husband God exceptionally told to obey her, and the portrait of the ideal (economically active) wife in Proverbs. By the way, there is an injunction in Ecclesiastes to delight in the wife of one's youth, and as Twas Now points out, the sentence you read as a command can be interpreted as a simple statement of future fact. SaundersW 08:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a commandment, it's a statement of fact, as with the rest of the punishments handed out (man has to work, woman will suffer in childbirth, mankind will seek to destroy snakes etc). The Hebrew is "וְאֶל-אִישֵׁךְ, תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ" which is, indeed usually rendered "and your desire shall be to your husband". If you are indeed most interested in Jewish interpretation, the first source usually sought out by Jewish scholars is Rashi. His comment on these words may not seem very PC, but then again, neither were the times he lived in! ([8]) Rashi connects the "desire" with the subsequent note of the husband having mastery, by interpreting this that while women will have sexual desire, men will be the initiators. For several millenia since this statement was made by God, it was certainly largely true and I'd guess it remains largely true today, although probably to a lesser extent. You could say similarly for the pain of childbirth for that matter. --Dweller 10:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of fact? Like the preceding statement of fact to the snake: "And dust you will eat". Is that correct? I've never heard of snakes eating dust. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That line's about serpents crawling around on their bellies. Corvus cornix 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where I part company with some of those above is over the notion that everything in the Bible is the word of God. We can see divine inspiration in many parts of it, but we can't escape the truth that every book of the Bible was written by men, and it has to be read through the veil of history. I remember hearing a divine offer this question in a sermon, a question which he said we should always have in mind when reading any ancient text: "What must the truth be now, if men who thought as they did put it that way?" Xn4 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible was written thousands of years after the Old Testament happened. To assume the writers could correctly recollect what was said and to assume they had no POV that seeped in would be ridiculous. Stories get embellished over the years and the stories that entered the Bible are no different, no matter you believe about their veracity. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner asked "a Jewish explanation". Your POV and OR about the Bible comments are interesting, but not really relevant. --Dweller 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relation between index futures and underlying index?

What is the relation between an index future and the underlying index? How does the change in value of the index future foretell a similar change in the index? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.47.15 (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An index future is a future based on an index: for example, a stock market index future is a future based on the value of a stock market index. Its value will be based on an educated guess of where the index will be in the future (depending on the type of future contract, either on a specific day, or over a period), taking into account factors such as general economic indicators and market sentiment.

I'm sure the economists can wax lyrical about how in theory the pricing of an index future reflects predicted future movements of the index, but the world does not work like that in practice. -- !! ?? 11:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "educated guess" of the future value of the index - this is a common misconception. Equity index futures are priced to replicate the economic cost of buying and holding the constituent equities in the index in the same proportions as they are represented in the index. This has to be the case, because if the futures price deviated from this, there would be an arbitrage opportunity - a chance to make a risk-free profit by buying the underlying equities and selling index futures or vice versa.

One part of the economic cost of buying and holding the constituent equities is the cost of borrowing funds for the duration of the future (say 3 months) - this is known as the "cost of carry". The other part is the dividends that would be received on the equity holdings, which is usually expressed as an annualised dividend yield. So

Futures price = Index value x (1 + annual interest rate - annual dividend yield) x days to maturity/365

Cost of carry depends purely on current interest rates. Dividend yield depends on estimates of future dividends, which may be be subject to some uncertainty, especially for long-dated contracts or indexes containing relatively few stocks.

The futures price will get closer to the current index value as a futures contract approaches maturity. The futures price will move as the index value changes, but it will also move if interest rates change.

For more details see Stock_market_index_future#Pricing, this link and this article. Gandalf61 11:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, I am glad to have fallen for a "common misconception". Good thing I don't buy and sell these things. There are also dealing costs to take into account, I suppose. How do you know in advance what the dividend yield is going to be?

So in essence you are swapping the current interset rate for index movements and dividend yield over the period of the future? -- !! ?? 12:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there will be dealing costs. There may be a spread - difference between bid and offer prices on the index future. And you will have to lodge margin with your futures broker or the exchange, which has its own financing costs.

The dividend yield is not known for certain in advance - it is estimated. Over a diverse index such as the FTSE-100, variations in individual dividend payments can be expected to balance out, so the overall dividend yield can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.

You are correct - you are swapping the current interest rate for index performance (which reflects the weighted average price performance of its constuents) plus dividend yield. Prices for index futures are calculated in much the same was as pricing a total return basket swap. Gandalf61 13:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

industrial pollution

What is indutrial pollution?-definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.139.77 (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, industrial pollution is a redlink, but you could consider which forms of pollution are caused by industry. Or you could look in a dictionary. -- !! ?? 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on us for not having an article on that. Then again, what other pollution than industrial pollution is there? Household pollution? Sewage (or lack thereof)? The pollution article seems to be only about industrial pollution, apart from mentioning stuff like 'sound pollution', which is more of an analogy than a real meaning. DirkvdM 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is pollution caused by domestic and private activities (cars, aerosol sprays, furnaces etc), and there are also natural or biological sources and pollutants (wildfires, volcanic activity, radon gas, animal flatulence ...). The terms noise pollution and light pollution may have originally been created as analogies, but they are good analogies, since both can have detrimental health effects on humans and ecosystems depending on concentration and exposure.

Pollutio meant defilement in Latin, and, according to etymonline, the usage of pollution in the sense of "contamination of the environment" was once a novel analogy as well - first coined around 1860, but only common since the 1950s - its original first recorded meaning in English (ca. 1340) was "discharge of semen other than during sex," (ca. 1340) later, "desecration, defilement" (1382). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. And I don't just mean that last bit. Natural pollution? I implicitly assumed that pollution is always anthropogenic. Is a wildfire a pollutant? To some species, but not to others that have adapted to it, learned to make use of it and even depend on it for their seeds to germinate. It's part of the natural course of things, so I wouldn't call that pollution. Is volcanic activity a pollutant? It's too violent and erratic for species to adapt to (or are there counterexamples?). So I'd agree that that would count as pollution. Humans are also natural (unless you define them not to be). But human activities and especially the scale (due to the immensely (unnaturally?) large population) are something that the rest of nature couldn't possibly have prepared for through evolution. So I suppose that's why those activities would also count as pollution. Sounds good, I think. Alas I can't add this to the article, because it's completely OR. DirkvdM 07:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Air_pollution#Sources_of_air_pollution or water pollution. You may well be right, this definition, for example, but also the articles on water or land pollution restrict the causes to human activities. The article on air pollution does not make this restriction, while the article on pollution speaks generally of the "introduction of pollutants". I guess it depends on the point of view : Poltiically, anthropogenic pollutants are almost all that count. For people living near Lake Nyos, or someone studying the global spread and effect of pollutants, natural sources may be equally interesting. Back to the original question, the article on anthropogenic classifies the sources "industry", "agriculture", "mining", "transportation", "construction", and "habitations". Adding another immaterial nuisance to noise and light, WP also has an article on thermal pollution. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are Holocaust deniers cranks?

Or would the term "crank" not be applied to them? --KnightMove 09:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a crank tends to be alone and work on his own, while Holocaust deniers collaborate with one another. A crank's activities may be seen as harmless and not necessarily malevolent, while Holocaust denial is usually not seen as harmless, and sometimes seen as malevolent. But I wouldn't say it can't apply either. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly cranks. There's a law called Hanlon's law..........11:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.7.57 (talk)

Valid point - I can live with that law. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cranks are more defined as eccentrics or monomaniacs, in particular people possessed with a hobby. I don't know if Holocaust denying can be classed as a hobby? Lord Foppington 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under a broad definition (and one which recognizes that not all hobbies are good ideas), sure. Most are not doing it for a living. --24.147.86.187 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Cromwell

Can Cromwell be considered a dictator in the modern sense of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.20 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to say, because one's definition of "dictator" is irretrievably governed by POV. The term is bandied about so much that it's almost debased beyond usable understanding. Look into the development of the term "tyrant" for a most interesting parallel.

What you'll need to do for your (I presume) essay, is outline the areas in which Cromwell undertook a personal rule similar to that of the monarch he'd ironically disposed of, and the extent to which he consulted Parliament. You'll also need to bear in mind the need to be careful of anachronistic thinking. You can't compare Cromwell with a modern PM. For one thing, he wasn't elected leader of the country by the people. For another, he had no real model to follow... (comparisons with ancient systems are probably spurious) he was making it up as he went along. --Dweller 10:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he used the army to suppress parliament when it wouldn't do what he told it to, and ruled personally after that, so yes, dictator seems pretty fair. DuncanHill 15:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was he a dictator in the modern sense? Probably not, inasmuch as he was always at pains to try to find some constitutional underpinnings to his system of rule. He did, indeed, dismiss the Rump Parliament in 1653, as Duncan has said, but he went on to summon another three. These experiments met with limited success, but it is not entirely fair to place the blame for this on the Lord Protector. Of necessity, the outcome of the Civil War, the establishment of what was, in essence, government without national consensus, forced him to rely on the army as the chief prop of his rule. England came closest to pure military despotism in the period from the summer of 1655 to January 1657, when the country was divided into a series of regional commands, headed by individual Major-Generals. It was an experiment that certainly re-introduced a degree of stablity, much needed after the Penruddock uprising, but it was expensive and it was unpopular, especially when it came to the 'reformation of manners.' But, unlike true despotism, the whole thing was quite patchy, with local commanders receiving little in the way of direct support from the Protector. When attacked by a new parliament, and without Cromwell's backing, the whole experiment collapsed. In the end Cromwell was caught between his understanding that only a full monarchy could bring the political stability that England needed, and the realisation that the army would not tolerate his acceptance of the crown. Just how far the country was from true dictatorship was later shown in the speed with which Richard Cromwell, the second and last Protector, with no support in parliament or the army, was forced to exit the stage. Clio the Muse 01:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proffesions

I saw a question on the Miscellaneous desk about people who answer questions i and i thought it might be interesting to ask what kind of professions people here have? Some of the responses really knock me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.20 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bordering on crossposting which is probably why no-one has replied. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Reference_Desk_Article_Collaboration as well as the original question. Lanfear's Bane | t 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Scholar Question

Hello, What made a person a scholar during the Golden age in China? I have tried numerous web-sites and just can't find the right answer to this question. Thank you. 72.15.113.183 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chinese golden ages are the Tang and Song dynasty dynasties I assume, the deinition of scholar is all you need here.. In general people who were in the civil service would be able to undertake scholarly pursuits in general - such people are refered to as scolar officials eg see http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/lit/scholar.htm 87.102.7.57 15:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Imperial examination useful - in general though, as ever - a scholar would be anyone undertaking scholarly activities - however literacy was not universal in those times - so only those who had been chosen for an education were likely to be scholars.. I can't exclude the possibility of self taught scholars.87.102.7.57 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Scholar-bureaucrats may help.87.102.7.57 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Medal of Honor

How come the Pope did not get a Congressional Medal of Honor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadiddlehopper (talk • contribs) 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government. It is sometimes referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor because the President presents the award "in the name of the Congress". It is bestowed on a member of the United States armed forces who distinguishes himself "…conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States…" Because of its nature, the medal is commonly awarded posthumously. I'm gusesing that's why... Lanfear's Bane | t 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the questioner meant a Congressional Gold Medal, the "the highest civilian award which may be bestowed by the United States Congress"? In which case, the answer is Pope John Paul II did, as did John Cardinal O'Connor, and Mother Teresa of India, and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson - see List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients). Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI will do in due course: who knows. But I doubt whether any of them are ever going to win the Medal of Honor. -- !! ?? 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Nick

Was Machiavelli as amoral as his reputation attests? 81.156.3.156 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who read Machiavelli almost never get beyond The Prince, by which standard he has also entered popular consiousness. But this is only a small part of his work. In may ways his Discourses on Livy, weighter in every way, provides far better insight into the range and subtelty of his thought. The Prince itself, as I have said before, is really no more than a commentary-perhaps even a satire-on sixteenth century Italian politics. Machiavelli's reputation for amorality is derived ultimately from his sense of politiacl realism. He describes politicas as a practice, stripped of the comforting fictions. It's his own appeal to power, his plea to be noticed. In the Discourses you will find hom more at leisure, and more reflective. People, he says, are rarely entirely good nor entirely bad. More than this, when a community is taken as a whole it can show high degrees of courage; it is only individuals who are cowardly. There are also clear republican sentiment in his defence of the people and their virtues when set against the princes and their vices. He lived under despotism, under the rule of tyrants he was forced to laud, as an act of personal survival. But he was still able to look beyond. Clio the Muse 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pius XII-Hitler's Pope?

Can Pius justly be described as 'Hitler's Pope'? 81.156.3.156 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not justly. Consider the meaning of the words just, justly.87.102.7.57 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Pius XII and Hitler's Pope? Cornwell's book serves an excellent purpose: it's a perfect illustration of how not to write history! Clio the Muse 02:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean War

Hello. Please explain the political and strategic background to the Korean War of 1950 and who is most responsible for its outbreak? Thank you. K Limura 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean_War#Background 132.206.33.42 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming an officially recognized state religion

I'm looking for information on how to become an officially recognized religion in the United States. Ztoddz 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)zToddz[reply]

You might need to amend the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prevents any establishment of religion. The government is supposed to stay out of religion, and not distinguish between "officially recognized religions" and unapproved religions. If you and I want to start the First Church of the Holy Salt Shaker it should be our right. Edison 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are, however, some senses in which the US government does recognise religious bodies. For example, they get exemption from most taxes (the universal life church had some trouble convincing the IRS it was a real religion at one point) and only some religious symbols are approved for use on veterans' gravestones (the Asatru are currently trying to get this one). Algebraist 18:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccans are still fighting to get recognition by the military. Corvus cornix 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's at least partially won [9]. Donald Hosek 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Scientology gets special IRS-approved tax exemptions which no other religion in the United States gets, as established in the Sklar lawsuit (see Scientology_as_a_state-recognized_religion , last section, and this external link). AnonMoos 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admission into medical by an international student

17:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)213.255.196.214Dear Sir, Am an international student requesting for admission into your university. Please tell me how I can apply. I have produced excellent results in my schools I can send you a copy of my credentials and also my results. I promise not to disappoint you if you give this opportunity to proof my excellent academic performance. Thank you, I await your reply. Yours Sincerely, Fadila Auwal Shehu.

Wikipedia is not a university; it's just an online encyclopedia. If you want to go to university, you should talk to a high school adviser to learn more about good medical colleges. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really bizarre; I've seen this same thing asked before. What on Earth gives people the impression that Wikipedia is a university?? If the questioner is still around I'd appreciate it if he'd explain... -Elmer Clark 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once I mistyped the URL address of Wikipedia and got a page about a university. Don't ask me for more information, since I don't know anything else. --Taraborn 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the time when people google the name of a university, they find a wikipedia article on said university, and on occasion they mistake wikipedia for the official website of the university. --VectorPotential^Talk 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the cause is what I said, but I'm unable to reproduce that result... --Taraborn 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parerga and Paralipomena

I enjoyed reading this sampler of Schopenhauer's wisdom but I am left wondering if it is a good introduction to his philosophy? 81.156.7.205 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but if you enjoyed it, perhaps you enjoy collections of insightful aphorisms more than you would enjoy The World as Will and Representation, in which case you may want to go from Schopenhauer forward to Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human, or maybe Twilight of the Idols) or backward to Chamfort (in English, ISBN 0865471452). Wareh 19:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, master of aphorisms, whose thoughts and writings inspired Schopenhauer as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lichtenberg is right on the money, the closest to what you've read you'll find anywhere. Wareh 01:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just read his philosophy so you can have your own opinion on whether the book is a good introduction to it or not? A.Z. 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Wareh, Parerga and Paralipomena, with all of its superficial and aphoristic charm, is not a good introduction to the full complexity of Schopenhauer's thinking. It gives little indication of the true depth of his knowledge and understanding. I should warn you, though, 81.156, if you do decide to tackle The World as Will and Representation you may be in for something of an intellectual shock. Compared with Parerga it is the mountain; Maxim's after MacDonald's! You will really need some grounding in metaphysics, especially in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. So, a good general introduction might be best; perhaps Bryan Magee's The Philosophy of Schopenhauer, or, better still, Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction by Christopher Janaway. If you do decide to go straight for the man try On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason to begin with. Best of luck! Clio the Muse 00:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sensitive index

what is the effect of rising sensitive index on indian economy?210.212.113.3 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economists disagree about the causal links in either direction between finance, including stock markets, and the real economy of business and employment. One effect of a rise in the BSE Sensex is that listed Indian companies will have higher market capitalization. This could allow them to raise more capital to fund investment, which would cause the Indian economy to grow. A rise in this index also indicates that Indian investors are seeing capital gains. This could encourage still more investment, or it could give them confidence to increase their consumption. Either of these effects would also cause growth in the Indian economy. On the other hand, rises in stock prices and indexes can simply be a reflection of inflation, in which case little or no growth in the real economy takes place. Rising stock prices can also be a symptom of a stock market bubble, in which case short-term growth in the Indian economy could be reversed when the bubble deflates. Indeed, if companies and individuals have overinvested, or gone into debt to invest, the collapse of a bubble could limit the economy's growth for some time thereafter. Marco polo 20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought on this. Some evidence indicates that the Sensex has been driven up at least partly by speculative foreign investment. Such foreign investment has probably driven up the exchange rate of the rupee, since foreigners must sell their currency and buy rupees in order to purchase shares on the BSE. The rise of the rupee makes Indian products less competitive globally and makes imports less expensive in India. This could hurt the Indian domestic economy. Also, to the extent that the rise in the Sensex is due to foreign speculation, India faces the danger of a financial crisis similar to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, which caused serious recessions in the countries affected. Marco polo 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Pakistan People's Party arch-rival

Which political party is Pakistan People's Party's arch-rival? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.219 (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and Muttahida Qaumi Movement Xn4 02:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous Unwanted Thoughts

What's the psychological term for the mental disturbance where a person is assail'd by perverse thoughts whenever they get anxious? I've met a few such people and they say that the thoughts seem to fly at them from nowhere and they find themselves incapable of controlling them. 66.112.241.49 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC) MelancholyDanish[reply]

I've seen people calling this Pure O, as in Purely Obsessive OCD. — Kieff | Talk 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's what it's called, OCD or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, but without the Compulsive part, although people with this disorder often find it easier to talk about the Obsessive part than the Compulsive part, so it may actually be OCD that you're describing. If it really starts impeding with everyday life, such people often need professional help. There are techniques that can help them deal with such thoughts and lead normal lives. Wrad 02:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes

When is it consider'd appropriate to use apostrophes in words? 66.112.241.49 01:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

The apostrophe usually shows that one or more letters have been left out of a word or combination of two words, as in "it's" for "it is". It also shows the possessive case - "the Queen's peace" or (in the plural) "the Sirens' song". In past centuries, it was sometimes used (as in your example, consider'd) to show that the final -ed of a word was not pronounced as a separate syllable. So learn'd was clearly one syllable, while the adjective learned was two. This last usage fell out of use, as almost all -ed endings came to be pronounced 'd. The apostrophe has sometimes led men of letters into extreme positions. George Bernard Shaw preferred to leave it out for most purposes, while other writers, such as Lewis Carroll, have insisted on using it more than once in a word, where appropriate, as in "sha'n't". Xn4 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's one more use that is becoming less popular but has not completely disappeared: to join an inflectional suffix to something that normally wouldn't accept it. Today this survives mostly in forming the plurals of single letters ("A's are written with three strokes"), and some people would reject even this and insist on "As". 40 years ago it was usual when pluralizing numbers ("We are living in the 1960's") and many abbreviations ("He performed two E.V.A.'s" or "He performed two EVA's"). To many people today those forms now seem wrong, but they were once standard and there are still people who prefer them. Another such usage involved suffixes like -ed and -ing when informally treating something as a verb that normally is not; I think this was probably never common, but I have seen examples from the early 20th century, although I can't recall any. To make up an example: "Don't sell my wife any more broccoli! She's broccoli'ed me to death already!" Today if someone wrote that, you'd expect them to spell it "broccolied"; but I could see someone writing "E.V.A.'d" even today. --Anon, 04:20 UTC, October 20, 2007.

For a highly amusing and very readable treatise on this subject, get a hold of Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots and Leaves. -- JackofOz 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the Liberated Africans?

Who are they and where did they come from? ive be hearing that they came from the U.S and to be said that the african americans migrated to the carribean?

They are of african descent but they said that they found no list on slaves that were taken from africa to the West indies but Liberated Africans

who are they?--arab 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that you are referring to the American Colonization Society, the founders of Liberia. See also History of Liberia. --Lambiam 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accessible books on socialism?

Greetings RD-ers, it's great to be among you again, if briefly. A bright student in my AP class asked me a question recently that I couldn't think of how to answer, and it occurred to me that you are the perfect audience. She mentioned she'd been reading John Dos Passos in her spare time (note to self: clearly you assign too little homework if a kid can read Dos Passos in their free hours), which was of course impressive enough. But then she said that the USA trilogy had gotten her thinking about socialism, and she thought I was the only teacher who wouldn't "turn her in" for asking questions about it. She wondered if I could recommend any books that would tell her more about socialism: what it is, how it would work, etc. We agreed that Marx was "classic" but not too accessible, even to high schoolers who read Dos Passos in their spare time. I said I would think on it, and ask around. All the names that come to mind from the more modern socialists are very hard to follow, but I don't want to tell the kid to read Socialism for Dummies. I would appreciate any recommendations you have of specific titles and authors that are reasonably easily available and informative on the topic (but not so radical that I am likely to lose my job by recommending them). Many thanks in advance for whatever you can offer: in repayment, I promise to hit Random article until I hit a page that needs copyediting and do so -- a sort of Wikignome bartering, if you will. Best regards to all, especially to those few who may remember me, Jwrosenzweig 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you know I kept my end of the bargain, I left Jeffreys Bay cleaner than I found it (which is not to say I left it "clean"). :-) If anyone has a request for another little article cleaning in return for your assistance, feel free to note it on my talk page, and if I can find time between essays and letters of rec. I will happily oblige. Jwrosenzweig 05:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has quite a few articles on socialism (see the sidebar). If you follow through all the links, you've got quite a sizeable amount of info here. But I assume you thought of that too. As an indicator of what you are looking for, how does that not satisfy? Btw, I hope that 'turning someone in for thinking' was meant in irony. Then again, knowing the US as I do, I fear you were serious. DirkvdM 08:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a bit ambiguous: is she interested in the history of socialism as a political current, in socialist political theory, or in social-democratic policy?

I haven't read it but A. Wright's "Socialisms: Theories and Practices" is supposed to be "a good, brief and accessible introduction to the basic themes in socialism, highlighting the causes of disagreement within the socialist family" (according to Heywood's "Political Ideologies")

When it comes to political theory, the single most accessible book Socialist political theory for me was "Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality" by G.A. Cohen. Jonathan Wolff's "Why read Marx today" is also rather accessible.

If she wants to read Marxists texts, marxists.org offers a great collection of texts and an encyclopedia which explains key terms. Here a good place to start might be The Communist Manifesto (found here) is way more legible than Das Kapital and explains key Socialist ideals such as class struggle.

As for social-democratic policy, Anthony Giddens The Third Way is key in understanding contemporary centre left policy and is not very complex to read either.

I hope this helps! C mon 08:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to sound a negative note, but a learning environment in which a student is worried about being turned in for asking her teacher for further reading, and in which that teacher is worried about losing his job for encouraging her intellectual curiosity sounds deeply flawed to me. I was going to suggest Edward Carpenter for an alternative form of socialism, but he may be too radical for the circumstances you describe. DuncanHill 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend everything by Tom Paine for anyone interested in the development of political theories of social justice, but again he may be too radical for an American educational environment. DuncanHill 14:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I share Duncan's alarm here: it sounds more like Soviet Russia than the United States! (Is it the United States?) Having said that I freely confess if my dear mother and father found out that a teacher was passing me socialist texts they would have turned into 'Red' Brits in anger! Anyway, it's really good to know, Jwrozenzweig, that your student has the stamina and the motivation to read something as monumental as USA in her spare time; I really admire her intellectual curiosity. Actually, for someone of her level of intelligence, there are some Marxist works that are more accessible than others. I myself read and understood The Communist Manifesto when I was in fifth form. There are other books I could recommend along these lines, including some more up to date stuff, though I wonder if this is the right way to go about satisfying her curiosity? What I would like to suggest is another novel, one that addresses the issues around socialism directly and in a highly enertaining fashion. The book I have in mind is The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, a sort of socialist Pilgrim's Progress writen by Robert Tressell. I also read this at school. I do, however, have some minor reservations. The setting is England more than a century ago and some of the cultural references may not be that intelligible to an American teenager. Another highly personal choice on my part would be The Soul of Man under Socialism, a brilliant and witty essay by Oscar Wilde (On second thoughts how would you survive recommending Oscar and socialism!!!). My final recommendation is another classic text, this time a history of the main intellectual trends in left-wing thought leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917-To the Finland Station by Edmund Wilson, which I also enjoyed. Let me know if you need any more! Clio the Muse 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could I have forgotten the Blessed Oscar! DuncanHill 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to you, Bosie! Clio the Muse 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the anti-socialist bias in the US, one example. When I looked up Cuba in the major Dutch encyclopedia (Winkler Prins), I was surprised that it was mildly positive about the present government. So I decided to look it up in some US encyclpediae in the library and I was shocked. The articles were a constant stream of POV. Really everything was put in a bad light. I didn't expect it to be quite neutral, but this was horrible. Also, I've heard loads of downright lies by so-called experts from the US about the USSR and Cuba. This illustrates the atmosphere that Jwrosenzweig has to work in, and I can understand his reservations.

Having said that, in Cuba I looked at the politics sections of several book shops and a university library and all the books were about different forms of socialism. I wonder which is worse, only providing one side of a story or pretending to provide both sides, but mutilating one of the sides, like Fox news does. DirkvdM 08:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sex ratio in public events

Why is it that there is always approximately 2:1 males:females at every social event, such as bars, parties, concerts, etc. ? As a young[ish] person this has been my experience. I am looking for an evolutionary explantion, but any insight is appreciated, Thanks. -- Diletante 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you live (generally)? I've noticed the opposite. Wrad 05:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this in concerts all over the USA, (I have attended many phish and the string cheese incident shows) and in bars in New York and Texas. I said 2:1 but it is probably closer to 3:2. -- Diletante 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question to ask is where the girls hang out. I have a guess. School. Women are outnumbering men in educational accomplishment quite a bit these days. Might sound silly, but it may be part of it. I spend a lot of time at school, in college, and girls always outnumber guys. I'm an English major, so that may have something to do with it. Maybe girls just don't hang out much anymore. I don't know. But that doesn't explain why there are so many at the parties I go to... Seems to me like it's all circumstance. Wrad 05:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a psych major and girls did easily outnumber guys in my classes. But I still think you can walk into any major event and find more guys than girls. why? -- Diletante 06:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the events I go to... Wrad 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for relaying your experience. -- Diletante 06:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really just depends on where you go. The sex ratio is 1:1, and women go out just as much as men. My guess is that the concerts and bars you attend must be ones that attract a predominantly male crowd. If you went to a Justin Timberlake concert, you would probably notice the ratio is 3 female per 1 male or higher. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking from a point of view outside of the 'event'-selectivity (more men at sports events etc.)...Perhaps more men are likely to go out 'alone' than women so that means that there will be more men than women as the women who are 'alone' may decide not to go out unless friends are going. Whereas a guy may happily go along on his todd. Also it may be that men make their presence more 'known' than women so you feel like there are more men there. If you are single perhaps it is psychological and you just think that there are few women around as potential partners. If you are not single and perhaps are easily jealous you might see more men as potential threats to your relationship. I expect the divide is more in your head than in the real numbers, it might not be 50:50 but 2:1 is a big divide. ny156uk 11:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar was discussed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 11#Imbalance of women and men on dating sites and clubs , you may be interested in the answers there (though the person that asked the question then wasn't.) Rockpocket 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're a guy. I'm guessing you're a fairly typical guy. Thus, you tend to choose to go to places that guys choose to go to. Somehow, you have got the impression that the places you go out to are representative of all places. I really don't think there's anything more going on. Skittle 11:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product mix/Product assortment

What is Product mix? What is Product assortment? Any differences between them? -- 158.182.155.31 05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might be differences; it depends on the context. Do the dictionary definitions of "mix" and "assortment" not answer your question?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call this phenomenon?

If someone gets a present, whether he is happy depends on who gave the present, not what the present is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.78.9.149 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present-giver bias? I'd be surprised if there is a word for this. ny156uk 11:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socialization? If you're interested in the social forces at work in gift-exchange, start with the article gift economy. Wareh 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Thought That Counts? See also It's the Thought that Counts: A Signed Digraph Analysis of Gift-Giving. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being in love? Rockpocket 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Board of associated loyalists

In the context of the American revolution who or what was the board of associated loyalists? 81.151.6.49 11:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Loyalist organization led by William Franklin, who was an illegitimate son of Benjamin Franklin and the last colonial governor of New Jersey. Many loyalist refugees fled to New York City, where the Board of Associated Loyalists helped to organize support for the British war effort. Xn4 19:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin's organisation was also responsible for acts of terrorism and reprisal against the Rebels, though this was not part of their official remit, which was to focus their actions against military targets alone, with no unprovoked attacks on civilians. But the Loyalists, having lost their homes and their property, fought with a commitment and a bitterness, that was not generally matched by the professional British forces of the day. They were particularly active in New Jersey, where the New Jersey Volunteers became the biggest Loyalist or Tory formation ever raised in the Americas.

The most famous, or imfamous of the New Jersey Tories , depending on one's perspective, was Ensign James Moody (no Wikipedia page, surprsingly), who took his own personal woes out on his Rebel neighbours. His raids across the the area became so notorious that for much of the war cries of "Moody is out!", or "Moody is in the country!" were used to alert the local people to his presence. In one raid in June 1779 Moody attacked Tinton Falls, taking prisoners and rounding up cattle. When intercepted by Rebel militia the Loyalists entered into a fire fight, breaking through in a bayonet charge, after running out of ammunition.

The attack on Tinton Falls, and many others of the same kind, were a source of horror and alarm to the rebels. The New Hampshire Gazette noted that the Jersey Loyalists chose "...the hours of darkness to perpetuate the works of darkness...generally land in the night and before the militia can be collected, flee to their vessels with precipitation, snatching up in their flight what plunder they can and then magnifying in their lying Gazettes one of those sheep-stealing nocturnal robberies into one of the Duke of Malborough's victories in Flanders." In essence it was the classic form of hit-and-run guerrilla warfare: hit where the enemy is weak and unprepared; retreat in the face of superior forces.

Moody, the great raider-in-chief, was eventually captured and taken to the fort at West Point, where he was badly handled by the commander, none other than Benedict Arnold. When General Washington learned that the prisoner was being kept in chains in a filthy dungeon he ordered Arnold to treat him properly, a favour Moody repayed by escaping to resume his raids!

After the surrender at Yorktown, with the British anxious to end their involvement in the Americas, it was only the Loyalists who kept the conflict alive, even endangering the prospects of peace with the capture by a force led by Captain Richard Lippincott of a small fort at Toms River in March, 1782. The Rebel commander, Captain Joshua Huddy, was subsequently hanged in reprisal for the death of the Loyalist Philip White while in enemy hands. Huddy's hanging, which did not have the approval of the Board of Associated Loyalists, caused an international outrage, with Washington threatening to hang a Loyalist officer unless Lippincott was handed over. The Loyalists refused, and it took the intervention of Louis XVI in person to prevent a renewal of hostilities. With the war coming to an end the hard core of the Loyalists finally took refuge in Canada. Clio the Muse 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving

Is David Irving a good historian or a fraud? Martinben 12:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are differing opinions, and this is not the place to discuss them. I suggest you read the very thoroughly argued linked article and decide for yourself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When reading about controversial subjects, the present and archived (1, 2, 3) talk pages are often interesting as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a historian myself, I would probably say (and this is my own opinion, now—and note that I am not deeply tied up in the Irving controversy in any real way) that: 1. David Irving was not a bad historian (and certainly not "a fraud"), 2. but he has been seduced by a bad ideology, and has colored his worldview with it. Once you get yourself into confirmation bias rut even a smart person can have trouble getting out of it; once they've been jailed for said belief, they feel like a martyr and to go back on their way of seeing things would be to acknowledge the truth of whomever jailed them (never fun). Much of his early work (e.g. The Virus House) is not bad at all, but once he started going down the path to Holocaust denial, not only did he start seeing what he wanted to see everywhere he looked but he became incredibly isolated from the rest of the historical community. He became ingratiated to people with no real respect for history—other cranks, whose sole shared values were hatred, a belief in conspiracy theories, and delusion—and he became alienated and despised by those who did care about history, and he became what we might now call a "crank". I think "fraud" is incorrect in any case—I don't think he is intentionally misleading, but I do think he is unintentionally very misled. I would not trust any of his later works to have been done with a clear head; his early works are probably not any worse than any other historians, though—colored by his own interpretations, his only feel for things, but that's a large part in reconstructing any historical narrative, whether we choose to admit it or not. I think Holocaust issues encourage this sort of "fall from grace" more than other ones, in part because once you are on the "wrong side" of it (even in a minor and unintended way), the alienation and isolation can be extremely swift, with resultant professional and eventually intellectual penalties. I don't think that's very healthy (and I would never work on Holocaust history for that reason), but it should be no surprise to a savvy historian why that is. --24.147.86.187 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read most of Irving's work, though not without caution. He isn't, of course, a trained historian. At the beginning of his career as a writer, he clearly had difficulty in distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources: see, for instance, his approach to estimating the German civilian deaths in The Destruction of Dresden (1963) and the result of the Broome libel case (1968). However, he later learnt to work hard on good sources, and in some specialist areas he became very knowledgable. At the beginning of 1996, the New York Times canvassed the opinion of mainstream academic historians, and most of those they asked said they saw Irving as a "historian of repute". He chose to write revisionist history, looking at events anew from the German (and one could even say the Nazi) point of view, and there was an up-side and a down-side to that. As one of the first in the field, Irving had some bestsellers which helped his popular reputation. He also threw new light on what went on on the German side during the Second World War. But I should say he wasn't careful enough and was moved by strange forces. He has a streak of sensationalism which has helped his book sales but has fatally harmed his work and his reputation. Xn4 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deeply impressed with the thoughtful and measured responses of both 24.147 and Xn4, which leaves me with very little to add, other than to say that Irving is a superb historian, which only serves to make his offense all the greater. You see, most Holocaust deniers and Hitler enthusiasts are either stupid or deluded or both. But Irving is not. I read a a first edition of Hitler's War (published in 1977, I think), in which he does not deny the Holocaust, he simply says that it 'emerged' as a result of ad hoc action by local Gauleiters and the SS. But anyone who knows anything at all about the Third Reich, and Irving, I do believe, knows more than most, would quickly conclude that nothing, nothing at all, no major initiative of this kind, could ever have happened without Hitler's knowledge and approval. The argument is simply unsustainable. So, unsustainable as it is, it gave way to outright Holocaust denial. In his blindness, in his political bigotry, Irving commited a sin which for which no historian, no researcher, can be forgiven: he twisted, denied and distorted the facts. He knows the truth: he simply chose to turn away from it in a perverse act of double-think. He gave over his formidable talents to a worthless cause. A superb historian became a wretched human being, the chief victim of his own fraudulent bad-faith. It's tragic. Clio the Muse 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An outstanding thread and an early contender for next week's thead of the week award. --Dweller 10:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler

How do people know that Adolf Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945? --Hadseys 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Death of Adolf Hitler.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Magda Goebbels/Suicide, which supplies further details. Xn4 18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadseys, have you read Hugh Trevor-Roper's The Last Days of Hitler? The information for this was originally compiled when he was working as an intelligence officer for the British Army, and remains to this day one of the best investigations of the kind. The Soviets were also aware of the full facts very early on, though they chose to obfuscate them for years afterwards. Clio the Muse 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People's convention

I am looking for some more detailed information on the People's Convention, a communist front organisation that operated in Great Britain in the early 1940s. 81.156.3.198 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That page, 81.156, only tells part of the story. The so-called People's Convention was not the initiative of the Hammersmith Trades Council; it was the initiative of Moscow. It was set up after the outbreak of the Second World War during the time of the Nazi-Soviet pact, the honeymoon of the odd couple. Loyal Communists were instructed to denounce the struggle with Germany as an 'imperialist war', hence the need for bogus front organisations like the People's Convention. It was all quite subtle, of course, in the usual Communist style. People were encouraged to join in support of initiatives like higher living standards or better bomb shelters. Once safely enrolled they discovered that the 'real enemy' was not Germany but Winston Churchill and those members of the Labour party who joined the wartime coalition. The best denunciation of the whole fraud came from George Orwell, Harold Laski and Victor Gollancz, who in 1940, under the auspices of the Left Book Club, publised Betrayal of the Left. In this Gollancz asked,

"Can anyone carry self-delusion to the point of being able to read through the file of the Daily Worker [The Communist Party Newspaper] and still believe that this motive was any other than to weaken the will to resist? When, at the same time, you tell people that this is an unjust war, fought for no purpose but to increase the profits of the rich: when you jeer at any comment about the morale and heroism of the public and call it 'sunshine talk'; what possible purpose can you have but to stir up hatred of the government and hatred of the war, with the object of underminining the country's determination to stand up to Hitler?"

The Convention, shameful as it was, attracted the support of some prominent intellectuals, including Raymond Williams and Eric Hobsbawm, who wrote a pamphlet defending the Soviet aggression against Finland, because Stalin was only seeking to defend Russia against an attack by 'British imperialists'! You will find more information on the Convention in All the Russians Love the Prussians, Chapter Eight of Nick Cohen's What's Left, an excellent expose of the moral cowardice of so much left-wing thought. Clio the Muse 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life in Stalin's Russia

Hi. I'm looking for good sources of information on everyday life in Stalin's Russia. All references gratefully received! Mr. Crook 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several eyewitness books like Gennady Andreev-Khomiakov's Bitter Waters and Mary M. Leder's My Life in Stalinist Russia: An American Woman Looks Back. The trouble with everyday life under Stalin is that it wasn't much like everyday life as most of us know it and was largely overshadowed by the menaces of a police state. Indeed, for a large number of people, every day was spent in a prison camp. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn throws some light on that in Cancer Ward, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and The Gulag Archipelago. Xn4 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could do no better than read Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times by Sheila Fitzpatrick, packed full of all sorts of fascinating details, including some on the humour current at the time, which in itself does much to explain how things were. My personal favourite goes as follows. Polish customs officers wake up to find thousands of rabbits at the border demanding to be allowed to cross. "What's wrong?", one asks. "The OGPU have orders to shoot all the camels in the Soviet Union", the rabbits reply. "But you are not camels." "Try telling that to the OGPU." Clio the Muse 03:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xn4, you say "for a large number of people, every day was spent in a prison camp". You mean Gulags, I assume. At the end of Stalin's life and rule, the population of the Gulags was at its peaks at 1.7 million. That was just under 1% of the population at the time. For comparison, that is the same percentage as people in prison in the US at the moment and about double the amount in Russia at the moment (see Prisons in the United States#Comparison with other countries). Two complications here, though - the USSR and Russia aren't the same and I'm comparing prisons with prison camps. Did all prisoners go to Gulags? DirkvdM 09:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish clothing

Hi! What everyday clothes did a jewish man wear around the time of Jesus? Thanks. —Bromskloss 18:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably robes and cloaks not greatly different from those worn by many other peoples around that general time period. AnonMoos 20:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a kippah? —Bromskloss 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the person, most notably their position. I suppose you mean what clothes Jesus wore. He was a carpenter, so something cheap and sturdy. An educated guess: hemp. DirkvdM 09:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the men and boys would worn tzitzit. Proably over their clothing, unlike the modern day convention. Kippah would only be necessary if the head was not anyway covered in some other way, such as cloak, scarf etc. --Dweller 10:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrics used would have typically been flax, wool and linen. They would not have mixed wool and linen. --Dweller 10:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two tunes

Looong ago, I was taught to play two tunes, that are now buzzing around my head demanding a name. I believe the first one is called something like "The White Rose of Scotland", but I've not been able to track it down under that name. The melody's notes are (with a high B and A): BEF#GBAGFEBFAGE.

This you-tube video sounds vaguely like the melody you provide, but only vaguely. It's called "The Wee White Rose of Scotland", and it was written in 1986, so it may be too new for what you're looking for. I do have a little bell tintinabulating inside my head about a more traditional song called something like "The White Rose of Scotland". When it accepts the invitation to come into my consciousness, I'll get back to you. -- JackofOz 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is a Czech or something lullaby, but I've got no name to go on. This one's melody is EBBBGF#EAAF#F#E. Any help on either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.147.66 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some indication of the relative duration (length) of each note? That may help us track it down. Notes played with equal duration often sound quite unlike the tune they represent. -- JackofOz 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotaging Relationships

Is there a name for a psychological disorder in which a person unconsciously seeks means of sabotaging all their closest relationships, for fear of loving or of being loved? In other words, the person doesn't even realize what they're doing or for what reason, but they have a hard time being close to people and whenever someone starts to get close to them they find a clever means of ruining it. And then they wonder why they can never have a successful friendship or relationship. 66.112.241.49 19:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

There are lots of different personality disorders with complex, and sometimes over-lapping behaviours. Only a mental health care professional could give a valid diagnosis based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. However, one disorder that appears to share some of the behaviours you mention is Masochistic (Self-defeating) Personality Disorder Rockpocket 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a Wikipedia article on it.--Rallette 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Needed - Angelina Grimke

Hi, Im not tech saavy - but the article on Angelina Grimke was vandalized. I would have fixed it, except I don't know how. They added a sentence that needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.232.120 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for letting us know. For the next time: WP:REVERT. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Need help interpreting St. Augustine

All right, I know it says not to cross-post, however I posted this question previously on Language and was advised to ask questions like it on Humanities. I hope it's okay if I post the same question here since I'm not trying to spam or anything. If it's a problem feel free to delete.

Hi. I'm cracking my head open trying to figure out what a certain passage from St. Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis means. The passage in question is Book 2, Chapter 9, "The shape of the material heaven." The passage in question is available as a Google book preview at [10]. He appears to be discussing whether a Christian is bound by Biblical authority to take a particular view on whether the heavens are a sphere completely enclosing the earth or are rather suspended above it on one side. Augustine appears to believe that the heavens are spherical, however it seems that some were disputing this, quoting a passage from the Bible which talks about the heavens being stretched out like a skin.

The difficulty is that in paragraph 21, Augustine writes that "if [people who say that heaven is spherical] are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault. For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved." That would seem to suggest that Christians interpreting the Bible can use their external, natural knowledge to throw light on the best interpretation of what the Bible is saying.

However, in paragraph 22, Augustine writes that "...the image of a skin presents a more serious difficulty: we must show that it is reconcilable not with the sphere (for that may be only a man-made theory) but with the vault of Holy Scripture." In this paragraph he seems to be saying that all that matters is that Christians' interpretation of the skin passage is consistent with the rest of the Bible, and that divine revelation through the Bible must take precedence over human reasoning, such that the spherical-heaven theory must be rejected if there is no reasonable way to interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with it. Note also that earlier he had said that "The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men sumise," which is more consistent with the theme of this passage.

But it seems highly implausible that a great thinker like Augustine would have contradicted himself in the space of just two paragraphs. Could a fresh pair of eyeballs take a look at Chapter 9 and tell me if there's something I've missed? The main question on my mind is the extent to which Augustine believes that Christians' external, natural reasoning and knowledge should play in their interpretation of Scripture. Paragraph 21 seems to suggest that it should play a big part, but paragraph 22 seems to suggest that Christians may have to place their faith in a certain interpretation even if their reason tells them that the Bible, interpreted that way, cannot be right. (No, I am not worried that the sky is a flat like a vault...lol) Thanks! Schmitty120 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge's options

What are a judge's options after a jury has handed down a guilty verdict in a criminal case? --72.77.114.183 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)( Assuming the judge does not like the jury verdict)[reply]

For the U.S., see Judgment as a matter of law and Judgment notwithstanding verdict. GreatManTheory 00:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, it depends on the crime, but the court nearly always has some discretion after the verdict is arrived at. Most criminal offences are governed by statute law, and a range of available sentences is set out in the Act relied on. There are a few mandatory sentences (for instance, murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment, and possessing some firearms carries a minimum sentence of five years), but even in such cases a judge can recommend a minimum term before a prisoner is considered for release. When it comes to manslaughter, on the other hand, after the killer is convicted a judge has the power to grant an absolute discharge. In a magistrates' court, you get summary justice and most sentencing is on the spot, but the sanctions available to magistrates are limited. In higher courts, it's common nowadays after the verdict for the court to adjourn for psychiatric and other reports which will help in arriving at a fair sentence. Xn4 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India National congress

Which parties are India National Congress's arch-rival? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.124.89 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of India should contain the answer, if one exists!87.102.16.28 10:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka political arch-rivals

Which parties are Sri Lanka's political arch-rivals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.124.89 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Politics_of_Sri_Lanka#Political_parties_and_elections and please do you own research - in this case it would involve going to the Sri Lanka article, moving to the "goverment and politics" section, clicking the link to the main article - looking at that article for a list of the main parties - and then reading it.87.102.16.28 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA in Tibet

What evidence is there that the CIA aided the resistance in Tibet after the Chinese invasion of 1951? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Cassius (talk • contribs) 04:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan resistance movement (this article is uncited)

Also try http://ww.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=+resistance+in+Tibet+cia+help&meta= or similar

The information found typically may be debateable...87.102.16.28 10:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Walsingham

In the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age, William Walsingham, the brother of Francis Walsingham, is revealed to have been involved in the Catholic plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth. His brother managed to spring William from prison, and apparently shipped him off to France. What happened to William from there? Corvus cornix 04:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was one of the movie's flights of fancy. Surely, there wasn't a real William Walsingham, except that it was the name of Francis Walsingham's father? Xn4 04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reston

Another Elizabeth: The Golden Age question. Rhys Ifans plays a Jesuit named Robert Reston who was involved in the plot to assassinate Elizabeth. Was Reston a real person? Corvus cornix 04:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not under the name of Robert Reston, at least. Xn4 04:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cawnpore Massacre

I understand that the Mutiny of 1857 is now celebrated in India as the first war of independence. Is the massacre of the women and children at Cawnpore also celebrated? Thin Cassius 04:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely isn't it.87.102.16.28 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madaba map (mosaic)

(question moved from misc desk for better chance at an answer)87.102.16.28 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your articles on the mosaic Madaba map in St. George's Greek Orthodox Church in Madaba.

Please, can you tell me who did the mosaics??

You say when it was done but you don't say who did the work... who ordered it done.

I need this information. If you can't help me, please tell me who can ... thank you very much.

(email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.86.250 (talk)

Pronanciation of a Sanscrit word

How yhe sanscrit word 'Sadhana' is pronanounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.220.117 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)85.75.220.117a

alsid

Unfortunately, I don't have IPA on my PC. It rhymes with "pardoner" or even "gardener". The first a is long, pronounced as in tart, the other two a's are short, pronounced like the u in butt. The d is aspirated, though most western speakers wouldn't bother with that subtlety.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist Poland?

Is it right to describe Poland as a Fascist-style dictatorship after Pilsudski's coup of May 1926? I am thinking here of a possible comparison with the Clerical Fascism of the Dollfuss regime in Austria. 217.42.110.227 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]