Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

WP:RD/H C #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #00f #000 #00f humanities Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Humanities WP:RD/H

Welcome to the humanities reference desk. 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! After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. 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.

Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help Manual   skip to bottom

October 27

Finding visual and audio sources

I am looking for historical reference materials in visual formats (preferably jpg format) and audio formats. I would appreciate any online resources that are generally helpful for this purpose. Additionally, I am particularly looking for visual and audio materials for pre-Civil War United States history and European entertainment during the late 19th to early 20th century. Thanks! Vassyana 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For the U.S., you might try the American Memory web site from the Library of Congress.—eric 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Carrier Question

Does anyone know the first United States Carrier to have an INITIAL built-in angled flight deck? A lot of them were fitted later but I can't seem to find which was the first one to have an angled deck from the beginning.

--Doctorcherokee 01:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article Flight deck states that the angled flight deck "was tested on the American aircraft carrier USS Antietam (CVA-36), and subsequently adapted as the SCB-125 upgrade for the Essex class and SCB-110/110A for the Midway class. The design of the Forrestal class was modified immediately upon the success of the Antietam configuration, with Forrestal and Saratoga modified while under construction to incorporate the angled deck." So it looks like USS Forrestal (CV-59), while initially laid down with an axial deck, was the first carrier to be built with an angled deck. USS Ranger (CV-61) was the first built with an angled deck from the keel up. - Eron ^Talk 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Searching for "that" word

Resolved

I've been having trouble remembering a certain word that means something like "that which can be known but not taught". Any ideas? It's been driving me crazy for days! Kaiilaiqualyn 04:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

When things like that drive me crazy, and I know that I know the answer, I usually don't ask other people, because it feels like cheating. A.Z. 05:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that's suppose to mean, but okay... Kaiilaiqualyn 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the answer is on the list of thought processes? A.Z. 05:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I couldn't find it there. The only way I can think to explain it further is this: think Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". Outside of the cave are the high Ideas, which, according to Plato, can be taught, but even "more real" than these Ideas is the Good from which they are emulated (i believe this is Plato's "sun" in the allegory). This highest Form, the Good, is something that cannot be taught to others; a person must experience this Good for themselves, (and, according to Plato, only the best of the best can ever hope to "know", or I suppose I should use his thinking and say "recall", such as Socrates). The word I'm searching for is Plato's sun, that which must be experienced for oneself in order to be known... (Sorry, this was the only example that came to mind to help explain what I'm after). Erg, I'm antsy to have this word! Thanks for the help though. Kaiilaiqualyn 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Intuition, maybe? I wish I knew the answer. A.Z. 06:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think the word intuition matches your description. A.Z. 06:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Talent? Wrad 05:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just brainstorming here. Both of the above ideas reflect the notion of innate-ness (if that's a word) - eg. composers seem to be born with the innate gift of being able to come up with great new melodies; they mostly can't describe where their ideas come from, and they can't teach other people how to do this. -- JackofOz 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just brainstorming. It looks that it's something that you don't know, then you have an experience, and from then on you know it, but another person can only get to know it if they go through the same experience. I think this is true for all kinds of knowledge, but the experience that Kaiilaiqualyn is talking about seems to be one that can't be induced by another person, as in teaching. A.Z. 06:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just brainstorming. It may be induced by another person, but you understand it at once, you have a sort of insight, an epiphany! A.Z. 06:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Still brainstorming. It all sounds very buddhist. A.Z. 06:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for satori, A.Z.? :D -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you be thinking of ineffable (incapable of being expressed in words)? - Nunh-huh 06:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Dear. God. THAT'S IT!!! Thankyouthankyouthankyou sooo much, Nunh-huh!!! That was driving me insane! I can now die in peace, (or rather, go to bed unfettered by this nagging guilt...). *Weeps with joy* Thanks everyone else, too! Kaiilaiqualyn 07:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Trotsky?

I would like to thank Clio for the stupendous answer she gave to my question on alternatives to Stalin (A different path?-26 October) and ask if she, or anyone else, thinks that Trotsky might not have been a more humane alternative to Stalin? Zinoviev4 05:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We had an almost identical question two months ago, viz. - "I've read - and heard it said - that it would have been better if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin as Russian leader rather than Stalin. Is there any real reason to suppose that he would have been more humane?" Please see the archived thread Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 23#Trotsky or Stalin? Xn4 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/FAQ#Trotsky vs Stalin.  --Lambiam 23:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What more needs to be said, other than I should really learn how to link past QAs myself! Clio the Muse 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There may be a simpler way, but I went to Leon Trotsky, clicked on What links here and looked at the last few dozen linked pages - usefully, they seem to come up in chronological order, the oldest page being first in the list. Xn4 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Philip the fanatic

Somebody wrote here quite recently that Philip II of Spain was a 'religious fanatic'. I've learned that all such sweeping statements should be treated with caution, and wonder what the evidence is? 81.156.2.172 07:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know (or really care) all that much about the depth of his personal piety, but it's rather indisputable that he took steps attempting to imposing religious uniformity which had strongly negative effects on Spain's economic and political interests -- most notably, triggering the Dutch war of independence, which had the overall effect of ensuring that the economic powerhouse of Europe (as the Netherlands were at that time) would be working against Spanish interests, instead of for them. He also was responsible for such actions as taking Protestant sailors off of ships transiently visting Spanish ports and handing them over to the Inquisition. In the mid-16th century, Spain was pretty much the most powerful country in Europe, while during the 17th century it slipped farther and farther back with respect to other countries, and Philip II's narrowly rigid religious policies were part of the reason why... AnonMoos 17:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As a side-note here, the Dutch war of independence was not entirely about religion - as such, some its roots can be traced back further, to the policies of Charles. That said, old Philip can certainly be described as 'rigid' and he did a lot to aggravate the situation. Random Nonsense 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Philip's character, and his policies, were of a highly complex nature, and it is not at all helpful to describe him as a 'religious fanatic.' He was a Catholic, yes, and of a particularly devout nature, but he was also a man of his age, jealous of his power and determined that his subjects would follow his lead in religious and political matters, no different in this regard than, say, Henry VIII of England. In his own way, and in his own style, Philip established as much control over the church in Spain as Henry did in England. When he published the decrees of the Council of Trent in 1564, he did so with one crucial caveat: they were not to be implemented if they impinged on the authority of the king. Indeed, Pope Paul IV went so far as to complain of the 'most Catholic King' that 'he had abrogated to himself the right of interpreting the meaning of the Tridentine Decrees and that he meant to be Pope as well as King.'

Time and again Philip was to mount direct challenges to Papal authority, or ignore policies with which he was not in agreement. This might extend from anything to disregarding the Pope's interdict on bull-fighting, to denying his subjects the right to appeal to Rome, a clear statement about the limits of papal authority; he even reprimanded Paul over his decision to excommunicate Elizabeth I in 1570, the great heretic herself! Mindful of his own power, and his absolute authority of the dominions under his control, he was even distrustful of the Jesuits, whose allegiance was to the Pope and not to the King. Philip, in other words, saw himself very much as God's representative on earth, not as an agent of the Pope. Even the infamous Spanish Inquisition was as much an instrument for ensuring political as well as religious uniformity, operating more like an early modern form of the secret police than an agent of confessional orthodoxy. Philip was Henry, it might almost be said, without the marriage problems! As I have said; a complex man, a complex politician and a complex king. Clio the Muse 02:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you compare Philip II to Elizabeth of England, then Elizabeth said that she would "open no windows into men's souls" (meaning that she didn't care all that much what people's personal private religious beliefs were, as long as they didn't try to undermine the political unity of England), so that Elizabeth executed Catholics on grounds of political treason (not heresy), and she only acted against Catholics who, in her opinion, had intruded their religion into the political sphere, or had effectively allied themselves with foreign enemies of England. Elizabeth wasn't an exception to the view generally held in the 16th century that a bi-religious state could only be a divided and weakened state, and that tolerating diversity of public worship would be an opening for factionalism and civil war (as in France) -- but Elizabeth conspicuously refrained from taking actions on religious grounds which would have the effect of diminishing the power of her kingdom. Philip II did not show the same restraint... AnonMoos 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chaucer and Hawkwood

I've not long finished reading Terry Jones' "Chaucer's Knight", where he argues that the poet had the mercenary John Hawkwood in mind for this character. He further argues that he had an ironic purpose here, as Hawkwood was far from being the chivalric figure of traditional romance, and readers of "The Canterbury Tales" would have recognised him for what he really was-a new type of shabby mercenary. Is this a good argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.39.124 (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the book, and thought it was a plausible and thoughtful theory, if not the most likely one. My friend, who is a medievalist with a PhD, read it after me, and she said that she was entertained but not persuaded by it- she said it was well argued but that the interpretation of the knight as an idealized figure, which is the more traditional reading, is more likely to have been Chaucer's intention. Good book, though, and not unreasonable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly entertaining, but it is quite, quite unhistorical, bringing to bare too many modern assumptions and preconceptions. There is sufficient evidence to show that Sir John was perceived and remembered as anything but a 'shabby mercenary'. If he was why on earth would Richard II have trusted him with several diplomatic missions, or indeed have requested that his body be returned to England on his death in 1394? Shabby mercenaries, moreover, are not normally honoured with impressive marble tombs in the Duomo of Florence. For William Caxton Hawkwood was one of the great knights of the age, as he makes clear in his translation of Ramon Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry. Hawkwood's high reputation was to travel unimpeached down the centuries; he even receives a favourable mention in Samuel Smiles' Self-Help of all places! Making his way into a classic text of Victorian self-improvement: not at all bad for a 'shabby mercenary.' Clio the Muse 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II-Descent from William I-closest relationship to other Kings and Queens.

Are other lines of descent used as opposed to the "direct royal line?" Through the direct royal line the Queen is a 29 greatgranddaughter of William I, not 22, and that throws off all the other generations. If closest relationship were to mean through other lines of descent, then George III would be a 3 greatgrandfather through Queen Mary, consort of George V, but a 4 greatgrandfather through George V himself. Lady Jane Grey is listed as a multiple great grand aunt, implying that a sister of hers would be a direct ancestor of the Queen, and I can find no evidence for this. If the direct royal line is used to establish the relationships, then most relationships above George III are incorrect. Can you help me with this? Thanks.

RButtemiller68.226.102.103 13:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick check show that Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was descended from Lady Catherine Grey, Jane's sister.[1] There are almost certainly other connections. Rmhermen 15:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

- Nunh-huh 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Betrayal in Spain

It's a fairly well established view on the political left that the Communists betrayed the Spanish Revolution of 1936. This contrasts with the view on the right, which is that Franco save Spain from Communism. I'm confused; did Stalin want control of Spain or not, and how are the political actions of the Communists to be interpreted, betrayal or realism? Qurious Cat 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

During the latter period of the civil war, the Communists who were running the government seemed to be more concerned with conducting NKVD purges against the ideological enemies of Soviet Bolshevism (such as Trotskyists and Anarchists), and with extracting the last of Spain's gold reserves to send it off to Moscow, than with actually winning the war against Franco. By that measure, the Communists pretty much deserved to lose... AnonMoos 16:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The gold bit surprised me at first, but come to think of it, that makes sense in the Zeitgeist. The communist ideal was for all the world to unite (the Internationale, "workers of the world unite", that sort of thing). So if that wealth was in one 'communist' country or another didn't matter. And if there was the risk that the gold would fall in the hands of the fascists (the big enemy), then it made much more sense for it to be in a country that was much more securely 'communist'. Later, when all countries in the world would be (truly) communist, then there wouldn't really be any more countries and everything would be shared equally, so what did it matter where the gold was then? It takes a bit of effort to think back to the mindset of the people at the time.

Btw, somewhat off-topic, children were also exported to the USSR from the Basque country, to protect them against Franco's wrath. There, they were used as showcases and pampered, getting all the best education, food and housing. Yet, much later when they were old and a documentary was made about them, they all complained about being separated from their parents, saying that that was worse than any suffering they would have had to endure at home (which of course they didn't know anything about because they never experienced it, but still). DirkvdM 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The last thing Stalin wanted in Spain was any form of social revolution, which would only endager the whole Popular Front policy that the Comintern had been pursuing since it abandoned the ultra-left Third Period strategy in the wake of Hitler's political success in Germany. His whole approach was an exercise in the most cynical forms of Realpolitik: he wanted to keep the war going as long as possible in order to tie Hitler down in the Iberian Peninsula, but in such a way that would not offend the western powers, particularly France, with whom he had recently concluded an alliance. The Communists in Spain may have had considerable powers in the background, but the outward face of the Spanish government was to be moderate and bourgeois. The struggle with the Fascists, on one side of the line, and the Trotskyists, on the other, also had the effect of giving added impetus to the Great Terror in Russia itself. All of this was far, far more important than helping the Republic to win the war. Indeed, Soviet aid was only just enough to keep it afloat, and no more. In return Spain was effectively swindled, as Simon Sebag Montefiore says, out of several hundreds of millions of dollars in gold, only to be sold armaments at hugely inflated prices in return. Once again Stalin was showing himself as the master practitioner of larceny on the grandest scale possible, perfecting techniques that he had once learned as Koba in the Caucasus. Clio the Muse 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

how do I alternate two colors for the sides of a triangle

I want a triangle whose sides alternate colors, but however I try two adjacent sides seem to share a color. How do I get green-red-green-red-green-red alternation as you go around the sides of the triangle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.78.229 (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How many sides does your triangle have? Where I'm coming from, a triangle has just three sides. Also, I think your question is not really a question in the area of the Humanities (history, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, music, and society) and may be more in place on the Mathematics section of the Reference desk.  --Lambiam 16:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could borrow some tricks of M. C. Escher. 84.239.133.38 17:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Divide each side into a red half-length followed by an alternating green half and make your way round.--Wetman 07:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Draw the triangle on a two-sheet Riemann surface? —Tamfang 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Race thoughts

The 'science' of eugenics has declined in appeal ever since its association with Nazi racism. It was, however, once the dominant intellectual fashion. I note with some interest that the first International Eugenics Conference was held in London in 1912, attended by Winston Churchill amongst others. I was wondering what attitudes leading British public figures like Churchill had towards issues of racial hygene at this time?Bel Carres 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Make sure not to too closely associate eugenics of the early 1900s (esp. in Britain) with Nazi racial hygiene. Eugenics took on very different forms in different countries; in Britain it was almost always a less politically aggressive form than it was in places like Germany or even the USA. Eugenics at this time was seen as being very closely aligned with public health in general (public genetic health), and while there were of course some alarmists who wanted things that looked quite like what the Germans did, the run-of-the-mill eugenicist was more interested in what we might call genetic counseling today. --24.147.86.187 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In early 20th century Britain, eugenics was not tainted by Nazi associations and was not associated with race. Francis Galton, drawing on half-cousin Charles Darwin's theories, published "Hereditary Genius" in 1869 and "Human Faculty" in 1883, both of which posit that human intelligence is inherited. Galton founded Eugenics as a philosophical movement which linked intelligence testing, demography and birth control, although it was largely supporters who campaigned for selective breeding in order to improve the 'higher' characteristics of human life. Concepts of race did not really enter the debate in Britain (they did in some areas of continental Europe, Scandinavia and the USA) and the controversy was largely centred on the effect on the lower social classes, who the eugenicists wanted to dissuade from breeding.

The Eugenics Education Society was formed in 1907, renamed the Eugenics Society in 1926, and has been known as the Galton Institute since 1989. The idea of 'social engineering' and evolutionary progress were associated with the progressive side of politics in 1912 so it is not a surprise to see then-Liberal Winston Churchill taking an interest.

Further reading: M. Freeden, "Eugenics and progressive thought: a study in ideological affinity" in Historical Journal, vol. 22 (1979), p. 645-671; G. Jones, "Eugenics and social policy between the wars" in Historical Journal, vol. 25 (1982), p. 717-728; D. Paul, "Eugenics and the left" in Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 45 (1984), p. 561-590; R.A. Peel (ed.), "Essays in the History of Eugenics", Galton Institute, 1997. Sam Blacketer 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case, but a factor might be that the 'lower classes' (the poor) had more children. Combine this with the notion that were also more stupid and you can imagine the fear that humanity would gradually become stupid. Btw, racial hygiene (what a yuk word) has nothing to do with 'race' as we know it now - it refers to the German/Aryan race. Just in case anyone else is as confused as I was.

Somewhat off topic, once in biology class I asked if there weren't the risk that if people of lower and higher intelligence were more attracted to others in their 'own group' than in the 'other group', the two groups would gradually grow apart and two human races would evolve, one clever, one stupid. The question was brushed away in an irritated tone and someone whispered 'fascist'. I didn't get that then, nor do I now. I had to figure out for myself that a flaw in the reasoning is that there are not two groups but a continuum. You may see in this an argument against 'political correctness', something I will continue to fight, despite the continued threats I have to endure. Here endeth the lecture. :)DirkvdM 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one to wonder that. See Human race will 'split into two different species' Rmhermen 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Which shows what happens when you get your evolutionary theory from The Time Machine. - Nunh-huh 21:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but there are more intelligent arguments about whether the use of genetic enhancements could eventually lead to species-splitting in books by Lee Silver. --24.147.86.187 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "race" has multiple meanings in early literature, ranging from "the human race" to "the Aryan race." Sometimes it was just used as a synonym to something like "genetic hyigene". In the German case it obviously was pretty politically awful from the start, but elsewhere it had multiple meanings.

As for the class issue, yes, it's the common bugaboo of eugenics—one group of "undesirable" people reproducing more than a group of "desirables," combined with the belief that what made them desirable/undesirable was innate genetic factors. So in the UK it was class, in the US it was class+race, in Germany it was race/religion. Exactly what the defining line is varied with the "undesirables" in a given context; hence in the US in the early 20th century the concern was with Eastern/Southern European immigrants (since that was a major demographic factor at the time), but after the Great Migration it was about African-Americans. I don't know the UK case quite as well but the class component was extremely strong, much stronger and explicit than anywhere else. No big surprise there, though. The UK movement was always much more tame than elsewhere; it didn't quite have the political tradition of people coming into power and legislating biology onto the populace, which was something that fit right into American Progressivism of the 1910s-1920s and German Nazism in the 1930s (which is not to imply that these ideologies are all that similar, but this was a common point of departure; at first a number of American Progressives thought the Nazis were extremely forward-looking except for their attitude about Jews, and only eventually realized that the Jewish question eclipsed almost everything else for the Nazis). --24.147.86.187 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There was, in fact, a clear racial dimension to the 1912 International Eugenics Conference, in the sense that a given national community, or a race, was seen to be at risk of degeneration or 'pollution' from the weaker elements in its midst. Churchill, who opened the conference, had written that the "rapid growth of the feeble-minded and the insane classes...should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed." This was a view that was certainly shared by other important opinion formers. D H Lawrence went even further than Churchill, suggesting an immediate euthanasia programme. Other suppporters of 'racial pruning' included H G Wells and Bertrand Russell, who wrote a chapter on eugenics in Marriage and Morals, published in 1929; and Sydney Webb and his wife Beatrice, together with most of the Bloomsbury Group. For all of these people, both of the left and of the right, the rapid growth of cities was a particular problem, because of fears over miscegenation and a general lowering in the quality of the population. Eugenics was moving far beyond the older laissez-faire forms of Social Darwinism to a much more targeted exercise in biological and social planning. By the 1920s concerns were increasingly expressed in the press over the decline in the 'white race', coupled with the proliferation of the racially inferior, the feeble-minded, the disabled, the sexually deviant, the criminal and the poor. In addition to the other texts that have been mentioned in the above I would suggest Birth Control and the Population Question in England, 1877-1930 by R. Soloway (1982) and British Population Changes since 1860 by R. Mitchison (1977). I, too, would not choose to draw parallels between Brirish eugenics and Nazi racism; but it is as well to remember that the latter began with the very measures that Churchill and others had once called for. Clio the Muse 00:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "clear racial dimension" is here in the 1912 — it still strikes me as a very loose use of the word "race", much looser than it would be used in, say, the United States (where it would mean the "five colors" races) or in Germany (where it would mean varieties of European stock). And note that in your quote he has focused on two rather inspecific groups, the mentally retarded and mentally ill—classic targets of eugenics work, to be sure, in the US, the UK, and Germany. And of course, the Nazis showed with great ability how the eugenic slipperly slope would work, but no other country that embraced eugenic measures against the mentally ill or retarded ended up going quite as far as Action T4 , much less the concentration camps. Which is to say, yes, the Nazi program had continuity with the programs elsewhere, but in many ways it was distinguished as an exception. --24.147.86.187 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No democratic society could ever go as far as T4, though there were points short of this, including sterilisation, still, I understand, in implementation at the Lynchburg Institute in Virginia as late as the early 1970s. I appreciate what you are saying, 24.147, and I have really no wish to get into a pointless debate over semantics; but in my mind the growing focus on eugenics, on the issues raised by urbanisation and the fears over deterioration in the quality of the biological stock, is also linked to the broader issue of race and racial hygene; or community, or nation, or gene pool; howsoever the concept is defined. The national community or the British race, the biological tree, if you like, was considered capable of improvement by 'pruning', a term I used quite deliberately to suggest the removal, by whatever means, of those considered to be less than perfect, defined, in some cases, not just by the physical defects of birth but by their poverty or by forms of anti-social behaviour. And, as I have indicated, the British press in the 1920s was more and more preoccupied with upholding the quality of the 'white race' and in the promotion of eugenics as a way of ensuring the quality was maintained. Clio the Muse 02:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with the above, more-or-less, but my point is a semantic one—but an important one! If "race" means "human race" or talk of "improving the race" can be entirely non-racist (or even non-racialist). However if "race" means "whites" (and not "blacks") then it has a very different implication alltogether, and if "race" is really Rassen, well, that has its own specific "translation" (in the same way that we all know that Volk does not really just mean people). All I mean is that when Americans, Brits, and Germans in the early 20th century talk about "race", they are not always talking about the same thing—and even within national contexts the meaning can be vague. This is the sort of thing that one must beat into undergraduates who are working on topics like this, since they see the word "race" and automatically think that it has a straightforward interpretation (esp. in association with the Nazis), and then get baffled that people like W.E.B. DuBois also favored "racial betterment programs" of sorts. --24.147.86.187 03:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with any of this, and I think any difference between us is paper thin. Clio the Muse 03:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As for such things being possible in a democratic society, if it negatively affects a majority, then yes. That majority will simply vote it away because it is an important enough issue to become the major issue in people's voting behaviour (provided no other issue is so important that it pushes even this aside (such as the country being at war!), so it can slip through). Provided there is a fully proportional representation, which is not quite always the case. But T4 affected only a small minority. Plus their relatives, which makes it a larger minority, but still a minority. So if someone who is otherwise respected comes with a convincing story, then it could certainly happen. Consider this - do you know what happens in psychiatric hospitals? And do you care? And most importantly, if there were some malpractices there, and Labour would make this an issue but the others not, would that be enough to make you vote Labour? I doubt it.

Also, retarded people having children is something that is already frowned upon in most societies, to say the least (even if it is not through a genetic defect - and who determines what is a defect then?), and I assume it will be forbidden in most countries. But then I don't know. Mostly because I don't care enough because it doesn't affect me or anyone near me. So what safety against this does democracy provide then? Democracy is no guarantee that bad things will happen. It's the best political system I can think of, but that doesn't make it perfect. DirkvdM 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, T4 was essentially state-sanctioned murder of the weak. Even the Nazis knew they needed to hush that up, and even the politically subverted German people found that extremely distasteful. Add to it that many religions (esp. Catholicism) condemn such practices and you end up with a situation in which even though the group in question is a minority, people care about the practices used against them more than you would expect just from sheer numbers. Democracy is not, at all, simply about voting blocs—it's more complicated than that, there are a lot of factors which come into play on any given issue.

But I think the basic point about mental health policy is essentially true; most people don't know, or don't care what happens to people in state-run institutions, and most people, when pressed, really do think it is not a good idea for the severely retarded or severely ill to reproduce, though the terms in which they express this might not be genetic (and indeed, the terms of those who passed and enforced sterilization laws were not purely genetic, though this is not well known). A child born to a severely mentally retarded person, even if not retarded themselves, is going to require additional parenting, slack taken up either by relatives (at best) or the state (at worst). As is well known the idea that people could be sterilized for public good was even endorsed by the Supreme Court, so obviously many of the basic ideas are not incompatible with a non-totalitarian regime. --24.147.86.187 15:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sterilization for eugenic purposes was not an aberration of only the 1920's. An illiterate African-American mother in Alabama in 1973 was persuaded by authorities to make her "mark" a form which authorized state medical workers to sterilize her daughters, aged 12 and 14 [2] [3]. The government was involuntarily sterilizing (at least without their free and informed consent) 100,000 to 150,000 poor people a year for eugenic purposes with federal funding. How many were sterilized a year for similar purposes in Germany in the 1930's? Edison 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?? 100,000 to 150,000 per year? Assuming an average lifetime of about 70 that would mean about 10 million over that time span and with a population of about 200 million that would be about 5% of the population forcibly sterilised. That would be monstrous, and I've heard a lot of bad stuff about the US, but I can't believe this. Your links aren't very useful. The first one requires a login and the second one only has a booklist, as far as I can see. Do you have a better source for that? DirkvdM 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Stocks

How do owners of stock get paid by the company? Is it by a check in the mail or is the money sent right to the bank account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Checks are usual, direct deposits becoming more so, but usually stockholders have to "opt in" for direct deposits. See dividend for information about stock or property dividends. I would expect direct deposit to eventually replace checks. - Nunh-huh 18:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably depends a lot on the country. In the Netherlands, transfers other than to a bank have not been done through checks for decades. Payment of wages and social security are done directly into the receivers bank account. I doubt it will be different for dividends. Checks are a rather stupid way to do this anyway, aren't they? The company would first have to produce the check, then send it to you, then you have to go to the bank, wait in line, bother a cashier with it, who has to file it, so someone else can copy the info into the system after which the the company's bank can be contacted, so it can do the transfer. Alternative: the company tells its bank (electronically), which then send the money to your bank. Done. DirkvdM 19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Many or most shareholders use a broker. In that case, the dividends just appear in the monthly statement as an addition to the value of the portfolio, in the form of an addition to the "cash" portion of the account. Some shareholders have the dividends reinvested to increase the shares owned. Owning the stock outright (having the share certificates in a safe or safety deposit box) is a bit "old school," but in that case the dividends could be sent as a check or direct deposited, however the owner directed the shareholder services department of the company. Dividends could be reinvested to purchase additional stock shares in that case as well, for many companies. Edison 21:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry IV Part II

In the death bed scence old King Henry gives his son advice including the following;

"Therefore, my Harry, Be it thy course to busy giddy minds With foreign quarrels; that action, hence borne out, May waste the memory of the former days."

Please, what does this mean exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.3.19 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Distract your foes with foreign affairs, and they will forget your youthful excesses. - Nunh-huh 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good interpretation to me. Harry was a real goof-off in Henry IV, but then becomes famous for his war in France in Henry V. In other words, he takes his Dad's advice. Wrad 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a statement that really has to be read both in the context of Shakespeare's history cycle, and English history from the late fourteenth to the late fifteenth centuries as a whole. The 'former days' the old king refers to is his own action in deposing his cousin, Richard II in 1399. He then assumed the crown himself, even though there were others who had a stronger right. As a consequence of this his reign was to be troubled with serious domestic conflict. Shakespeare is, of course, looking forward to Henry V's renewal of the Hundred Years' War and the victory at Agincourt, which did indeed waste the memory of former days, and the questionable origins of the Lancastrian Dynasty, by placing the nation behind the crown. But when victory vanished in the reign of Henry VI the memory returned, with disastrous consequences. Clio the Muse 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Capital of Holy Roman Empire

So why the Holy Roman Empire article states that there is no capital? Cpcheung 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because there wasn't one? :) It wasn't a single state, but a union of states. The modern equivalent (of sorts), the EU doesn't have a capital either, even though people regard Brussels as one. DirkvdM 19:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and in the same sense, the capital was wherever the ruling emperor drew his personal power from, or wherever he felt like staying most of the time. Some of the major ones were Aachen, Prague, and Vienna. Adam Bishop 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Some ancient and medieval states had an undisputed capital city, as the Roman Empire did for most of the time, but others didn't. The HRE's seat of power was, in theory, where the emperor was, but in practice the emperors (especially the later ones) had far more power in their own possessions than in other parts of their "empire". Even the Reichstag, or Imperial Diet, was peripatetic, meeting in places which included Aix-la-Chapelle (also called Aachen), Worms and Nuremberg, until 1663, when it was agreed that a "permanent Imperial Diet" would hold its meetings in Regensburg, which the English called Ratisbon. By then the power of the Reichstag was so limited that we can't think of Ratisbon as an imperial capital city. Xn4 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been outlined above, the HRE didn't have a capital. The centre of power was wherever the emperor lived or went. It's also important to keep in mind that the HRE was an elective monarchy, not a hereditary monarchy. This means that there was not always a blood line between an emperor and his successor. If an emperor was elected who was not related to the emperor he succeeded, it would mean a move of everything we associate with a capital: a bureaucracy, government institutions, etcetera. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you guys. Cpcheung 05:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

by the way Aix-la-Chapelle is only the french name for Aachen.--85.180.45.143 11:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was taught by old-fashioned men who preferred the good old name of Aix-la-Chapelle, which the benighted English have mostly used, as in the various Congresses of Aix-la-Chapelle. Perhaps this will die out, just as Ratisbon and Leghorn are vanishing. No doubt it won't matter, but humour me. Xn4 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to the gentleman who wrote How I Brought the Good News from Aix to Ghent.  :) Corvus cornix 23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You leave me in deep waters, as both R. J. Yeatman and W. C. Sellar were (if you ask me) gentlemen! Xn4 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Low Income and Equity

Hi there, I am a single parent with a high school education only and I work as a taxi cab driver and I have two kids, one is six and other is four. I need to know something: What are the monthly payments to the city of Toronto, government of Ontario and government of Canada? and what are the social programs provided by city of Toronto, government of Ontario and government of Canada? Please, I need the answers as soon as possible. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.24 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this the umptieth time you've asked this? See here for an answer. DirkvdM 19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there has been a large influx of Bengali widowers to Toronto lately. —Tamfang 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Leather reds

I've noticed in old movies about the Russian revolution the communists are almost always shown wearing leather coats and jackets (think of Dr Zhivago). Is this to make them look more sinister, or did they really dress in leather? If so, why? 81.156.3.19 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that Trotsky promoted the use of the leather jackets and coats by the Bolsheviks. Leather was of course a good practical material in Russia at a time which saw thousands freezing (as well as starving) to death. Officers in the German Army also wore leather coats. In Dr Zhivago, we remember Strelnikov in a leather jacket, but Komarovsky in furs. No doubt leather struck the Bolsheviks as having more authentic proletarian roots. Xn4 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was a practical reason for the leathers, which are, in fact, not that good in cold weather. In the early years of the Civil War typhus was particularly rife in Russia. The disease, of course, is spread by lice, which like to make their homes in fur and wool. Leather is far less accommodating! There is some detail on this, I believe, in A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes. Clio the Muse 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds very credible. Leather is, though, good when you're on the move to keep out biting winds, while allowing the body to breathe. It's also hard-wearing and gives some protection from minor injuries... I don't think a louse would have dared to go near Komarovsky. Xn4 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he was the biggest louse of all! Clio the Muse 03:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No contest. We could also say the biggest bloodsucker of all, as komar is a mosquito... Xn4 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambigramic song

Is there any song that's played the same upside-down and backwards, that is, it's its own retrograde-inversion? One of my classes at school is a piano class, and I think it would be fun, for my recital, to play the first half of such a song, turn the page (so it's upside-down and backwards), then play the second half. — Daniel 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a class of canons, called table canons, that consist of two voices, one of which is the retrograde inversion of the other (but possibly with a different key signature). An example is the Canon per augmentationem contrario motu from J. S. Bach's The Musical Offering, of which you can see the notation here as Example 36, while you can listen to a midi version using links in the Canon article. If both voices are notated together, you get a musical rotational ambigram. It fits your description of an ambigrammatic song to the letter, but this canon is not really set for keyboard. The genre once was quite popular, and so it is very likely that there are four-voice table canons, but I don't know of any examples.  --Lambiam 23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

October 28

"Greetings"

Hi, does anyone know the exact drum notation to Phil Collin's Both Sides of the Story? --Writer Cartoonist 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The costume of a French physician in 1650

Was there anything about the appearance of a physic in 1650ish France that would have marked him as such?

Thanks very much, Adambrowne666 00:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You might try looking at the Sumptuary law article. It says there that in 1629 and 1633, Louis XIII of France decreed some new laws about what one could or couldn't wear. Try googling the two. In England, if that's of any use, during the same period, Doctors wore scarlet gowns (see Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage, p.198). DionysosProteus 01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all "doctors" were doctors of medicine, and robes were strictly ceremonial. Rembrandt's "Dr Tulp's Anatomy Lesson" shows a Dutch doctor of 1632. Some further illustrations are here. Mid-century men of the learned professions wore black and showed a good deal of clean starched linen, soberer than the aristocrats illustrating 1600-1650 in fashion. --Wetman 07:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. The sumptuary laws, yeah: I think we need reverse sumptuary laws now, to stop rich middle class kids dressing up like poor people from the ghettoes. Adambrowne666 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the fallacy in this proof?

1. A point is defined as having no volume, area or length.
2. We can observe that we exist in a single point in time (the present).
3. Since a point cannot by definition have length at least one of the following must be true: time does not exist, change does not exist (no kinetic energy), or the universe exists at more than one point in time simultaneously (possibly at infinite points in time simultaneously).

QED? Maybe I’m just being stupid. It’s too late where I am. --S.dedalus 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, you define a point in terms of extent in space, and then shift to talking about extent in time. But that's only a technicality and can be corrected by defining a point in time as having no duration.

The fallacy is simply that you have not introduced any logical basis for assuming that if a point in time has no duration, then the conclusions stated in the final step must fullow. See also Zeno's paradox.

--Anonymous, posting at a point in time called 07:25 UTC, October 28, 2007.

The practice of using terms of space (length, etc) when describing time is a metaphor. We speak of "timelines", "a long time", etc... but this is just a pattern of analogy in our language. Does time really have length? The metaphor is so deeply ingrained in English it seems obvious that time is a dimension with geometric features. The metaphor may be useful in thinking about time and space in abstract ways, but is this is the way time really works? Is the past lined up in measurable units? Is the future? We impose the metaphor of spatial units on time past and time future, and for practical purposes it works well enough. But is time really like this? Personally, I don't think anyone really understands time. We make due with a metaphorical hack. Pfly 08:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, even if you extend the geometric metaphor it doesn't work. It is akin to saying that a point being on any (geometrical) line means that the line does not exist. Even if you really take the geometric timeline metaphor seriously (e.g. with a Minkowskii spacetime diagram or something like that) it doesn't work—a given point on a timeline does not mean that time (the progression of points along the timeline, which is the metaphor proper) does not exist. And I have no idea why the universe would exist at multiple points in time—that doesn't at all follow from that logic. In other words, #2 mixes metaphors, #3 then draws very strange conclusions from the mixed metaphors which are not by any means self-evident. --24.147.86.187 15:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) A point has no volume, area, or length.

(2) When an infinite number of points are joined together, they form what we call a line.

(3) A point in time has no duration.

(4) When an infinite number of these points are joined together, they form what we call the flow of time.

You can see that by extension, time has no more reason to exist than lines do if the original metaphor is followed. --Bowlhover 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but isn’t this just hypotheses, since it is impossible to prove the existence of any point other than the present, and if time is a line, than those other point must simultaneously exist in some form.? --S.dedalus 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, are you asking if the metaphor of "time is a line" is literal or not? Because nobody here is arguing that. You can't use metaphors and expect them to render terribly rigorous logical deductions. And depending on what your definition of "proof" is, I think it is pretty generally accepted that there is plenty of "proof" that the non-present has occurred in the past at the very least. If you don't buy that, then you probably don't have a rigorous definition of "the present" to begin with, so why even bother. --24.147.86.187 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi war criminal

I was wondering by what process an ordinary, decent individual turns into a war criminal? I have Nazi Germany in mind but will accept all and every answer. Thanks. Stockmann 06:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

People feel helpless when being threatened with the loss of life, liberty, family and employment, so they go along with whatever is asked of them by their leaders. Or they are genuinely persuaded to believe that what they are doing is for the good of their country, their religion or their cause. Many of the worst possible acts prey on the best of intentions.-Jayne Ravensburg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.114.10 (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Power. Enough power will corrupt anyone. If there is no-one to check on you and you can do with others as you please, it takes an incredibly strong will to resist all the temptations you will come up with over time. Also, it goes one step at a time. You start with doing little bad things, get used to them, take it one step further, get used to that, etc. Years ago I saw a rather good film about this, in which a nazi criminal (a doctor, I believe - Mengele type) visits a couple of his old victims (or were they offspring?) in an attempt to make them understand how he got to the point where he did the horrible things he did. Can't for the life of me remember the name of the film, though. DirkvdM 11:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Some articles you might be interested in reading: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (and Little Eichmanns), Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment, and Asch conformity experiments. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And while you're at it, you might look at Christopher Browning's book Ordinary Men, a classic study of how a bunch of "ordinary Germans" became the instruments of the Holocaust in Poland (and yes, I know that Goldhagen says it is crap, but I think Goldhagen's thesis is more than a bit silly. Obviously local political and cultural context matters—Browning would not dispute that—but claiming some sort of diabolical exceptionalism is a bit much). Personally I have also found the end of Dave Grossman's On Killing useful in this respect; war crimes give short-term power to those who commit them, they give solidarity, and then give a feeling of no-turning-back (since to lose will mean execution). In the long-run, though, they demoralize and if made public ensure that the enemy will no longer peacefully surrender (which is one of the main reasons that the US military never supported anything like torture—until very recently, unfortunately), which are obviously detriments to military effectiveness. --24.147.86.187 18:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in a recently published account of the career of Karl Brandt-Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor Medicine and Power in the Third Reich by Professor Ulf Schmidt. Schmidt has 'reconstructed' the life of Brandt from bottom to top, reaching some surprising and disturbing conclusions in the process. His chief conclusion is that Brandt's actions were formed and conditioned by events, rather than by any deeply held beliefs.

Brandt's road from a follower of Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life' school to a mass killer was caused, in Schmidt's analysis, by a succession of key life events.

First of all, while he was working as a young doctor in the mining town of Bochum he had to deal with patients horrendously injured in accidents, many of whom pleaded for death. There was nothing he could do, for mercy killing was illegal under the Weimar Republic. When the restriction was set aside during the Third Reich, he was already predisposed towards the euthanasia programme, which he took part in from 1939 to 1941.

Second, horrified by his experience at Stalingrad, where he saw many of the soldiers die as a result of diseases exacerbated by malnutrition, he conceived a plan to develop high calorie, low volume artificial foods. These were to be tested on concentration camp inmates.

The third facror was his experience of the Allied fire-bombing bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which left many people terribly burned. Disturbed that many of these people were denied hospital treatment because of bed shortages, Brandt reacted by secretly relaunching the euthanasia programme, abandoned in 1941 under public pressure.

The final stage was his mustard gas experiments in concentration camps, a response to rumours that the allies were planning to use this form of attack on German cities, and intended to find a cure for inhalation.

From beginning to end there were acute forms of moral abdication; but Brandt's personal road to hell was one paved with a perverted sense of good intentions. Clio the Muse 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In the words of Max Lerner, "When evil acts in the world, it always manages to find instruments who believe that what they do is not evil but honorable." Xn4 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Black loyalists in the Bahamas

After the American War of Independence a number of Black Loyalists took refuge in the Bahamas, where Lord Dunsmore was governor. Can anyone tell me what became of them? 81.156.7.159 08:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I hope someone finds a good answer to this! I did a bit of web research and didn't find much after Dunsmore's departure (when some of his own slaves fled.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation, 81.156, is not entirely clear. Many of the black émigrés who had fought with the British Army were issued with certificates of freedom as a result of Lord Dunmore's proclamation. But there were still others who had no such protection, just as there were white loyalists, former slave owners, who had also taken refuge in the Bahamas, and were anxious to recover their human capital. In all some 1600 white Loyalists came to the Bahamas, together with about 5,700 Africans. The Loyalists at once tried to set up the same slave-based economy on the islands that bhey were used to in the former American colonies. But in a great many cases they had only the sketchiest proofs of ownership, and many of the blacks claimed immunity under Dunmore's proclamation, whether they were entitled or not. In the upheaval of the wars these people had obtained a kind of liberty, which they were not prepared to surrender without resistance.

There is evidence that at many of the black people were subject to extensive re-enslavement by legal trickery. In 1784 John Maxwell, then governor wrote, "...the poor slave obtained his freedom by doing an Act, which all nations respect which is, most of these wretches deserted from their Masters in the field...the Masters deceive them and pretend a Bill of sale for them on Landing." In response many of the slaves ran away, singly or in groups, a practice known as petit-marronage. In the course of the 1780s the practice was so widespread that it was becoming a serious problem for the colonial administration, especially as petit-marronage began to turn into grand-marronage, with the formation of permanent communities of runaways. Even Nassau, the capital, had quarters dominated and controlled by the independent blacks. The situation was critical by the time that Dunmore arrived to take over the governorship in October 1787.

The white colonists looked for Dunmore's support in their campaign or re-enslavement; but his sympathies were with the black runaways, and he assured London that "I shall do everything in my powers to give these people redress." In November 1787 he declared an amnesty for runaways, offering hearings to all blacks claiming their freedom in a special court set up for the purpose. Although most who appeared before the 'freedom court' were, in fact, returned to slavery, the white planters were outraged by the principle that had been established, which shifted the burden of proof on to the slave-owners, in the process undermining the whole basis of colonial slave law. Black people were now able to act as subjects, rather than objects of the law. This came at a time, moreover, when the institution of slavery was under attack across the Atlantic world, with William Wilberforce introducing his first Bill to abolish the slave trade in 1788, while slavery itself was being abolished in the northern United States. Slavery would continue in the Bahamas as elsewhere in the British Empire, though it was now very much on the defensive. Clio the Muse 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by the 1848 revolution of the liberals

it's a question specified in my history class

i need to know what is exactly meant by the 1848 revolution of the liberals (Europe), what were the political and economical ideas supported by the liberals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord thinker (talk • contribs) 09:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can start by looking at Revolutions of 1848. AndyJones 11:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

thx i got what i neede :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord thinker (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Spanish Galleon" by Brittni

I am seeking information on an artist by the name of Brittni or specific information on a work titled "Spanish Galleon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.114.10 (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is what you're looking for, but there's a painting titled Sail Away (reminiscent of a Spanish galleon) by artist Brittni Wood. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir Richard and Catholic Emancipation

Why was Sir Richard Vyvan, eighth baronet, such a determined opponent of Catholic emancipation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishbard (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Catholic emancipation was widespread in England, and until almost the last minute was the policy of the leading Tories, who included Wellington and Peel. But following a by-election win by Daniel O'Connell (who was disabled from taking his seat in the House of Commons) they feared a revolution in Ireland, and Peel said later "Though emancipation was a great danger, civil strife was a greater danger". Vyvyan was a leading representative of the more reactionary (or Church of England) wing of the Tory Party, which took the view that Catholic emancipation would fundamentally undermine the political stability of the UK, at worst leading ultimately (and in the event they proved right) to mounting pressure for Irish independence, and in any event significantly changing the balance of the House of Commons. They became known as the Ultra-Tories, and some of them left the party after the Catholic Relief Act 1829. Vyvyan has an online article in the Dictionary of National Biography, which quotes the obituary in the Annual Register for 1879, p. 212: "Although unswerving in his attachment to the principles of toryism, he was far from being a subservient supporter of his party". The DNB goes on to say "He disapproved of the concession of Roman Catholic emancipation, and early in 1830 announced his intention of weakening the Wellington administration as much as possible... Although Vyvyan recognized the need for change in the electoral system he strongly opposed the Reform Bill. On its second reading on 21 March 1831 he was put forward by the tories as their spokesman to move that it should be postponed for six months. When the boom of cannon announced the approach of William IV to dissolve parliament on 22 April 1831, Vyvyan was engaged in moving the rejection of the Reform Bill so vehemently that it was only 'by pulling him down by the skirts of his coat' [Annual Register 1879, p. 212 again] that he was compelled to take a seat." Xn4 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Vyvyan was probably one of the last of the old guard to stand by the Constitition as settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Catholics had to be prevented from holding public office, in his view, because they were loyal to a foreign power and hostile to the established churches in England and Ireland. After Wellington granted Catholic Emancipation Vyvyan accused him of surrendering to a 'great conspiracy, orchestrated by the Pope and the Jesuits, to destroy the civil and religious liberty of nations.' Now the leader of the reactionary Tory Ultras, he even went so far as to plot with the Duke of Cumberland, brother of George IV, to have the Prime Minister removed from office. Already eccentric to begin with, Vyvyan began to develop political obsessions bordering on outright paranoia. Wellington, he believed, was in league not just with the Pope but also with the Tsar and other despots to enslave the peoples of Europe. He even saw Robert Peel's new Metropolitan Police Force as the nucleus of a standing army! Vyvyan and the Ultras were, in the end, to be instrumental in the downfall of Wellington's ministry, when they voted against the government in a division on the civil list, tiping the balance in favour of the opposition. Clio the Muse 03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Strasser and Goebbels

In his memoir Otto Strasser says that in the mid-1920s, when Josef Goebbels was still connected to the left wing faction of the Nazi Party in the north of Germany, he openly demanded the expulsion of the 'petty-bourgeois' Adolf Hitler from the movement. Is there any other evidence for this? If it is true why was no action ever taken against Goebbels? 217.44.78.131 13:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Hitler and I, 217.44? In any case I urge you to treat anything Otto Strasser says with extreme caution. The only source for the alleged remark-clearly intended to cause trouble for Goebbels-is the account given by Strasser. If you would like a true insight into Goebbels' attitude towards Hitler at this time, the true measure of his boyish devotion, you could do no better than to read his diaries for 1925 and 1926, which conclude just before he was appointed Gauleiter of Berlin in November of that year. These are all the more revealing because, unlike the later diaries, they were never intended for publication. Clio the Muse 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

In what way is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not a race based organization? 71.100.9.205 14:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because its membership isn't restricted to a single race? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That takes care of membership. Now, how about purpose? Clem 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Define "race based organization", then. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A "race based organization" is an organization who's purpose is based on race. Now please define "Advancement" for me. 71.100.9.205

Is there more context to your question? I'm not sure that I understand what kind of answer you're looking for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It just strikes me as funny that colored people are always complaining about discrimination on the basis of race, yet seem incapable of being beyond reproach themselves. 71.100.9.205 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the teletubies are part of it. Their the only colored people I know of. Ow ... they mean a different shade of brown? Keria 18:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article you will find that at the time the organization was created use of the phrase "people of color" or "colored people" was commonly used to distinguish between Caucasians and what are referred to today as Blacks. 71.100.9.205 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is "funny" to you, but indeed, minority groups who complain about discrimination often form organizations to support their fight against discrimination. If you are saying that that is the same thing as discrimination itself, then you need to think it through a little bit more. The NAACP does not advocate discrimination of any sort. The "advancement" is meant to be in respect to previous and present lack-of-advancement due to discrimination. In any case, the category of "colored people" here is one defined mostly by the discrimination, and while I guess in some sense it might at first seem "ironic" that groups tend to, in effect, embrace the categories of discrimination, but this is, of course, to be expected in such a situation, where there is no real possibility of undoing socially imposed categories by the imposed-upon group by simply ignoring them. In any case, if you can't tell the difference between, say, the NAACP and the KKK, then you really aren't thinking hard enough. --24.147.86.187 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The OP's question in fact does address arguments I've heard, including yours, that reverse discrimination and racism or a race based purpose as represented by the NAACP can be defended if the NAACP does not burn crosses or use violence or otherwise adopt the methods or operate in a similar manner as the KKK. If this difference in operation is sufficient to justify its practice and purpose of racism, or discrimination based on race, then what purpose is there for the NAACP to exist? Certainly not that racism or race based discrimination is bad. Clem 04:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have always believed that the organization would be more appropriately named if it simply dropped the "C" from its initialism. — Michael J 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not unless its purpose of racism or race based discrimination changed as well. Clem 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a valid criticism. If there was a National Association for the Advancement of White People, which was exactly the same as the NAACP, except that they provided scholarships, etc., for whites, this would be seen as a horrible racist organization. I agree that we should have something more like the National Association for the Equality of All People, which should fight discrimination against blacks and whites (racially based quotas, for example) and everyone else. You don't end discrimination with more discrimination. StuRat 05:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what the American Civil Liberties Union does, in its efforts "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States"? Rockpocket 07:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that argument apply to organizations that provide support and advocacy exclusively for deaf people, or blind people, or people who've suffered cancer, or people who've experienced domestic violence, or people who suffer from depression, ... ad infinitum? There are lots of people who are born or become members of minority groups, and many such people are unfairly and unjustly discriminated against and victimised in all sorts of ways. Why shouldn't they be able to join an organization that actually helps them, without the organization being branded as discriminatory, in the very worse worst sense of the word? Why is the NAACP different in essence from the Left-Handed Gay Depressive Jewish League of America? Such organisations do indeed practise discrimination, because they generally deny membership to people who don't satisfy their criteria (deaf, ...) - but surely it's discrimination in the very best sense of the word. -- JackofOz 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(Isn't it very worst  ?) Those groups have a "valid need" for different treatment: deaf people, for example, need hearing aides, cochlear implants, sign language, etc., so a group working for those things isn't a bad idea. Blacks don't need anything different from what everyone else needs: an end to discrimination against everyone. An exception might be cultural organizations. An org to preserve the culture, dress, and language of Zulus wouldn't be objectionable, any more than an org to preserve Scottish heritage is. StuRat 12:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(Oops, typo. Tks) Well, I think it's very big of you, StuRat, to magnanimously decide which minority groups are validly deserving of different treatment and which ones aren't. Thank God we have you to make these decisions for us. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always assumed you were a Caucasian male. If you were a member of an ethnic minority group that has received very, very unequal treatment in the past from the majority, I think you might just be a little jaded and sceptical about that majority's capacity or willingness to suddenly see things in the wonderful new utopian light you're advocating, and to act accordingly. It's fine to say, let's all treat each other as human beings without regard to any external differences. That's a very worthy goal, one that I've always aspired to. But Rome wasn't built in a day, and in the meantime, allowing people free association is one of the cornerstones of your nation's Constitution, is it not? People don't just associate randomly; they do so because they have something in common. In this case, it's the fact that their ethnicity is a huge barrier in ways that people of non-African background never even have to consider. And now you're saying that African-Americans shouldn't be able to come together for mutual support and an effort to level out the playing field a bit. No offence, but I can't help thinking of apartheid - remember the days when non-white South Africans couldn't congregate in groups of more than 3 people? It wasn't very long ago. -- JackofOz 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, any minority living in a country which has a recent history of systematic and institutionalized racism is going to be in a different category than the majority who perpetuated that system. If you don't see why that might be, you might want to get out of your house a little bit, visit the "bad" parts of town, see what life is like there, talk with the people, try putting yourselves in their shoes. Or at least do a little more than play armchair sociologist, happily declaring all people equal, 'cause, gosh darn it, that's how it ought to be. Shucks, says StuRat, wouldn't it be great if racial discrimination had never existed? Shucks, why pretend it ever did, if we are trying to make it go away? Let's just pretend everything is starting over from scratch, and that nothing of the past ever mattered... --24.147.86.187 04:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend that everyone here take a good look at the Before asking a question section at the top of the page. Rule #4 is Do not start debates or post diatribes. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --M@rēino 13:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can terrorism be legally justified?

I'm interested in whether any countries or international bodies have laws which could be used to justify terrorist action.

In the term 'terrorist action', I include acts of violence against the state, such as assasination of political leaders or resistence to the military, as well as terrorism against civillians.

It seems unlikely that any state would actively support terrorism in its legal structure. But are there any laws which promote, for example, self-determination, or the right to bring down a tyrant? And could these laws be used by terroist groups to justify their actions?

xox Joshua.c.j 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bringing down a tyrant is never a legal action, but that does not mean it is not a just action. That being said, there have been many instances of state-sponsored terrorism in the past and present, but they are never (almost) "legal" in a strict sense—that is, they may be legally authorized by one state against another, but they under the laws of the country in which the acts are perpetrated they are almost always against the law. The "almosts" here come from the fact that the line between "terrorism" and "legitimate military action" is often very blurred (bombing of civilians in Baghdad by Shiites = terrorism. Bombing of civilians in Baghdad by the US = collateral damage. Indiscriminate and purposeful killing of American civilians by Al Qaeda with the goal of scaring them into enacting a political/military action = terrorism. Indiscriminate and purposeful killing of Japanese and German civilians during WWII with the goal of scaring them into enacting a political/military action = costs of total war.) Here, mind you, the overriding "legal" question quickly becomes under whose authority the acts were carried out: if in the name and under the authority of the state, then they often become "legal" and are described in euphemistic terms; if under the authority of a non-state entity, they quickly become "terrorism". No non-state terrorist could hope to justify their actions in a court of law of the state they perpetuated them against. --24.147.86.187 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "bombing of civilians in Baghdad" examples ignore that the terrorists kill civilians intentionally, while the US kills them accidentally (with a few exceptions which are treated as murder cases and sent to court). This is the diff between running down someone intentionally with your car (murder) or accidentally. Your WW2 example is better. All sides intentionally targeted civilians. I suppose you can call this terrorism, but most people wouldn't apply that term to "total war". Having the very survival of your nation depend on defeating an enemy which can only be forced to surrender in this way is a special case, not normally called terrorism. StuRat 05:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's his point - it's not normally called terrorism, but basically it's the same. It's the intentional killing of civilians to convince the other side to give in. Most acts of what is normally called terrorism have to do with the survival of the nation of the attackers (in the form they desire, of course). DirkvdM 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's that "form they desire" part that makes all the diff. If the Western nations set up death camps and were exterminating the Arab population, then I'd say attacks against Western civilians would be justified. However, murdering civilians to create a global caliphate of Sunni Muslims is not justified. For one thing, any "end justifies the means" argument must actually have a good chance of succeeding, and al Queada's plan has no chance of success. StuRat 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

At the moment there are between 76,000 and 83,000 Iraqi civilian deaths from the US's decision to unseat Saddam Hussein. The motivations for the war are murky but I think any reasonable observer would question whether they can be in good faith ascribed to as "just" at this point. I think ascribing the deaths to being "accidental" pushes the definition quite a bit—you'd have to be a total dummy to think that tens of thousand of people weren't going to die from the sort of situation the US put in place, it's as good as marking down their death certificates.

In any case, I'm not sure how the fire or atomic bombing of Japan during WWII can be defended as being done because "the very survival" of the United States was in question. There was no chance then for Japan to destroy the American nation. Heck, it was pretty clear that even the Nazis weren't going to destroy the United States (and the firebombing of Dresden, as is well known now and was not totally unknown then, had no real military effect). The bombings did not accomplish any appreciable military goals—they were terrorism, plain and simple, the goal being to destroy the "will of the people" by killing "the people." They were cold blooded and calculated to kill as many people and destroy as much area of a civilian city as possible. They not only made no pretension to precision, they intentionally tried to figure out how to better magnify the effects to make them more "impressive". It is amazing how in the beginning of the war, when a Nazi bomb mistakenly hit a schoolhouse the British were up in arms about how barbaric it was, but destroying hundreds of schoolhouses would become entirely acceptable... --24.147.86.187 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had nothing to do with the survival of the US. Japan was ready to surrender. Negotiations were in an advanced stadium. It's just that they didn't want their emperor to be dethroned. Not surprising, since he was considered a god, so Japan was basically forced to give up its religion (or betray it, rather). Another thing is if it was necessary to bomb major cities.

Concerning the lack of precision, that even went so far that one US bombing hit the wrong country. The bombs were dropped on Nijmegen (see halfway down the history section). My mother was there at the time, though luckily not in the city centre. She was biking outside the city when she saw it happen and said it looked quite beautiful from a distance. But when afterwards she went back, she found the centre destroyed. She wanted to help in a hospital, but all she could do was hold the hands of dying people. Luckily she's got a very down-to-earth attitude, or that would have been quite traumatising. One detail she remembers is a guy who had lost both arms wanted to have his hair combed, so she did that for him. Silly, the things one does when dying and the details one remembers. DirkvdM 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, the bringing down of a tyrant isn't promoted by any national laws anywhere. That doesn't mean that in all circumstances there's no "right to bring down a tyrant", and it also doesn't mean that such action is bound to be unlawful. However, one difficulty in dealing with your question is that the word "tyrant" isn't a word used in constitutional or international law, so it doesn't have a clear meaning. Frankly, the question of who is a tyrant is a subjective one, and it also doesn't have much to do with the lawfulness of action to bring down a government.

The principle of self-determination is recognized in international law, viz., that nations have the right to choose which states they belong to, where necessary in a free and fair vote. But what amounts to a "nation" and which groups of people have the right to sovereignty are contentious questions. Sometimes self-determination is stalemated by the principle of territorial integrity, which is part of the UN Charter (in Chapter 1, Article 2).

Southern Rhodesia was a self-governing colony of the United Kingdom which declared its own independence in 1965 (UDI) without the acceptance of the colonial power and also without fully democratic support. The colony's small electorate was almost entirely white and excluded most of the black majority. So in terms of international law, Southern Rhodesia's governments after 1965 lacked both lawful authority and international recognition and could be called unlawful. I wouldn't myself describe the leader of most of those governments, Ian Smith, as a tyrant, but it's at least arguable that he was one. In those circumstances, it would have been entirely lawful (both in UK law and in international law) for the UK to have used force to bring down this unlawful government and this possible 'tyrant'. In the event, there wasn't the political will to do that, and it was a long period of sanctions, together with local resistance which became a civil war (see Rhodesian Bush War), which brought down the rebel state. Some elements of that process (such as the indiscriminate killing of civilians by counter-rebels who were generally called 'terrorists') were clearly unlawful in UK law, as well as in Rhodesian law, and I don't know of anything in international law which overcomes that. However, in 1980, following the Lancaster House Agreement which brought Zimbabwe Rhodesia to a lawful independence, all participants on both sides of the civil war were granted an amnesty which is part of Zimbabwe's constitution. Clearly, the amnesty was intended to protect the ZANU and ZAPU 'terrorists' as well as the UDI rebels, and the ill-starred settlement of the civil war wouldn't have been possible without it. Xn4 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Assassination of political leaders and terrorism against civilians are crimes. Resistance to military forces isn't always a crime, especially if the military forces are themselves acting unlawfully. Xn4 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly a national law but the United States Declaration of Independence argues forcefully that revolution against a tyrant is not just a fundamental human right but also a "duty." Also, the New Hampshire Constitution explicitly includes the "Right of Revolution" in article 10. Terrorism is a nebulous concept, but I wouldn't call all revolutions terrorism. In my mind, terrorism must include intentional attacks on civilians. Attacks on tyrants or uniformed military don't count. --D. Monack | talk 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be inconvenient to those doing the attacking, but as a matter of law tyrants and those in military uniforms have just the same right as civilians not to be attacked unlawfully. Xn4 01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Thomas Jefferson and I disagree with you. Under natural law theory, a tyrant is by definition is acting illegally and thus violence may be necessary to depose him. Anyone defending a tyranny is to be treated similarly. So, no, tyrants don't have the same rights as civilians. I disagree with the premise of Joshua.c.j's original question as I don't see any of this as terrorism. --D. Monack | talk 02:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's not legal. It may be just, but it has nothing to do with any law on the books. And it might be worth noting that you are essentially arguing in favor of vigilantism as well. Natural law is a lousy recourse, since everybody sees themselves as freedom fighters, everybody finds their cause to be just. --24.147.86.187 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree, Xn4. One of the most fundamental laws of war is that civilians are to receive better treatment than those in the military. StuRat 05:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a difficulty here is how to define a tyrant. But another problem is that in a democracy, the people are supposed to have elected the leader and if that person turns out to be a tyrant (vis a vis another country) then aren't they also responsible? Of course that counts only for the ones who voted for that party/person, and targeting just them would be rather tricky. For another, related, twist, what about the plane that was flown into the Pentagon? That was a military target, so was it terrorism? DirkvdM 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think civilians should be killed just for choosing the wrong leader. And yes, I'd call the Pentagon a military target, but the civilians on the plane were also the target. Then there is the issue of non-state organizations committing acts of violence. This also is a criterion for terrorism. The problem with this practice is that, unlike a nation that does so, non-state orgs can never be completely defeated, and rarely "win", so you end up with endless war. StuRat 13:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If they declared to be a country, how many other countries would have to recognise it for it to cease being terrorism? Were the bombings of cities by the nazis (or the allies for that matter) not terrorism because they were done by a regular army? That's a lousy definition of the word. It's about causing terror and the random killing of civilians is a good indicator. The civilians on the plane can probably be regarded as unintended victims because they were not the target - the Pentagon was. What else could the attackers have done? Let them get off the plane? DirkvdM 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know it is exactly what you are referring to, but Israel is unusual in that it openly admits to having a policy of carrying out extra-judicial killings (assassinations) in certain circumstances. Depending on your point of view, I guess this could be considered a "terrorist" action. Its also not entirely clear whether the policy is sanctioned by Israeli law. Rockpocket 07:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That would apply only to the ruling minority, not to the people as a whole, but still, it fits the question to a degree. Now, are there more such examples? What about colonies? There, the minority is usually smaller still. So a right for self-defence by the invaders makes sense. What about the Wild West? Weren't the immigrants allowed to kill the natives, including their leaders? That seems to fit the question perfectly. But was this laid down in law? DirkvdM 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if terrorism could bring down a leader (tyrant or not). That would mean giving up all power, and that would more likely require an uprising of a large part of the population. Which basically means large-scale terrorism. However, if the leader only has to give up part of his power, say territories, then it might be enough to persuade him. And that's what most terrorist actions are about.

However, your question seems to be about permitting terrorism in the country itself, so a constitution that says that if a tyrant (however defined) comes into power, the people have a right to revolt. I don't see the point in that. First, a tyrant could just change that law. Second, would it affect what the people do? If they are going to put their lives on the line, it is rather unlikely that they will care about whether the law allows it.

Also, people would have to have the means too. In Cuba, people are trained to fight guerrilla warfare, just in case the US breaks the Cuban crisis agreement and attacks. This could be used against the government if it were regarded as a tyranny. Giving people the means to revolt is much more effective than making it legal. And of course it could also be used against an invading force, which would reduce the need for military expenditure, which often constitutes a huge chunk of the GDP. DirkvdM 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could terrorism bring down a leader? Sure, of course. It can certainly assassinate them. Governments have certainly weakened and folded under terrorism. Coups have succeeded in the wake of terrorism. Power has shifted because of terrorism. Etc. --24.147.86.187 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But the question is if there is a nation that has laws that permit it. DirkvdM 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon's legacy

What legacy, if any, did Napoleonic rule leave in those states returned to their traditional rulers in 1815? 217.43.9.42 17:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out Napoleonic_Wars#Political_effects. --24.147.86.187 18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Angkar-Kampuchea

For work on Angkar i need to know who theses people:

Rhous Hhim

Siet Chhe

Pang

Non Soun

Ney Sarann

Koy Thuon

Hu Nim

For you help thank you. Sreykor 18:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an article on Hu Nim. My guess is that you'll need to resort to non-internet research for this, though. --24.147.86.187 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything at the DC-Cam website? It certainly has some info on Koy Thuon and Chikreng Rebellion. There is a biographical database search/browse for the Yale Cambodian Genocide program here which may contain some of the people (could it be Non Suon rather than Non Soun, for example). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can give you some brief details, Sreykor, though if you are in Phnom Penn you will probably find more in the archives of Toul Sleng Genocide Museum.

• Rhous Hhim. His real name was Moul Oun, also known as Moul Sambath, one time member of the Khmer Issarak. He was a member of the CPK Central Committee from 1963 and secretary of the North-West Zone. With Kong Sphal he instigated the Samlaut uprising in 1967. He was purged and killed at Toul Sleng in 1978.

• Siet Chhê. Also known as Tum, a former Buddhist monk who worked as a school teacher in Phnom Penn from 1954 to 1964. He later joined the CPK and became a regional secretary in the Eastern Zone. In 1975 he accompanied Pol Pot on a visit to Beijung to meet Mao. He was purged and killed at Toul Sleng in 1977.

• Pâng. His real name was Chhim Sam Aok. He was recruited into the CPK by Son Sen while a seventeen-year-old schoolboy in Phnom Penh. After 1970 he was Pol Pot's chief assistant in administrative matters, a post he continued to hold after the Khmer Rouge victory in 1975. Purged and killed at Toul Sleng in 1978.

• Non Soun. Also known as Sen or Chey Soun. Another ex-Issarak member. He may have been a member of the Central Committee of the CPK as early as 1960. He was imprisoned in 1962, only to be released in 1970 after Lon Nol's coup. He became a CPK regional secretary and Khmer Rouge Minister of Agriculture. Purged as pro-Vietnamese and killed at Toul Sleng in 1977.

• Ney Sarann. Also known as Achar Sieng, or Men San or Ya. Also former Issarak and a teacher in Phnom Pehn in the 1950s. A member of the CPK since 1964 and secretary of the North-Eastern Zone from 1971. Also accompanied Pol Pot to Beijing in 1975. Purged as pro-Vietnamese and killed at Toul Sleng in 1977.

• Koy Thoun. Alias Khoun or Touch. A former school teacher, he joined the communist movement in Phnom Penn in 1958. Head of the Democratic Kampuchea Youth League before fleeing to the North-West Zone, where he became deputy to Ruos Nhim. Hh was a key player in the Samlaut uprising in 1967. Member of the Central Committee of the CPK from 1971 and promoted to the Standing Committee in 1978. He was arrested immediately after this and killed at Toul Sleng.

Let me know if you need any more. Clio the Muse 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Norway at the end of WWII

It's not clear from the articles Norway, History of Norway, Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany and Vidkun Quisling what happened in Norway at the end of of World War II. Norway and History of Norway speak of liberation. But it appears that Quisling was arrested the day after the Germans capitulated and Norway wasn't "liberated" by allied forces. How many Germans were still Norway at this point? Were any allied forces in Norway at all? Did Quisling let himself be arrested? Jooler 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

After the 400,000 or so German soldiers, sailors, and airmen in Norway surrendered, Quisling's government was effectively powerless. They attempted to negotiate some sort of surrender themselves, but were refused and told to turn themselves in at a police station or be arrested by the police. There wasn't any organised Allied force in occupied Norway at the surrender although the Finnmark had been liberated in late 1944. There were resistance forces, and police too, while Milorg had tens of thousands of armed and trained volunteers in Sweden. The 1st Airborne Division and Norwegian forces in Britain weren't sent to Norway until some days after the surrender. Until that happened, the Germans looked after themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That was rather sporting of them, wasn't it? - Eron ^Talk 23:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one small caveat to Angus' contribution: Quisling's 'government' was always powerless. The real authority in Norway was vested in Josef Terboven, Reichskommissar, and effectively dictator of Norway, until his suicide in May 1945. Clio the Muse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Strengths of the UK Constitution

Resolved

I've written most of an essay on this, but I'm searching for one quote that I saw earlier but haven't refound. It's something like "While Parliament is politically sovereign, X are legislatively/something else sovereign" i.e. that Parliament is ultimately responsible to the electorate. Thanks, RHB - Talk 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A. V. Dicey said that the electorate is politically sovereign, while Parliament is legally sovereign. Is that it? Xn4 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats the one, Thanks :) RHB - Talk 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lost works of Liszt

Hi. What happened to Liszt's 3 Piano Sonatas (S.725/1-3) that he composed in his youth? They are lost and the only thing I know is that Lina Ramann (his biographer) believes that they are hidden in a chest somewhere. --Funper 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, If anyone know the history of Grand solo caractéristique à propos d'une chansonette de Panseron (S.153b, formerly S.754a), that would be great. --Funper 23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As good as the Ref Desk is, we don't have the location of lost works, unfortunately. I think a good working definition of "lost" is "nobody knows where the thing is (assuming it hasn't been destroyed), or how it got to be wherever it is - or, if anyone knows, they're not telling". Liszt is believed to have written a great deal of music that is currently lost, including a manual of piano technique, which would be most revelatory. There are lots of examples of music, once thought lost, turning up in chests, cupboards, or buried in libraries amongst the works of other composers. Schubert's Rosamunde was believed lost until Robert Schumann rediscovered it 10 years after Schubert's death. George Grove and Arthur Sullivan (yes, he of Gilbert and Sullivan fame) rediscovered Schubert's Great C major Symphony (No. 9) almost 40 years after his death, in someone's cupboard along with various other bits of "worthless bric-a-brac" such as seven symphonies (!), Masses, operas, chamber works, and a vast quantity of miscellaneous pieces and songs. So there's always hope. I wonder what Lina Ramann's evidence for the Liszt sonatas is. -- JackofOz 00:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tracked down the book I read. Here are two excerpts mentioning the sonatas:

Liszt, in his youth particularly, has composed much, both for the piano and for orchestra, of which nothing has been printed. These compositions divide themselves into two classes those of which we know something, and those of which we know nothing. Among the former which alone, of course, afford a basis for our remarks are to be counted the tantum ergo of his Vienna apprenticeship ; then the sonata with which he mystified Rode, a fragment of which (the introduction) has fallen into my hands ; two other small sonatas, which, as the composer informed me, are written in the same style as the first - each in three parts - his operetta "Don Sancho," a concerto for the piano in A flat (see next chapter), and the above-named overture, all compositions which are preserved in name only by the mention of them in the musical history of that day. Their author, of whom I inquired concerning their fate, supposed that they had been lost owing to the want of a fixed domicile at that time ; but the solicitude which Adam Liszt showed for everything connected with his son's genius does not allow this assumption, according to my opinion, to be altogether adopted ; and I believe that, at some future time, all sorts of things may come forth from strong chests, unknown to himself, in which to this day much lies hid...

Apparently, there were 3 sonatas, each with 3 movements, possibly influenced by Pierre Rode, and hidden in a chest by Adam Liszt.

I must not pass by in silence the Sonata fragment which I possess, and at which I have already glanced. It consists of the introduction to the sonata with which the boy played the well-known trick on Pierre Rode. If, indeed, the whole sonata were equal to this introduction, it is no great slur on Rode's knowledge of style for him to have mistaken it for one of Beethoven's youthful productions. It is written in F flat, flowing yet grave, and corresponds so exactly, in the foundation of the theme and the flow of harmony, with the style of the earlier Meister, that anyone might easily suppose it belonged to the classical epoch.

This is all that has come down to me. By the way, what does she mean when she says "fixed domicile at that time"? --Funper 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think she means a permanent and static location of home (as opposed to ever-changing addresses and relocations). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So what Liszt meant is that the sonatas are lost because of the family's constant relocation? --Funper 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Concise Oxford English Dictionary vs Oxford English Dictionary

Is the former simply a subset of the latter? Sancho 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but the current (2004) edition of the COED is an abbreviation of the second edition of the OED. In the first edition (called the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1911), only the letters A to R were derived from the OED, which had only got that far. The OED was a gigantic task. For instance, J. R. R. Tolkien worked as an assistant on it from 1919 to 1921, his first job after he recovered from the Great War. He spent the two years working on words of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic origins beginning with the letter W. Xn4 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of King Stephen to Elizabeth II

Elizabeth II -descent from William I seems to pass in a direct line through King Stephen who had no immediate heirs come to the throne, yet it is stated that Stephen was QEII's 20th great grandfather. Could you please show me that line of descent-probably through a surviving daughter of king Stephen? Thanks much for your help. RButtemiller68.226.102.103 23:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See Ancestry of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Descent of Elizabeth II from William I and Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic. Stephen is not a direct ancestor. The line passes through his uncle of the senior line, Henry I. Jooler 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I see what you're saying now the section article Descent of Elizabeth II from William I#Genealogical Relationships to Elizabeth II incorrectly listed Stephen as 20th Great Grandfather instead of 20th Great Granduncle. 1st Cousin 22 times Removed. I have corrected it. Jooler 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I imagine she's descended from Marie of Boulogne, but I can't find the direct lineage. You should probably discuss it on the article's Talk page. Corvus cornix 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

At Talk:Descent of Elizabeth II from William I, User:Charles has said that Elizabeth is indeed descended from Marie of Boulogne, through seven lineages. I've asked there for some documentation. Charles has reverted your edit, too, Jooler. Corvus cornix 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

October 29

Modern Princesses

Please tell me I'm sane and that there isn't a current British Princess called "Victoria Augusta Margharet Anne Mary Elizabeth Windsor." 138.192.140.113 01:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one, although (apart from the spelling of Margaret) it really isn't an impossible name at all. I can offer you the late Princess Alice Mary Victoria Augusta Pauline, Countess of Athlone, and also a bevy of European princesses Victoria Augusta, all of them no longer with us. (The first Victoria Augusta, by the way, was a Roman goddess.) Xn4 03:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not Margaret? Wrad 04:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Margaret is fine; I think it was the OP's "Margharet" that was considered unlikely. - Eron ^Talk 12:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All current British Princesses should appear on Line of succession to the British Throne. There aren't very many of them anymore. I only count five. And the requirements have been changed since some of the oldest of them got their titles so the number will probably stay small in the future. Rmhermen 15:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Have the rules changed again since 1917? —Tamfang 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured the name itself may not have been impossible, but the person claiming it certainly was. I just needed some evidence to show everyone so they'd know it was a lie. 138.192.140.113 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As for your sanity or lack thereof, we cannot provide psychiatric diagnoses here. You would need to talk to your doctor as a first step.  :) -- JackofOz 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See the list at British princess. —Tamfang 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

British House of Commons - Prime Minister Questions - Standing and Sitting

I was watching the British House of Commons Prime Minister questions on C-Span tonight, and whenever the Conservative Party Leader would stand to rebutt, ten or 20 people in the rows behind him would stand then sit. Then, when the P.M. would stand to rebutt, a different 10 or 20 people would stand then sit. What is the significance of that? Is it to show support? Are they required to stand so often? Or are they trying to ask questions? I read through the section on British House of Commons on Wikipedia, and also googled this question, but could not find an answer. I am curious to know the answer. Thank you. 72.178.31.119 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They want to make a point and stand to catch the Speaker's attention. They can only make their contribution when they are named by the Speaker. Clio the Muse 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC

But the order has already been selected? 128.54.77.51 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. Not during Question Time. Unless the UK practice is significantly different from the Australian experience. There are certain types of debate where the order of speakers for any one party is communicated to the Speaker, who then chooses to call them in that order whenever it's that party's turn. But Question Time is not a debate, it's a series of unrelated questions to the PM or his/her Ministers. (These questions are supposedly without notice, but advance notice is often given privately, particularly by government members; or the government "arranges" for one of its members to ask a "surprise" question, the answer to which the PM just happens to have a full brief on. We call these "Dorothy Dixers" over here, btw.) The only order, as I understand it, is that questions alternate between the government and non-government parties, to preserve the Speaker's appearance of impartiality. -- JackofOz 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Those who ask questions are chosen well in advance by ballot, and if asked by the party whips will generally ask the question they give them. It is very, very rare for the Speaker to pick a party member not on the ballot, that has stood up to gain the Speaker's attention, to comment or question the PM. RHB - Talk 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. I did just google the string again and came on this Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister's_Questions which I didn't find the first time I was looking before I posted this question. Isn't Wikipedia awesome!

Impacts of the 23rd Amendment

How did the 23rd amendment of the constitution impact society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.205.44 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't ask the Reference Desk to carry out your homework assignments. --Wetman 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the 23rd Amenedment has some good information and links you to more information. You can find it here Josborne2382 10:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, or some other? —Tamfang 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II-Descent from William I

Under genealogic relationships, it is stated that QEII is the 14great granddaughter of Henry VI. In the biography of Henry VI of England, he had only one legal marriage to Anne Neville, and it is also stated that they had no children. So Henry VI, while indeed a relative of some description, cannot be a direct ancestor of QEII. Can someone correct this, please. Thanks, RButtemiller68.226.102.103 04:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I#Genealogical_Relationships_to_Elizabeth_II. You're right that there's a problem there (though you've given Henry VI the wife of Richard III). The correct relationship seems to be ½-15th Great-Uncle which would be ½-14th Great-Granduncle. - Nunh-huh 04:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry VI did have at least one child, Edward of Westminster who appears not to have had any children himself. Also remember that descent does not require a "legal" marriage. It's pure biology - and especially when royalty was involved the legality seemed to be flexible. Rmhermen 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nunh-huh and Rmhermen. The line ended with Edward, son of Henry VI, and indeed Edward was married to Anne Neville before she was married to Richard III. She was for a while at least, the daughter-in-law of Henry VI. Think Nunh-huh is right on target with the half 14th great grand uncle through the line of Catherine of France, mother of Henry VI by one marriage and grandmother of Henry VII by another. Docgoldfinger, formerly RButtemiller. Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)68.226.102.103 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat unethical inquiry...

Does anybody know if it is against the law (united states) to write papers and sell them to college students? I imagine, obviously, the colleges would take ethical issues and likely expel the student if caught, but are there any legal or other ramifications for the author? Thanks in advance! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.86.67 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been argued that this question requests legal advice. See the discussion at the reference desk talk page. Please keep answers and discussion here focused on the abstract question, "would it be illegal to...?", without offering the original poster legal advice as if he were planning to actually write papers and sell them to college students. Thank you. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would that be illegal? There are books for students, which are sold to them. What do you mean by a paper? And in general in principle anyone can sell anything to anyone else. Do you mean through unofficial channels, such as selling in the street? DirkvdM 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not illegal to plagiarize in any form. It is, of course, unethical, and if they are caught it will result in academic misconduct hearings (e.g. they will get kicked out of school). --24.147.86.187 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am not vouching for this website, but it's worth noting that MyEssays felt it necessary to put up these legalese guidelines. --M@rēino 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does the South (especially rural) dominate the American literary imagination?

I browsed the National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize fiction winners and finalists lists and found the South to be overrepresented. Considering America is over 3/4ths urban/suburban and almost 3/4ths non-Southern, can anyone explain the South's special role?

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The South is unique. Whereas rural Maine is a lot like rural Alaska or California, the rural South has quite a different feel, with different accents, customs, etc. I suppose this is the legacy of the Confederate States, from the Civil War era onward. StuRat 03:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just because the South dominates the National Book Award or the Pulitzer Prize does not mean that it dominates the American literary imagination. For example, check out List of Asian American writers, Category:LGBT literature in the United States, Jewish American literature, List of Hollywood novels, Science fiction (not always American, but certainly led by Americans), Beat generation, and Western fiction for some examples of veins of American literature that are not tied to the South. --M@rēino 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate goals in Religion

I've been reading again the articles about the abrahamic religions and Hinduism looking for what was their stated ultimate goals. I could only find what could be called behaviour modification programs (ethics) in order for individuals to save their souls or equivalent. So is most religions ultimate goal to save the individuals once comes the end of time or have I missed something? (please could we limit the discussion to the stated goals thank you) Keria 10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Christianity

• Islam

• Judaism

• Hinduism

• Other

Is the "end of time" even a doctrine of these religions? I know there is some stuff about it in Revelations in the Bible, but is it a key concept for Christianity in general? I thought quite a few Christians didn't take Revelations all that seriously. I'm not aware of "end of time" doctrines in Judaism or Islam (but am no expert). And isn't the cosmology of Hinduism cyclical rather than "ending"? Pfly 15:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the escatological idea of the judgment is primordial in Christianity as it is the basis to justify the obligation for individuals to behave according to the moral law as they will be judged on the basis of their actions (and thoughts?). In regard to Islam it seems pretty similar see here [[4]]. I don't know if the Jewish faith has an end of times concept. Keria 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See Jewish eschatology. Yes, there is a Jewish concept of the end times, but I don't think Judaism has a "goal" centered around the end times like you can say Christianity does. I'm no rabbi, but I would guess the "goal" of Judaism is to serve God by fulfilling His mitzvot as laid out in the Torah. Note that fulfilling mitzvot (a word translated as both "commandments" and "good deeds") is not a means to an end but an end in itself, according to this Jewish theologian -- Mwalcoff 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate goal of religion is to survive and spread. The promise of salvation is really a proximate goal for a relgion (while it may be ultimate for an individual). I think you will find that all traditional religions are death-centered as avoiding death is our most basic desire as living organisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diletante (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate goal of nearly all religions is to insure that power remains in the hands of a small rich ruling class. Often this is composed of church leaders and sometimes the state. Religious doctrines themselves are adapted to serve this purpose best. --S.dedalus 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats just another proximate trick that religion uses to ensure its survival. State and church walk hand in hand because they both help each other to survive. -- Diletante 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Karl and Friedrich. I'm sure that's just the answer the original poster had in mind. -- Mwalcoff 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my original post did directly address the OPs question. Maybe if I said salvation-centered instead of death-centered I wouldn't have been called a communist and cynic... -- Diletante 00:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the cynicism above, the stated goal of Christianity can be reasonably summed up as "making men right with God by means of Jesus". I'd say that's a close parallel with end-of-time soul-saving. My understanding of Judaism is that it's less focused on end-of-time heaven/hell judgement (Christianity and Judaism may be enlightening). Islam I understand to be akin to Christianity, replacing "by means of Jesus" with "by adhering to the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad". Hinduism... I'm not sure that a single agreed-upon "goal" exists. — Lomn 21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles of Habsburg

I see from your page on Charles or Karl that there was an attempted restoration in Hungary in 1921. I'd love to find out some more about this. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All is revealed at Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1944). Xn4 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is an even more tailored discussion of this topic in Conflict between Charles I of Austria and Miklós Horthy! There are, I think, two essential points which worked against the restoration of Charles, two factors which effectively tied the hands of Admiral Horthy: the hostility of his own Hungarian National Army, on the one hand, and the hostility of the Little Entente, on the other. Horthy, a committed royalist, had only accepted the regency in 1920 on the understanding that it did not conflict with his duty to the royal house of Habsburg. However, during the Communist dictatorship of Bela Kun Horthy had bulit up a counter-revolutionary force in western Hungary, known as the Hungarian National Army, made up for the most part of younger officers, who blamed the old military and political elites for the loss of the war and for the revolution. The leading representative of this group was Gyula Gömbös, who organised the military resistance when Charles attempted to force the issue in October 1921 with his March on Budapest. After Charles' withdrew the Entente presented a note to the Hungarian government in November, effectively demanding that a Habsburg restoration be rejected for all time. Contrary to the wishes of the die-hard royalists, the National Assembly had little choice but to accept the ultimatum. So, Hungary would remain a monarchy without a king ruled by an admiral without a fleet. Clio the Muse 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Angels On a Pin

Did medieval theologians really debate this 'point'? Jan Zizka 12:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. See How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. Algebraist 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cecil Adams takes it up over here. --Sean 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

German field executions

During the First World War 351 British servicemen were shot for desertion and other offences. How does this compare with the Germans? 86.147.191.32 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Only 48 in total, which is quite remarkable when one considers that the German Army was considerably bigger than the British. Indeed, German officers were of the view that discipline in the British Army was unusually harsh, an interesting reversal of the common perception. The reason for the different approach to discipline is not that hard to detect. The German Army long before 1914 was a national formation, recruited by selective conscription across all of the classes. The British Army, in contrast, was a regular force, generally recruited before the war from the the very bottom of the social hierarchy, people who had little economic alternative but to volunteer for military service. Although flogging and other such practices had been abolished in the nineteenth century by the Cardwell Reforms, in other respects the attitude by the command towards the ordinary soldiers had not changed that much since Wellington referred to them as the 'scum of the earth.' By 1916 Britain was in the process of creating a national army on the same basis as the Germans, though the system of military justice was not reflecting the changing realities. Clio the Muse 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's 48 from around 150 death sentences. The German Army fought long and hard in the First World War, but the great and the good seem to have thought that the British disciplinary model was in some ways better, and could even be improved upon. As a result, the German Army in the Second World War operated in a completely different fashion, one more commonly associated with the Red Army and the NKVD. There were over 15,000 executions (Bartov, Hitler's Army, p. 6; I believe this is a low estimate). In one division of the German army alone (12 I.D.), 68 death sentences were passed down between the outbreak of war and 30 June 1943 (Bartov, The Eastern Front, p. 28, table 1.7); it seems reasonable to conclude that more soldiers in a single division were executed during WWII than in the entire German Army in WWI. "The barbarisation of warfare" as Bartov says. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the sword in the stone

hi

i am having a debate with my father and i am trying to find out where King Arthur pulled the sword of Excalibur from the stone?

would be greatful if u could help

craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.109.210 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow the links for more information. But you should know that the legends aren't clear if Arthur got one or two magical swords and which one was Excalibur - the one from the Lady of the Lake or the one from the stone. Rmhermen 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the sword in the stone wasn't Excalibur. Beekone 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on where you get the information. Malory, for example, does call the sword in the stone Excalibur. It's not really possible to make absolute statements about a set of confused and often contradictory legends. Donald Hosek 22:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Beekone means T. H. White's wonderful book The Sword in the Stone. Xn4 00:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone knows it's impossible to dislodge paper from stone. Once it's in there, it's in there, divine right or no. Beekone 13:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to make reference to was the Sword of Britain, only I was in to much of a hurry to find where I'd originally read about it. "The Sword of Britain (the Sword in the Stone) - the sword of Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig), Aurelius Ambrosius, Uther, and Arthur consecutively." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekone (talk • contribs) 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, relationship to Queen Elizabeth II, Descebt from William I

Edward is listed as a first cousin 12 times removed, while Mary and Elizabeth are both listed as first cousins 13 times removed. Is there a line through Jane Seymour that makes Edward a different relationship to the present Queen than were his half sisters, or is the table incorrect? Thanks--Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The table is correct. Jane Seymour's parents, Sir John Seymour and Margaret née Wentworth, were 12G-Grandparents of Elizabeth II. Henry the VIII was a 13G-uncle, and both Catherine of Aragon (the mother of Mary), and Anne Boleyn (the mother of Elizabeth) were 13G-aunts. - Nunh-huh 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, you are good! Thanks Nunh-huh. Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bhutan

What is the significance of the number 108 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.19.113 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read 108 (number)? Algebraist 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Civilized War?

Is it true that the English Civil War (1642-1651) saw none of the inhumanity that accompanied the Thirty Years War In Europe? Thanks, Toni Lamont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.184.13 (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on the English Civil War, particularly regarding Ireland. It also depends on how you're defining the inhumanity of the Thirty Years War. Finally, in my experience, "is it true that something always..." and "is it true that something never..." are almost invariably false. — Lomn 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Was there ever a humane war? Xn4 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there have been many civil wars, but for a humane war, how about the Toledo Strip War ? StuRat 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a curious article about a war I must admit I hadn't heard of, but if you ask me it wasn't very humane for Two Stickney to stab Deputy Sheriff Joseph Wood with a pen knife. Xn4 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be wonderful if that was the extent of the bloodshed in every war, wouldn't it ? (I'm from Michigan, where we say that we won the war and made Ohio take Toledo. :-) ) StuRat 04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Cod War was pretty humane. 80.254.147.52 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

...but hardly a war! Xn4 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I may know where this notion is coming from; it is the old-fashioned Whiggish view of history, once favoured by the likes of G M Trevelyan. In his classic England Under the Stuarts he says that the Civil War was 'eminently humane', a war of principle, without malice or vindictiveness; a war without atrocities. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. It is true that it saw none of the large-scale horror of the Thirty Years War-and here I am thinking specifically of the Sack of Magdeburg-yet it has been estimated that around 2.8 per cent of the British population died as a result of the conflict, which compares with 2.2 per cent for the First World War. Prisoners of war died in their thousands, less because of deliberate cruelty and more because neither side had the apparatus or the means to deal with the problem of large numbers of captives; but they still died, usually of disease or starvation. The cruelties associated with the sack of Drogheda and the Wexford in Ireland were also matched in England, where Bolton and Leicester were sacked by the Royalists with much loss of civilian life. Cromwell allowed the slaughter of priests and women after the New Model Army stormed Basing House, and the massacre of Welsh camp followers after his victory at the Naseby. War by its nature is brutal. The Civil War was no exception. Clio the Muse 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio. And (as we've discussed before) the explanation given for the massacre of hundreds of Welshwomen after the Battle of Naseby was that they spoke no English, so they were taken for Irishwomen! So much for the humanity of the English civil war. Xn4 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rome HBO series

In one of the episodes Cesar is being prepared for burial and a woman gives his dead body her breast. It seems to be a kind of ritual. Does anyone know what it means?--85.180.14.93 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I confess I do not remember that scene, and am not familiar with any Roman ritual concerning the breast-feeding of the dead! Are you sure it didn't just fall out!? Clio the Muse 01:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No. A servant with exceptionally large breasts was taken to him for this purpose. I wondered about that too. Btw, it's a BBC/HBO coproduction. DirkvdM 08:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The episode in question is the first of the second series: Passover,On the "Inaccuracies and errors" part of the wikipedia page it says that Ceasar's private funeral ceremony is incorrect and that "instead, the mourning women smote their breasts, also as a rhythmic figure accompanying the dirges (neniae) sung by the praeficae" Lord Foppington 10:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lazy Hitler

Who was the economist, a figure of some significance in the early Nazi Party, who criticised Hitler for his irregular work habits?86.147.184.13 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hjalmar Schacht? Sam Blacketer 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it was Gottfried Feder, who wrote the letter in the early 1920s, in the period before the Munich Putsch, taking issue with the Führer's Bohemian lifestyle and slovenly attitudes towards work. Feder, an economist of sorts, coined the phrase 'the slavery of interest', and was an important influence in the early days of the party. His significance began to decline over the years, and he occupied only a junior ministerial position in the Third Reich. Details of the letter can be found in Gottfried Feder Calls Hitler to Order: An Unpublished Letter on Nazi Party Affairs by O. J. Hale in The Journal of Modern History, vol. 30, no. 4, December 1958, pp. 358-62. Clio the Muse 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sun King

Why King Louis XIV is called "Sun King"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.190 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He chose the image of the Sun, or Apollo, as his personal emblem. Clio the Muse 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Louis XIV habillé en soleil.jpg shows him dressed as the 17th century idea of Apollo. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Two of the aspects of the sun that he felt himself to embody were its brilliance and the way everything else revolved about it. 62.30.217.57 15:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot recall where, but I read that he played the part of the Sun in La ballet de la nuit in 1653 as a teenager.Polypipe Wrangler 10:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

October 30

Charles II and Tiberius

Who was it who compared Charles II of England to Tiberius? Admiratio 06:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Burnet first made the comparison on viewing a sculpture of Tiberius in the Farnese Gardens in Rome. He told the story to James Welwood, who noted it in his Memoirs in 1710:

"One of the most learned men of the age told me that walking in the Farnesian Gardens at Rome with a noble Italian who had been at the court of England"

Later, Burnet himself recounted the story in his History of my Own Times (published in 1724, but likely written prior to Welwood's account):

"At Rome I saw one of the last statues made for Tiberius, after he had lost his teeth; but bating the alteration which that made, it was so like King Charles that Borghese, and signior Dominico to whom it belonged, did agree with me in thinking it looked like a statue made for him."

Rockpocket 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

'Port corn' & 'sound corn' in 16th century English agriculture, trade and markets

Hi, I posted this query over on Maize and somebody there suggested here. I'm trying to discover what precisely was meant by 'Sound Corn' and 'Port Corn'. These terms are used quite extensively in 16th century English fiants, and they are significant from my perspective in determining grain quality and/or types of industries in the region concerned. They could of course be more significant once I find out what they were. Here's one context where 'sound corn' was used, 'for which Sir Henry covenants yearly to deliver for her majesty’s use twenty pecks of sound corn out of the said couples, that is to say five pecks of wheat and beer malt and five pecks of oat malt'. For 'Port corn', I have 'over and above the port corn reserved upon leases to serve to his only use.' The following might be more significant, though, 'He covenants to deliver thirty pecks of port corn- that is to say, 15 pecks of wheat and beer malt, and fifteen pecks of oatmalt, on the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin'. This appears that 'Port corn' was a mixture of corn types. But it is by no means from just this one source that 'Port corn' was a 50/50 split between wheat/Beer malt & Oat malt. Indeed, I didn't know wheat and beer malt were synonymous. A third example of 'Port Corn', this time from the Privy Council in England, is 'for such kind of provisions as cannot be supplied out of the said countries for his ordinary charges of household,, nor that cannot be otherwise helped by the reservations of port corn and such like, whereby he should bear the burden of the quarter to end at Michaelmas.’ Any ideas for further reading etc. will be very appreciated. 86.42.98.153 08:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The OED lists an obsolete meaning of port (from the French apporter to bring) "That which anything ‘brings in’, yields, or contributes; a customary or legal contribution, a payment in kind or money, by way of rent, rent-charge, tribute, etc.; in early use, the tribute rendered by a daughter religious house to the mother-house. Also attrib., as port-corn,..."

It doesn't list "sound corn" as such, but I would take that simply to mean corn in sound condition.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that corn, particularly in Britain, is not reliably interpretable as "maize". In context, this looks like "corn" is the "any cereal crop" definition. — Lomn 13:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

British immigration legislation

In the light of current concerns about the rate of immigration into the United Kingdom I would like to put the question into a longer context. Details on the history of British immigration law together with some references on the subject would be very helpful. Thanks. 217.42.101.130 08:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read such articles as historical immigration to Great Britain and Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day) and British nationality law? We seem to have rather a lot of material on these topics. Algebraist 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Who suggested the idea of scientific journal for the first time?

The following question was asked in an examination. The idea of a journal to disseminate scientific information was first mooted by: a, John Moray b, Reobert Moray c, Herbert Moray d, Nick Moray Can somebody please tell me the correct answer? Thanks in advance. 59.165.190.49 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir Robert Moray is probably the best answer although I can't find any direct evidence to link him and the journal. Robert Moray was a founding member of the Royal Society and was actually president for a short while in 1660. In 1662 he was influential in getting the society the royal incorporation from Charles II. In 1665 the first scientific journal, The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society was published by Henry Oldenburg so Robert Moray was at least involved in the Royal Society when the journal was being published, even if he wasn't invovled himself. Lord Foppington 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this, Moray wrote to Huygens in September 1661 that "... we shall print what passes among ourselves, at least everything which may be published..." and on 1 May 1665, Moray "formally put the motion to the Council of the Society that- '... The Philosophical Transactions, to be composed by Mr Oldenburg, be printed the first Monday of every month ...' " -- !! ?? 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did they fight?

What were the factors leading Englishmen to go off and fight in France in the Hundred Years War? Was it all greed, like Shakespeare's Lieutenant Bardolph, Corporal Nym and Ancient Pistol? By the way, what on earth is an Ancient? Does it just mean the character is very old? He isn't shown to be in stage and film productions. 86.147.185.173 11:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Ancient" is a corruption of Ensign. As for why they fought, it could be any one of a large number of reasons- desire to make money, patriotism, the need to avoid creditors, pressure from family members to do one's duty, etc. There is no one reason why people join the army. Lurker (said · done) 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The feudal system placed a military requirement on lords/barons to provide men for the King to fight. This duty passed on down through various levels, down to field workers who might owe service in return for growing crops on their lord's land. Though this system was more important at the start of the Hundred Years War, before the Black Death, Peasants' Revolt etc increased the standing of serfs and peasants and the number of free men in towns, who were influenced by a variety of reasons as mentioned above. Cyta 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In Shakespeare's play, before the Battle of Agincourt King Henry V tells his men

And gentlemen of England now abed

Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here

And hold their manhood cheap whiles any speaks

Who fought with us upon St Crispin's day.

This might sound as if it were all about the supposed glory of war, but people in the Middle Ages understood war's horrors and dangers better than we do now. One thing to remember is that most of the medieval ruling class was, by definition, the military class, and to fight was its purpose in life. Medieval fighters certainly saw a successful war or battle (or, indeed, some more local power struggle) as their best hope of enrichment: for the soldiery and seamen, there were chances of booty and prize money. For knights, there were much greater possibilities: grants of land, titles, and other promotions, as well as (yes) the glory of being remembered in story and song. Xn4 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What motivated men to fight? Why, the three Ps: Patriotism, Propaganda and Profit. Clio the Muse 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wives and Daughters

What is the significance of the character of Aimee in Elizabeth Gaskell's Wivws and Daughters apart, that is, from being Osborne's secret wife? Also I would like to no some more about the role of the Governess in the early nineteenth century, her background, her prospects her pay. Was it a good occupation, one that people would aspire to? Jane. Princess of the night 12:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Patsy Stoneman of the University of Hull says "The introduction of Aimee and her child suggests... that the novel which started with a critique of Molly's various mother-substitutes was to end with some comment on alternative modes of motherhood".

On the position of governesses, parents or guardians who could afford to support a full-time teacher for their children (usually for their girls, as boys were more often taught by tutors or else went to school) wanted someone to teach the rules of good society as well as reading, writing, drawing, sewing, music, and so forth, so to be a governess in a good house was very much a role for hard-up gentlewomen. Apart from marriage, teaching was almost the only respectable occupation open to them, but it wasn't usually well paid. It was a less demeaning position than that of (say) a housemaid, and no doubt some servants envied the role of governesses. Perhaps there were women who aspired to be governesses, for instance, to get away from home, but it would be very unusual to aspire to it as a career for life. Read about the life of the Brontë sisters (the daughters of a poor clergyman) to get more idea of this. As women teachers and governesses were generally hard-up and lacked dowries, they had only a limited chance of marriage into the property-owning class, but (as you'll see from the novels of Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and so forth) that was still something to aspire to. Many women went into teaching as a career, but very few went on with it if they got married.

In The Domestic Sphere in the Victorian Age, Bonnie G. Smith says

"The governess in the nineteenth century personified a life of intense misery. She was also that most unfortunate individual; the single, middle-class woman who had to earn her own living. Although being a governess might be a degradation, employing one was a sign of culture and means... The psychological situation of the governess made her position unenviable. Her presence created practical difficulties within the Victorian home because she was neither a servant nor a member of the family. She was from the social level of the family, but the fact that she was paid a salary put her at the economic level of the servants."

I hope this will give you a start. Xn4 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Aimée represents everything that Squire Hamley detests: she is French-a nation of king killers-and she is Catholic, two unpardonable offences for the Tory squirearchy. A nineteenth century readership would have recognised this immediately!

Being a governess was possibly the only outlet for educated woman of reasonably decent background, but with absolutely no prospects. They worked long hours with little time off. Too humble to dine with the family, but too elevated to sit with the servants, the govermess was possibly the most isolated figure in the household. In the early nineteenth century she could expect to earn about £15 to £40 a year. Accommodation and food was clearly provided, but this is still at the top level only about £2000 in today's values. From that she would have to cloth herself, support any dependant relatives, and save for her old-age. It was a bleak existence which they could only hope to marry out of, a favourite theme of much of the literature of the day. Perhaps the most infamous governess of all is Becky Sharp from Thackery's Vanity Fair. She is an unprincipled social climber, clearly one that her creator dislikes, and intends the readers to dislike. But for me Becky is rutheless because circumstances have made her so; she has no other choice; no other recourse. Give me £10,000 a year and I will give you virtue! Clio the Muse 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did they kill Louis XVI?

Was this the work of political subversives, seduced by the doctrines of the Enlightenment?

Laregly, it was because Austria and Prussia, at war with France at the time, declared they would restore Loius, who had been forced to give up most of his powers, to the position of absolute monarch. Lurker (said · done) 14:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly what Augustin Barruel believed. In his Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, published in 1797, he might very well have been said to have invented the conspiracy theory. Barruel had long been a foe of Enlightenment thought, and the French Revolution for him only served to prove the malevolence of a doctrine that had first subverted the Church and then the Monarchy. The Revolution was no accident: it had been plotted in secrecy in the masonic lodges, the temples of subversion. In 1789 these lodges became the Jacobin Clubs. They were responsible for all that followed. The overthrow of the monarchy, and the execution of Louis XVI did not come by chance; it had been planned from the very outset. Monarchy was incompatible with Jacobin ideology; for, as Louis de Saint-Just put it, 'no king could reign innocently.' Of course, Barruel was working forward, from origins to final conclusion, whereas Saint-Just was working backwards, from conclusion to origins. Each in his own way selected that which gave encouragement and support to their arguments, discarding the rest. The truth, of course, is rarely pure and never simple, and history is never, or almost never, fashioned by conspiracies, or by ideals. It was events, dear boy, events. Clio the Muse 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jerzy Kropiwnicki, President (Mayor) of Łodz

Hi there. I'm looking for some information on Jerzy Kropiwnicki and his (former) party, the Christian-National Union (ZChN). His page says that he's left the ZChN and joined Law and Justice. Can anyone tell me (1) when he founded ZChN, (2) when he joined PiS, (3) and a little more about ZChN? (Polish Wikipedia has what looks like a good article on them, but sadly, I can't understand Polish. A link to a page with a good description of ZChN and its politics in English would be an great help.)

Many thanks. --Harpo Hermes 13:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1. ZChN was founded on 28 October 1989, shortly after the establishment of the first non-Communist government in post-war Poland. It was co-founded by, among others, Jerzy Kropiwnicki, Stefan Niesiołowski (now member of the Civic Platform, PO), Jan Łopuszański (now leader of the Polish Agreement, PP), Marek Jurek (now leader of the Right of the Republic, PR) and Wiesław Chrzanowski (apparently, and rather oddly, still a member of ZChN).
2. Kropiwnicki is still a member and a leader of ZChN. He was recommended by Law and Justice as a candidate for the City President of Łódź, but he is not a member of that party.
3. ZChN is one of the multitude of right-wing parties that mushroomed during the early years of Polish post-Communist democracy, with their roots in the Solidarity Trade Union. The party is strongly nationalist and religious. On the economical side, they supported a welfare state, pro-family policies and protectionism, and opposed the Balcerowicz Plan of market reforms. In ideological matters, they were strongly pro-Catholic, srictly pro-life and advocating religious instruction in public schools. The party was in favor of decommunization and lustration. Initially opposed to European integration, they later adopted a more pro-European stance, but still supported the idea of strong nation states within the EU. During the first half of the 1990s, ZChN supported President Lech Wałęsa and the cabinets of Prime Ministers Jan Krzysztof Bielecki, Jan Olszewski and Hanna Suchocka. In the parliamentary election of 1993, won by the ex-Communist left, ZChN won no seats in the Sejm and only one seat in the Senate. Later, ZChN became part of a bloc of right-wing parties known as Solidarity Electoral Action (AWS) which won the parliamentary election of 1997. ZChN members were thus part of PM Jerzy Buzek's cabinet. After the the election of 2001, which was utterly disastrous for AWS, many members of ZChN went over to the newly founded Law and Justice party; one of those was Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz who served as Prime Minister in 2005-2006. In 2007, many of what remained of ZChN joined the League of Polish Families. Some prominent ZChN members joined yet other parties: Niesiołowski went to PO, and Ryszard Czarnecki – to the Self-Defence party. ZChN still exists, but it hardly matters anymore. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! That's an enormous help. I like Wikipedia - people are so nice here. --Harpo Hermes 09:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

William III in the descent of Elizabeth II from William I

William III is listed in the relationships table as a first cousin 8 times removed, while Mary II and Anne are listed as second cousins 8 times removed. I see no evidence that George I and William had a common set of grandparents, so I think William III is also a second cousin 8 times removed. Is this correct or am I missing something? Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

William III and Elizabeth II have well over 4000 different relationships. Yes, they are 1st cousins 8 times removed via common descent from Frederick Henry of Orange-Nassau & his wife Amalia of Solms-Braunfels; and yes, they are 2nd cousins 8 times removed via common descent from James I of England and his wife Anne of Denmark. They are also 3C8R, 4C8R, 5C5R, and any number of other relationships; it's traditional in these matters just to refer to the closest relationship. Is that what you were asking? - Nunh-huh 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Nunh-huh, you did it again! Yes, that was exactly what I was asking, and as always, you were right on target. My paradigm of thought said that if William III were a first cousin of Her Majesty, several generations removed, that he had to be a first cousin of George I, and, of course, that does not have to be true if the first cousinship happened a generation earlier. Thanks again for your terrific insight. I think now with your help on Henry VI and Edward VI, that the relationship table to the present Queen is perfect. My only contribution was moving George III to 3rd great grandfather through Queen Mary, a generation closer than her husband George V (the table had originally listed George III as a 4greatsgrandfather, which was true through George V, but that was not the closest relationship.) Also, isn't it interesting that The Queen is a 29great granddaughter of William I in the "royal line" but the closest relationship is 22great grandaughter--a 7 generation gap in 900+ years. Oh, those royals, a great example of consanguinous marriages! Thanks again- Docgoldfinger68.226.102.103 04:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Best DOW Index Direction Indicator

I was wondering what is accepted as the best indicator of whether the DOW will be positive or negative for the current day... any thoughts? --Yoyoceramic 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one, not one that does any better than guesswork at least. On a day-by-day basis, the stock market might as well be a coin toss (and those who claim otherwise are generally selling something). Trying to select an indicator of an indicator (since that's really all the Dow is) is even more arbitrary. What estimates can be done are the product of dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of individual inputs weighted differently by different analysts. Also, it's "the Dow", not "the DOW". No acronym. — Lomn 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Source of quotation

"Nobody ever understands anything" is a favourite comment of mine (and of the splendidly curmudgeonly A. L. Rowse), but I was wondering what its origin is? DuncanHill 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when A. L. Rowse first used it, but I guess it will go back a long way in various forms, such as "Nobody ever understands anything until they try to teach it" (which I've heard but can't trace to a source). George Balanchine, who died in 1983, is quoted in Robert Gottlieb's Balanchine as saying "The people here are shit. Nobody understands anything. Their heads are empty unless they see something resembling a sandwich", and I've found this comment by Noam Chomsky in an interview in 1995 - "There's no special inner light. It's common sense. The point about human affairs, the things people care about, is that nobody understands anything." Probably they both had an echo of something in their heads, but it's also the kind of thought which could come to someone de novo. Xn4 18:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

French Anti-Semitism

Please account for the growth in French anti-semitism in the period up to the outbreak of the Second World War. Thank you. Pere Duchesne 17:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There had long been a tradition of latent anti-semitism in French society, evidenced by some of the responses to the Dreyfus Affair, though in the prosperous years of the 1920s this was but of marginal importance. The onset of the Depression, compounded by the influx of German Jews seeking refuge from Hitler, brought a fundamental change in attitudes. Increasingly bad, the general political atmosphere became quite poisionous with the creation of the Popular Front government in 1936, headed by Leon Blum, a Jew. In March 1936 Charles Maurras of the right-wing Action Française, wrote "One thing that is dead is the spirit of semi-tolerance accorded to the Jewish State since the War...A formidable 'Down with the Jews' smoulders in every breast and will pour forth from every heart." Maurras went on to call for the murder of Blum, though he was far from being the most violent anti-semitic propagandist. That dubious honour surely belongs to the novelist Celine, conceivably the most eccentric genius France has ever produced. His diatribes against the Jews in Bagatelles pour un massacre and École des cadavers were so delerious that Andre Gide even suggested that they might be intended as a Swiftian satire. One critic went so far as to suggest that he may even have been paid by the Jews to discredit anti-semitism!

People like Celine were never going to escape from the outer limits of political sanity, but anti-semitism became an acceptable mode of discourse in the political mainstream, even cutting across the divide between left and right. It also became intertwined with new forms of pacifism, increasingly strong in post-war France, which argued that the Jews and the Communists were pushing te nation towards conflict with Nazi Germany. During the Sudeten crisis in the summer of 1938 Ludovic Zoretti, a Socialist, wrote that France did not want to "kill millions of people, and destroy a civilization just to make life a bit easier for 100,000 Sudeten Jews", a sentiment echoed by Armand Chouffet, a Socialist deputy, who said "I've had enough of the Jewish dictatorship over the Party...I won't march for a Jewish war."

So, the mushroom grew in dank soil; a soil of economic crisis, fertilised by resentment of refugees, anger over alleged Jewish influence in politics and society, and a fear of of being lured into a new war. Clio the Muse 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again, Clio. I am always most impressed by the depth of your knowledge. Pere Duchesne 21:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lockerbie Kick

Where does the expression a Lockerbie Kick come from? I think it might have something to do with a battle fought on the borders between England and Scotland. Donald Paterson 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Google, the only use of that term is in "Lockerbie Kick wheel" [5], which is a piece of pottery equipment. In what context have you heard the term used? Rockpocket 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Donald, it's not a Lockerbie Kick; it's a Lockerbie Lick. It refers to a the downward back-handed sword-cut delivered by a horseman at the head of dismounted enemy. You are right in that the term is thought to have derived from a battle on the borders; the contestants, though, were not England and Scotland, but the Scottish families of Maxwell and Johnstone. The Battle of Dryfie Sands, which took place on on 6 December 1593, the last ever to be fought in the area, was the bloody outcome of a long-standing feud between the two Reiver clans, and possibly one of the largest private battles in all of British history.

In 1593 John, the 7th Lord Maxwell, and head of the Clan Maxwell, raised 2000 men and issued an offer of £10 in land to anyone who brought him the head of a member of his great rivals, the Clan Johnstone. James Johnstone, being less affluent, offered £5 for a Maxwell head and mustered as many men as he could, Elliots, Scotts, Irvines, English Grahams from across the border, as well as his own family. However, in all he had only 400 to match the 2000 Maxwells. Johnstone, though, was skilled in the techniques of border warfare, luring the Maxwells into an ambush. Surprised by the enemy, the vanguard broke, driven back on the main body of the Maxwell force on Dryfie Sands near the town of Lockerbie. Fighting for their very existence, the Johnstones drove the Maxwells into the streets of Lockerbie itself, where many of the aforementioned 'licks' were delivered. Lord Maxwell himself, burdened by heavy armour, was knocked off his horse, and cut to pieces. In all, some 700 Maxwells are said to have been slain. One measure of the desperation with which the Johnstones fought is that their ranks included one Robert Johnstone of Raecleuch. He was eleven years old. You will find the details of the fight, and the whole dramatic story of the border families, in The Steel Bonnets. The Story of the Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers by George MacDonald Fraser of Flashman fame. Clio the Muse 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The story of the feud between the Maxwells and the Johnstones - which continued for more than 20 years after the events of 1593 - can be found in more detail here. -- Arwel (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is this from?

Can anyone tell me who wrote the following and where it is from--

"German philosophy as a whole-Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, to name the greatest-is the most fundamental form of romanticism and homesickness there has ever been; the longing for the best that ever existed." Ta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.87.241 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche in The Will to Power (ref [6]). Foxhill 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

EU oil imports

Where do the major EU countries (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain and Poland) import their oil from? (I am especially wondering which percentage comes from Saudi Arabia). Thank you. --AlexSuricata 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the EIA's Country Analysis Briefs you'll find this information in the "oil" page for each country. For example, they tell us that "Germany imported 2.1 million bbl/d of crude oil during the first seven months of 2006, slightly lower than the same period in 2005; most imports came from Russia (34 percent), followed by Norway (16 percent), the United Kingdom (12 percent), and Libya (12 percent). Germany also imports large amounts of refined petroleum products." Cheers Geologyguy 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The UK also produces it's own oil from both the North Sea and also minor land based wells. Foxhill 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the UK is a net oil exporter (for now) although it became a net importer of natural gas in 2004. Cheers Geologyguy 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

search engines

is there a non commercial search engine? Google does not work anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julierall (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'non-commercial'? Do you mean a search engine that will not return price-comparison sites? one that carries no advertising at all? for instance, http://www.givemebackmygoogle.com/ is a google scraper that won't return all of those horrible comparison results.

Or maybe you'd be better off asking this question at the Computing desk? Foxhill 21:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes adding '-buy' or similar terms removes a lot of the commerical results and makes it easier to browse. Exclude words or terms you don't want to see. Lanfear's Bane | t 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Google does not work anymore?" Corvus cornix 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

October 31

Dooyeweerdian Modal Scale Library Categorization

Hi, I am interested in a schema by which human knowledge can be categorized other than by the Library of Congress or Dewey Decimal system. Specifically, I would like to see if there has been work done use Herman Dooyeweerd's modal scale as its basis. Thank you, D. Hornor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.182.186 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See Ontology (computer science)... AnonMoos 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm actually looking for a Christian categorization of human knowledge. I.e., something which assumes the Trinity as its basis, and then derives all other categories from there. I.e. somehting in which God is not a category of the encyclopedia, but its ground. I'm not getting much response here, so maybe I'm just whistling in the dark--but it seems to be that putting God as a subcategory of religion is to "worship [i.e. assume the greatest, best and foundational nature of that being] the creation, rather than the creator, who is God, blessed forever." Any other thoughts on this? Menyaman 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have an account on the Tok Pisin wikipedia. Is there a way to log in across all the projects simulaneously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.182.186 (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How to check someone's academic credentials?

P.s. One more question. Is there a reliable way to check someone's academic credentials?

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.182.186 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot harder than you'd think. One standard way, when considering someone for a job, is to obtain academic references (that is, from people who have supervised or employed the candidate at a university or college) and then to contact at least one of those referees and ask questions about what has been said. Xn4 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., universities are fairly open about confirming whether someone received a degree from the institution. Awards of degrees are announced publicly, so there's no privacy concern. -- Mwalcoff 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is general. Grades or transcripts, for example, cannot be accessed with permission of the person who got them. In many places they are kept under lock and key for decades after the person has died! --24.147.86.187 03:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would take both negative and positive references and records with a grain of salt. Clem 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It can be very hard in the UK. You could ask the person to provide their certificates, if they are applying for a job, but unless the person has asked one of their old tutors to be a referee the university may refuse to confirm or deny the qualification. In an example from my own experience: shortly after I gained my PhD I was offered a job at the same university, and had to show the certificates for my qualifications. The university could not access my PhD certificate from its own registry, which was in the next office: I had to take in my own copy. I have no idea what they would do if they had been asked by some other employer to confirm my credentials. (signed after signing in) SaundersW 10:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian ambassadors to King Louis XIV

Did King Louis XIV have any Russian ambassadors to his court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.15 (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Constantly. In 1781-82 he even unofficially hosted Grand Duke Pavel Pavolovich and his wife, travelling "incognito" as the comte and comtesse du Nord ("of the North"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pavel Pavlovich? Not Pavel Petrovich?  --Lambiam 11:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This question has already been asked and answered here. Wetman's answer can't be taken seriously, because Louis XIV died in 1715, long before the birth of Pavel or his supposed 1781 mission to France. Marco polo 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong that the question has already been answered. The previous question was whether Peter the Great had sent any ambassadors to Louis XIV. However, Louis ascended the throne 40 years before Peter. Still, I can find no evidence that any of Peter's predecessors sent ambassadors to Louis. It seems unlikely, because the institution of diplomacy was all the more alien to Russia in the decades before Peter's reign and because France and Muscovy shared few common interests in those years. Marco polo 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Television networks

How many television networks does Bangladesh have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.15 (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See List of television stations in Bangladesh, which is misnamed, since it lists networks and not stations. Corvus cornix 16:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Criminal Justice

Differences between general and specific deterrence theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishkahuna (talk • contribs) 04:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article Deterrence (legal). I found it by searching Wikipedia which is probably a lot faster than waiting for a response at the ref desk. Hope it helps. Sifaka ^talk 06:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Drink Driving Cost To The Public

Hello, I am doing an assignement about drink driving and the thing that I'm stuck on is getting the details about the cost of it to the public, such as financial, social and emoitonal. Can you pleae give me some information? –203.217.17.48 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I went the the Mothers Against Drunk Driving website and found some wonderful information there. Try their statistics page. You will probably find more detailed information at websites belonging to anti-drunk driving organizations like SADD, MADD and possibly your government's administration of transportation or public safety. Sifaka ^talk 06:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MADD are a partisan organisation in this instance. I'd look for a more objective source. Exxolon 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for Last Will and Testament

I’m considering writing my LW&T. I, however, want to distribute my assets (though not extremely large) according to the order of priority and proximity to my own of various criteria such as moral, ethical, philosophical, political, religious belief and practice; genotype and phenotype; life’s work, but not necessarily geographic or proximity of age. Although I want my assets distributed with the understanding that continuation of my life’s work has the greatest priority of all criteria, where might I find a list of relevant criteria I should considered? Clem 05:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, Mr Pooter? Wouldn't it be much kinder just to leave it all to Carrie and Lupin? Xn4 07:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A list of criteria is still necessary, even if Mr. Pooler's decision were to fairly accommodate both Carrie and Lupin rather than making them decide. On the other hand, and as in the case of Tutankhamun, perhaps leaving it all to the High Priests to decide is the proper way to go. But even then, consciously or not, a list of criteria is still needed by the priests if only to determine the proper place to stow each piece of furniture, the tomb I speak of therein. Clem 08:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! I admit that Clem's mode of expression is a brilliant parody of the Pooterish style, but do you not think it a little too 'fast and modern' for the real thing? After all, Xn4, can you ever imagine that dear old Pooter would use terms like 'genotype' and 'phenotype'?! Oh dear, no; not at all the thing. Clio the Muse 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. You don't want the executors to ask, "...wonder what we should do with these things?" or "Who cares what he was working on? If it was worth a tinker's darn he would have already won the Nobel Prize and someone else would worry." or like King Tut have all your personal possessions thrown in the corner or against the annex wall. 71.100.9.205 13:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As a LW&T is a legal document, the obvious (and only worthwhile, considering your level of concern) place to find the requisite information is with a lawyer. Last Wills for Dummies (in whatever guise it may take) is a poor alternative. — Lomn 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's "Wills, Probate & Inheritance Tax for Dummies" by Julian Knight. Rmhermen 19:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping I might find possibly an online interactive questionnaire that would help me to explore more than the legal ramifications and realities in preparation for death prior to seeking the advice of an attorney as to how the criteria I selected might best be implemented rather than a prehash of the legalities. Clem 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Clem, your original question isn't a legal one, so Last Wills for Dummies and its like won't help you. What you need is a moralist, not a lawyer. If I were you, I shouldn't waste any time in going all through Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary. All the criteria that matter to you are there. Xn4 23:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually not. Bierce's definitions (or senses) are his own, and while full of bedeviled wit and perhaps the ability to be used as an example now and then, are for the most part not necessarily proximal to my own. The work I am looking for is a work that will help me pin down for the sake of my executors what manner of belief and thinking represents my will, which certainly Bierce's work might help to either draw comparison or serve to represent, but still fails to offer the taxa and dichotomy necessary to present an unambiguous will. Clem 10:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your friendly annoying neighborhood park pigeon is tasty...

... I moved this question to the Miscellaneous desk because I posted it on the wrong refdesk page! Sifaka ^talk 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Witchcraft

An appropriate question for halloween: was belief in witchcraft still widespread in nineteenth century Britain? I was told that it was. Stockmann 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes they were, and up till this very day, witchcraft still exists but have been giving new names such as Magick. To Christans, they are to be seen as Satanic and DOES exist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.107.196 (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends to some extent n the meaning of "widespread". Witchcraft comes from wisdom and applies to good and evil users off th lore. Although a charismatic evangelical would condemn them all. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Magick" and Wicca, or Paganism. And none of them is Satanism. Corvus cornix 16:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yikes - it almost seems like you somehow missed the Wikipedia reference desk and asked this question on a MySpace bulletin board...hopefully some more objective and helpful responses will follow. -Elmer Clark 07:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Elmer, Stockmann, your question deserves a fuller response. I saw it yesterday but really had to dig a little deeper into the subject before I felt confident enough to give you a considered answer. Anyway, here is what I have been able to uncover.

The first thing to note is that for centuries law and superstition walked hand-in-hand. That is to say, on the subject of witchcraft, there was little to distinguish offical perceptions from popular prejudice, though the well-springs of belief may have been different in both cases. The big change came in the eighteenth century, when concepts of witchcraft began to lose ground amongst the educated. The gap really begins to open up with the passing of the Witchcraft Act of 1736, which repealed earlier English and Scottish statutes on the subject. From this point forward the law dictated that

No prosecution, suit or proceeding, shall be commenced or carried on against any person or persons for witchcraft, sorcery, inchantment or conjuration or for charging with any such offense, in any court whatsoever in Great Britain.

The Act further made it an offence to pretend to have supernatural powers. So, from this point forward, as far as the law was concerned, witchcraft was no more than a pretence. However, while the enlightened could scoff at the subject, beliefs in the literal truth of witchcraft continued to be well-entrenched among large segments of the population, especially in rural communities. People were slow to realise, moreover, that the law was no longer on their side on this subject. Right into the late nineteenth century magistrates continued to receive requests for the arrest of suspected witches.

So, no longer able to call on the law, people took to dispensing their own forms of 'popular justice', which gave rise to a new phenomenon in law: in place of the witch trail came to trial of those accused of assaulting those whom they believed to be witches. We now have one of history's acutest ironies: that the British in the course of Empire were attempting to reform the 'heathen' practices of subject people, while at home violence against suspected witches was on the increase. James Augustus St. John, author and traveller, was moved to write "...here in England, in the midst of our civilization, with the light of Christianity, ready to pour into the meanest hovels, violence against witches is still prevailing in our rural disreicts, while belief in witches is all but universal."

In 1895 a poor, elderly woman from Long Sutton in Lincolnshire was assaulted by a farming couple for supposedly bewitching their cows pigs hens and butter. Assaults of this kind even continued into the twentieth century. In 1935 a doctor from Poole in Dorset had to treat an old woman so badly scratched that she required stitches in twenty-two wounds. In essence there was often a two-way process at work: people claimed to possess traditional forms of 'folk wisdom' as a way of making money, which could very easily turn to accusations of black magic when things went wrong, or when tensions built up within communities that, despite social and industrial progress, were often claustrophobically self-contained.

Further social changes, and the continuing decline of the older rural ways of life, saw a steady decline in these traditional beliefs, as ordinary people caught up with educated opinion. But, once again, irony played its unique part: for while witchcraft was received in the public mind with increasing scepticism, it achieved a new life among sections of the middle class, inspired by the likes of Margaret Murray, author of The Witch-Cult in Western Europe. This, and much of the Wiccan movement that followed on, was really quite bogus; for people were not persecuted in the past for following ancient cults, but for malice and spite, and with malice and spite, the small change of village life. Clio the Muse 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More Angkar

Thank you Clio Muse for much important detail. Sad i not live in Phnom Penn. Please help some more. I need who these people were:

Keo Meas

Kong Sophal

Tiv Ol

Vorn Vet

Thank you. Sreykor 08:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Sreykor. Here is the information that you need:

Keo Meas. Ex-Issarak. Hed of the clandestine Phnom Penh Committee of the Communist movement in 1954, afterwards leader of the Praceachon group. Member of the Central Committee of the CPK in 1960. From 1969 Khmer Rouge representative in Hanoi. Purged as pro-Vietnamese and killed at Toul Sleng in 1976.

Kong Sophal. Alias Keu or Cheang. A schoolteacher who joined the communist movement in Phnom Penh in 1958. Also important in the Samlaut uprising in 1967. Member of the CC of the CPK from 1971, and promoted to the standing Committee in 1978. Arrested and killed at Toul Sleng in 1978.

Tiv Ol. Alias Penh. Student activist, then secondary school reacher in the 1950s and 1960s. Joined Pol Pot at Ratanakiri in 1968. Purged and killed at Toul Sleng in 1977.

Vorn Vet. Real name Pen Thouk, also known as Sok, Mean, Te, Koun, Veth and Vorn. Joined the Khmer Viet Minh in 1954 after dropping out of school. Member of the CC of the CPK and head of the Phnom Penh CPK from 1963. CPK Secretary of the Special Zone from 1971. Member of the Standing Committee. After 1976 Vice-Premier of the Economy. Purged and killed at Toul Sleng in 1978

Try to get hold of Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare by Philip Short. It's all there. Clio the Muse 03:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

9-gun salute?

I recently attended a funeral for a man who had served in the Army Air Corps during WWII. There was a gun salute put on by the local VFW post. What I found confusing about it is that they only had three of the men fire their rifles three times for a total of a 9-gun salute. I perused the 21-gun salute page but couldn't find any reason for the 9 vs. 21 and a search of the net didn't provide anything noteworthy except that I'm apparently the only one that has noticed this. 9-gun salute wasn't any help either. So, what's the history behind this? Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I found this link where it says that the custom arose from a battlefield signal. When the dead and wounded had been cleared from the field, three volleys were fired to inform the enemy that the battle could recommence. It further points out that "gun" in "21-gun salute" and the like refers to artillery, really, not shoulder arms. --Milkbreath 11:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cattle and stairs

Apparently one can lead a cow up a staircase but not down one. So how does one get her down? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In a lift perhaps? I've never heard that saying but I imagine it would be better to use a ramp for herding cattle than a staircase. GaryReggae 10:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My grandmother used to take her pony upstairs to show it the reception rooms. No lift. But it was happy to walk down again. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a memorable episode of Hill Street Blues in which Andy Renko & Bobby Hill had to deal with exactly this situation. I believe a helicopter was used, but alas! the beast slipped from its harness. DuncanHill 12:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct answer is walk it down backwards. This same phenomenon is revealed in ramps as well. You can put a cow into a trailer head first, but you have to back it out. Little known fact; cows in Australia have to be backed up inclines but can come down head first. Beekone 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

management/external environment of an organisation

The task environment provides some important benefits to the organisation hence the need for a proper management of it's elements. Ouline and explain with examples from[ Ghana] five methods by which an organisation can influence vividly these elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffie Abraham Ackah (talk • contribs) 11:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not supposed to give people answers to their homework here as that's cheating and you don't learn anything if someone else gives you the answer! I would suggest Googling "Task Environment" and that might give you some ideas for starting from unless somebody else here knows anything about the subject and can offer some hints. GaryReggae 12:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Christchurch College, Cambridge?

I am working on a new biographical article partially sourced from this book chapter from 1890. The second sentence says Thomas Jones graduated from "Christchurch College, Cambridge". What is that? The only English Christchurch College I see is Christ Church, Oxford not Cambridge. The closest Cambridge match I see is Christ's College, Cambridge but that appears far less prominent than the Oxford college and is not called Christchurch. Can anyone help determine which to link to? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-subscription sources such as the peerage don't give much info, but the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (free access to some UK and international library users) states - "Thomas matriculated sizar from Christ's College, Cambridge, in November 1565. He commenced his BA studies in 1569 and took his degree in 1570. He proceeded MA in 1573". I've emailed you the instructions for accessing this text. Foxhill 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The It Girl

I'm considering working on a paper on the rise of the independent society lady in Georgian England. Can anyone give me a kick start? Yours sincerely, Shiela Spencer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.31 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a good starting point would be our aticle on the Georgian Era, although admittedly it doesn't specifically mention the role of women in that period of time although it does mention the broad social changes brought about.GaryReggae 12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "It girl" is a 1910's or 1920's expression. I'm not sure what the expression "rise of the independent society lady in Georgian England" exactly means -- though of course there were the famous "Whig hostesses" at that time. AnonMoos 19:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The term was coined for Clara Bow, and we even have an article for it. -- JackofOz 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Shiela, I think you should begin by looking at the changes brought on by the English Civil War, in the creation of a new type of independent-minded woman, or 'It girl', if you prefer. Mary Astell was possibly the first woman in English history who had 'it' and, what's more, she knew she had it! There was a new consciousness, admittedly still limited in its application and scope, which saw woman as possessing the same kind of potential as men, frustrated by lack of education. It even made its way into Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, where it is proclaimed that it is monstrous of mankind "to give the females a different kind of education from the males, except in some articles of domestic management."

It was the Georgian period that opened ever more opportunities for woman of a certain social background, either as players in the public arena, or as authors, meeting a demand for printed material that men alone were not able to answer. Henrietta Howard, mistress of George II was possibly the greatest 'it girl' of the age, with a literary salon that attracted the likes of Swift, Alexander Pope and John Gay. Molly Leppell, Lady Hervey and Lady Mary Wortley Montague were also figures of intellectual and literary note who made an impact on their times, the harbingers of the Blue Stockings Society, founded in the 1750s by Elizabeth Montagu. Writing in the Critical Review in 1762, Elizabeth Carter observed "Learning is now grown so fashionable among the ladies, that it becomes every gentleman to carry his Latin and Greek with him whenever he ventures into female company." The new freedom was to find its most perfect expression in the writing of Mary Wollstonecraft, whose Thoughts on the Education of Daughters was fiercly critical of traditional male views on the matter. In many ways Georgian England was the high point in the cycle of the wheel for upper class and intelligent women. It started its downward course with the dawning of the Victorian age. Clio the Muse 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Prisoner of the Vatican

After the Italian army occupied Rome in September 1870 Pope Pius IX made an appeal for assistance to the entire Catholic world. Was there any response? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Only the Republic of Ecuador responded to the appeal, breaking off diplomatic relations with Italy. Under the guidance of President Garcia Moreno, the national assembly voted a contribution amounting to half a year's state revenue to Peter's Pence. Clio the Muse 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mary

Can anyone explain the reason for the various Marian Titles? Specifically, why would we refer to her in so many different ways, when she was a single entity? Each title even seems to be a patron saint of certain causes, unto itself. Some refer to specific geographical locations, others to concepts or attributes of Mary.

Secondly, is there any structure or order to why any given church takes on a certain name? It always strikes me that "Our Lady of Sorrows" isn't the most cheerful name for the church and school I drive by each day. (I of course understand that spreading cheer is not the primary mission of the Church.)

p.s. Should "Ark of the Covenant" really be in the list linked above? jeffjon 13:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As to the latter: it is used by some Catholics.[7][8][9]  --Lambiam 14:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha, the word "new" in Ark_of_the_Covenant#Mary_as_Ark_of_the_New_Covenant foiled my search. jeffjon 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the multiple titles is the same reason other mythological figures are given multiple titles/epithets - different people at different times will be interested in promoting different aspects of the character's personality. Check out the list forApollo - there's a guy who got around! See also Zeus and Artemis for other examples.Matt Deres 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See also 99 Names of God in the Qur'an. It is common in many Western religions to direct a prayer to a specific aspect of the prayer's object. A prayer for curing an illness of the eyes, for example might be addressed to Our Lady of Lourdes, while curing an illness of the back might be addressed to Maria de Guadalupe (these examples are made up purely for this demonstration). Steewi 00:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

personal names derived from Mary's titles

A few weeks ago (on the Language desk, i think) I raised the subject of names like Pilar, Consuelo, Concepción, Dolores which are short for Maria del Pilar etc. Yesterday I noticed the given name Nieves (Snows); I suspect that's of the same type, but what's the allusion? —Tamfang 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Dedication of Saint Mary Major? Algebraist 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Now why didn't I think of that! —Tamfang 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Washington D.C.

The page at D.C. Statehood says "D.C. Statehood is a political campaign intended to grant the District of Columbia the full privileges of a U.S. state. Such privileges include not only full voting rights in the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, but also full control over its own local affairs."

Who has control over its own local affairs currently?

24.229.119.116 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See Washington, D.C.. -- kainaw™ 13:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, thanks!24.229.119.116 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Invasion 1805

What was the propaganda response in England to the threat of of a French invasion? Qurious Cat 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Try caricatures such as Image:Buonaparte, 48 hours after landing.jpg... AnonMoos 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The public was deluged by handbills and broadsheets, some printed at government expense, detailing the horrors that would follow from a French occupation. Some of it still manages to be acutely funny; that London was to be renamed 'Bonapartopolis', and that children would be shipped across the Channel for compulsory French lessons! French, as one might say, with tears. Others were altogether more sober, detailing horrors of the past, and horrors that history would take time to nurture; "The French will fix badges upon us, mark us in the cheek, shave our heads, split our ears. and clothe us in the habits of slaves."

Newspaper circulation was still restricted because of the prohibitive cost imposed by the stamp duty, so handbills were an important source of free information, distributed to every parish in England and Wales, with broadsheet versions affixed to church doors and other public spaces. Many claimed that there was nothing to fear, because the French would 'turn tail' at the sight of 'our village boys'. Other criticised this boastfulness and the dangers of creating a mood of overconfidence. Some concentrated on the grand politics, and still others on the social issues, fearful, perhaps, that the lower classes would break ranks, seduced by the revolutionary appeal of the French. The argument that an invasion might improve the condition of the poor was dismissed in handbills with titles like "No Change for the Worse, a mistaken notion", or yet another addressed to "My poorer fellow countrymen." In these it was argued that while the rich might be the first to suffer, this would impact on trade and on wages.

Poverty, it was argued in some, would not protect against rape, another important theme. One broadside warned "...the poorest honest labourer, who has a Mother, or a Sister, a Wife, or a Daughter, has, in truth, as much reason as the highest Duke to fear invasion." The poor man was warmed that to prevent his sweetheart suffering "a common intercourse with the most brutal of mankind", he must bond with the rich, for their fates were linked.

Napoleon is usually depicted in these publications as a "mere insect, a pigmy", or as the 'Corsican usurper, which manages to convey that he was a foreigner even in his own land. One handbill warned that he was the Beast described in the Book of Revelations.

Long after the threat had receded it was still casting a shadow over the British imagination. Well into the nineteenth century mothers were prone to warn naughty children that if they did not behave Boney would come and get them. Clio the Muse 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Post revolutionary economics

how were american politics effected after the economic crisis that occured post-Revolutionary war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.254.155.240 (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You might start with Presidency_of_George_Washington#Money_and_finances and Whiskey Rebellion, or are you talking about the period under the Articles of Confederation? Corvus cornix 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Camp Siegfried

I am looking for information on Camp Siegfried which was a Nazi run camp in Yaphank, Long Island during the 1930s. More often than not, the camp receives little than a two-sentence mention in reference to the German American Bund. I have searched on the internet for info but I find few details. Here are the links I have found:

http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-hs729a,0,7169.story http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/history/index.htm

Here is the wiki link of the German American Bund. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-American_Bund As you can see it does really give much on the camp.

Pictures

http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/history/yaphank/campsiegfried.htm

I have learned that the camp was founded in 1935 and it served as the Nazi headquarters in America. I do know that there is book out that would answer most of my questions but it is fairly obscure, “Wunderlich's Salute.” I have searched through three libraries, twenty colleges and I can only find it on Amazon. The problem with that is I really don’t have the money to blow. More specifically, I would like a copy of the road map that shows Adolph Hitler Street in the township at the camp called “German Gardens”: Map 1219, Abstract 1238, Brookhaven Township, Suffolk Co, NY. I would also like to find the Horst-Wessel-Lied stanza that goes something to the effect of:

“When the Knife is red with Jewish blood

Then the German People will prosper”

Any and all help will be highly appreciated.

Future 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you live in Long Island, you should be able to get access to it at the New York Public Library (Humanities Library, the main branch with the lions). This page lets you search their collection; I did the search myself and it is available. Just be prepared to photocopy or take copious notes because you will not be able to take the book out of the building.--Pharos 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You can also take it out at the Queens Borough Public Library (central branch) and the Brooklyn Public Library (central branch) — actually it's currently taken out in Brooklyn and due back on Nov. 7. I'm giving you this on the presumption that you probably live in Long Island, and that these may be more convenient to you.--Pharos 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort but I live in the South East. That would be a bit of a drive. Future 21:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've got the solution for you. Look in WorldCat (www.worldcat.org). I did, and they have the book at the German Hist. Institute as well as the Library of Congress in DC, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Truman State University as well as Washington University Libraries in Missouri (if that counts as the South). Hopefully one of these is relatively convenient for you.--Pharos 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I can get to the book but I was kind of hoping that someone would have a link to a electronic source with the map or something along those lines. Future 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a couple of links. The stanza is here about halfway down the page. There is a fragment of a map here showing Adolph Hitler and Goering streets. I'm still looking. --Milkbreath 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The lines you're looking for seem to be: "Wenn das Judenblut vom Messer spritzt/dann geht’s noch mal so gut, so gut". However, from a brief Google search, this appears to have been not the Horst Wessel Lied, but another Nazi song. Random Nonsense 01:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of that marching song is Ihr Sturmsoldaten jung und alt, after the opening line.  --Lambiam 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey

Why was Lady Jane Grey a more "acceptable" choice as queen instead of her mother, Lady Frances Brandon? I know Edward VI's will excluded Frances, but why? Corvus cornix 17:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Corvus. This is an interesting question, requiring a mixture of both fact and surmise to answer properly. The traditional view is that the ambition and influence of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland was decisive in having the succession settled on Lady Jane Grey, his daughter-in-law. More recent scholarship has questioned this assumption, placing far greater weight on Edward himself, who was beginning to emerge from Northumberland's tutelage. We know that he was anxious to secure the Protestant settlement in the church, which of course meant excluding his obdurate and conservative sister Princess Mary from her legitimate place in the succession. So, why not Frances or Princess Elizabeth, both of whom would have served the same Protestant purpose? The answer would seem to be that the first was too old and the second too young. More crucially, Elizabeth, unlike Jane, was unmarried. The fact that Jane was married to Guilford Dudley has led to the assumption that her place in the succession was no more than a way of perpetuating Northumberland's influence. However, all of the direct evidence suggests that the 'Device', the instrument of succession, was the work of Edward himself. He certainly used his authority to have it accepted by the Privy Council.

By this document the succession had originally been settled on any son who might be born to Frances and her husband, Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk. That had been set down before it was known just how desperately ill the king was, indicating a settled intention to elevate the Suffolk line before the question of Jane's own claim arose. But it seems that, in view of her age, the conclusion was reached that Frances was no longer capable of bearing a son, because all reference to her and her heirs male was subsequently removed. Not long aftrer the marriage of Jane to Dudley the succession was directed instead to the 'heirs male of the Lady Jane', clearly based on the assumption that time was not of immediate concern. But when the document was presented to the law officers three weeks later the wording was altered to read 'the Lady Jane and her heirs male'. Why the sudden amendment? The only conceivable answer is that the king's health was deteriorating rapidly, which meant putting Jane in the direct line of succession, rather than waiting for the birth of a possible son.

So, that's it. I can give you some references if you wish. Clio the Muse 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be great. Thank you, Clio. Corvus cornix 02:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As you wish, dear sir! I would suggest, depending how serious you are, Literary Remains of Edward VI ed. by J. G. Nichols (Roxburgh Club, 1857); Edward VI: The Threshold of Power by W. K. Jordan (London, 1970); Mary Tudor: A Life by D. Loades (Oxford, England and Cambridge, Massachusets, 1989); Edward VI; The Changing Picture by M. Christmas in History Review, March 1997. Clio the Muse 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Corvus cornix 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maximal distance between two places visited by one person : who broke what record?

Hello,

consider a certain person X, and all places he or she visited in his lifetime (places NOT on earth, outer space, the moon,... don't count) Take the maximal distance between two places (so that's at most 21000 kilometers) and let that be the "distance covered by person X".

Now is anything known about who might have broken what record?

People who pop up in my mind are Persian warriors, Chinese rulers, Alexander the Great, Roman messengers, Mongol warriors,....

Thank you, Evilbu 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, lots of people have been to the antipodes and they're almost all modern commercial airline passengers, I imagine (any New Zealander who's go on holiday in Spain, or vice versa). Nominally, the Apollo 13 astronauts traveled the farthest from home, though as the article explains it's not entirely clear they actually did go fatrther than the other Apollo missions.--Pharos 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Even excluding outer space (I think that's what you mean, but it reads like you're excluding the Earth as well), I can't see how anyone from the ancient world is going to surpass even a relatively trivial modern business traveler. Take any of the modern explorers who have visited both poles and the only room to surpass that mark relates to the equatorial bulge of the Earth. There are comparatively few antipodes for which one member of the pair isn't open ocean, it's highly likely that somebody has determined what antipodes are the most separated (presumably those on the equator), and some rich guy has surely visited them. The chances of any ancient Chinese, Persian, Roman, et al, doing the same is utterly negligible. — Lomn 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, this site makes it easy to play around with antipodes. The only major land antipodes on the equator appear to be in Indonesia with their opposites in South America. --Sean 18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't very clear! Of course I know that right now it is much easier, but my question is : who marked what milestones? Who could have been the first person to reach 10,000 kilometers? Or 5000?Evilbu 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The unknown-to-history first settlers of Madagascar made a trip of over well over 5,000 km, likely in a single person's lifetime, 1500+ years ago.--Pharos 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Until the middle ages, the farthest-travelling individuals were unlikely to have had their exploits recorded in texts which have survived to the present. According to some, Herodotus may have travelled as far north as a little ways up the Don river, and as far south as the Egyptian city of Thebes. Herodotus also recounts the story of a Phoenician ship which allegedly circumnavigated Africa. Alexander the great and many soldiers in his army travelled as far west as areas in current-day Serbia and as far east as beyond the Indus river... AnonMoos 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Phoenicians that Necho II probably sent around Africa traveled about 7750 km from home in the 6th century BC. If the account is true, that would almost certainly be the record up to that time.--Pharos 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Walking is a vastly under-appreciated method of travel. Pick any two points on the earth's surface that can be connected by a land route: You have no way to prove that at least one prehistoric individual did or did not visit both points. A determined explorer can average ten miles a day even in what we think of as harsh conditions: look at the Inuit as an example. At ten miles a day, you need 1250 days (less than four years) to traverse the distance between antipodal points. Double that for non-straight-line travel, and double it again for stops along the way, and you still have less than 14 years. Start at age 15, end at age 29, and you have a pre-Inuit in Terra del Fuego or a pre-Hottentot in Kamchatka. We have many historical examples of large distances covered by walking and prehistoric-level technology: John Rae, Lewis and Clark, and John Muir spring to mind. -Arch dude 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think Ibn Battuta set some sort of record for distance travelled. Adam Bishop 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

Hafiz-e Shirazi

Tell me persian (original) of these two hafez poems:

1.My Brilliant Image

One day the sun admitted I am just a shadow.

I wish I could show you The Infinite Incandescence That has cast my brilliant image!

I wish I could show you When you are lonely or in darkness

The Astonishing Light Of your own Being!

2.The Sun Never Says

Even after all these years, the Sun never says to the Earth "You owe Me."

Look what happens with a Love like that, It lights the whole sky.Flakture 20:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This question would do better on the Language Desk. In the mean time, we have an article for Hāfez-e Šīrāzī which has a surprising number of parallel texts. Xn4 03:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fuller and the Red Army

To what extent did the the ideas of J F C Fuller influence the Red Army? 86.151.241.224 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

According to our article, Fuller's 'blitzkrieg' ideas had little direct influence on the Red Army, which developed its own doctrine of deep operations. Of course, the success of blitzkrieg as practiced by Germany was a major influence on the thinking of the Red Army, although apparently the extent to which Heinz Guderian was influenced by Fuller is subject to debate. I can't speak personally for the accuracy of this. Algebraist 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He was an important influence on the thinking of Mikhail Tukhachevsky, who did much to disseminate Fuller's ideas on mechanised warfare among the Soviet officer corps in the early 1930s. It was under his sponsorsip that a Russian language edition of The Reformation of War was published in Moscow in 1931. In his foreword to the book Tukhachevsky wrote "Fuller's great merit is that he does not just study past experiences but, by keeping track of technological advance, endevours to indicate a direction for the structure and equipment of land forces as a result of which future war might take new, more effective forms." A brilliant soldier in his own right, Tukhachevsky dismissed Fuller's more theoretical speculations, instructing his brother officers to concentrate instead on his ideas about attacking the enemy throughout his depth, which "must undoubtedly result in more intensive manoeuvre and more decisive tactical action." Clio the Muse 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Laverne? Jerrold Laverne?

What is the correct spelling of this R&B artist's name? Wiwaxia 21:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Gerald Levert? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you so so much! Is he saying "whxxps" or "once" in that "DJ Don't" song? (found the title.) Wiwaxia 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Enlish word that means "sound of tires on a wet road"?

Someone I know has told me that her late grandfather, who was an English professor, taught her a word that means "the sound tires make on a wet road" or "the sound tires make on a road in the rain". She can't remember anything else about the word. I've searched the full text of the Oxford English Dictionary, using a database my library provides, but found no likely matches. Any help is appreciated, whether it be the answer or some tips to further my search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.61.11 (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Um, The Sound of Changing Places? Or is that reference too obscure? --M@rēino 22:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thrum. Drone. Whirr. --Milkbreath 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Swoosh. Marco polo 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Screech? Although that's probably more the "sound of tyres suddenly braking on a wet road". Hammer Raccoon 13:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What is controversial about the book 'How the Mind Works'?

I have recently read this book, by Steven Pinker. Its the best book ive ever read- i cant praise it highly enough, and i now idolise Pinker. I says on the blurb that it has been considered controversial by some people. What exactly is their problem with it? He disses behaviouralism, and certain thinking in the social sciences, but what specifically is peoples beef with him? Not sure if this is the appropriate desk to ask this question on, but it is literature. Has anyone else read it by any chance? Is there a website where you can discuss what you thought of a book? Sorry if this is innapropriate but i implore everyone to read it immediately. Willy turner 23:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Try Amazon.com - book reviews. - Kittybrewster ☎ 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The page you want at amazon.com is here. Xn4 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Pinker is especially willing, if I recall correctly, to say that current theories about how the mind works should be used to govern how people view their world, including on a social level. It is usually controversial when any scientist attempts to colonize other domains (especially the social) with their personal interpretations of theories, whether they be cognitive science, Darwinism, etc. Pinker also weighs very heavily towards the emphasis on "nature" in the nature/nurture debate, and while he definitely is known for this more in his other books (e.g. The Blank Slate), if I recall (it has been years since I read How the Mind Works) in that book he touches on that as well. Additionally he somewhat caricatures theories of others, e.g. his attack on Behaviorism and the social sciences does not really correspond with how either would self-describe their theories, but that sort of objection is to be expected, I suppose. --24.147.86.187 02:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I can't think of any scientist who prominently engages the general readership who is *not* controversial. Maybe Stephen Hawking, but only because no one's worldview depends on the behavior of black holes. --Sean 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

November 1

What are the findings of studies investigating correlation between a persons perceived attractivness and the wealth of their parents?

I would assume that people with wealthier parents are considered more attractive, because either of their wealthy parents would be more likely to have married/had sex with a more attractive than average person. Pinker says theres no greater predictor of a womans attractivness than the wealth of her husband. And anyone whos been to university and noticed that the woman are definatley more attractive than average (being the children of richer than average parents) will see the truth in this. (children of richer parents having higher educational attainment) So is my thinking correct? Willy turner 00:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

One factor I'd take into account: wealthier people are able to pay for better medical/dental care, as well as better quality food and the like. They can also spend more on make-up and clothing, which, as you undoubtedly know, can do a whole lot. Random Nonsense 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A cynical novelist (I think it was a novelist) said "We don't fall in love with a person, but with their money". I can't trace the source of that, but I can't say it doesn't have a grain of truth in it. In George Orwell's Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Gordon Comstock says "A woman hates the sight of you if you’ve got no money... No woman ever judges a man by anything except his income. Of course she doesn’t put it to herself like that. She says he’s SUCH A NICE man—meaning that he’s got plenty of money. And if you haven’t got money you aren’t NICE. You’re dishonoured, somehow. You’ve sinned." Comstock's rich friend Ravelston replies "I think that’s putting it a little too strongly. Things aren’t so crude as all that." Xn4 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• A counterexample is that people in wealthy countries are more likely to be obese, and that's not too pretty. --Sean 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A countercounterexample is that the wealthy in wealthy countries are less likely to be obese, due to better opportunities for exercise, better diet, and less consumption of cheap sugar- and fat-filled foods. Marco polo 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Planchet?

Is it true that there was a person named Planchet, who used supplies the court with various produce and delicacies and former servant of D'Artagnan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.239 (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Planchet was fictional. Xn4 02:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

English ambassadors to France

Did King Louis XIV have any English ambassadors to his court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.239 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so many as he had mistresses. The ambassadors included Ralph Montagu. Xn4 02:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Neat! Clio the Muse 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Le Conte de Guiche

Was there a person named Le Conte de Guiche, a member of high nobility living at Versailles and ex-lover of another fictional person named madame la Duchesse de Chevreuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.239 (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See Armand de Gramont, comte de Guiche. His father Antoine III de Gramont was another comte de Guiche. There was also a real Marie de Rohan-Montbazon, duchesse de Chevreuse. Xn4 02:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mademoiselle de La Valleire

She was young lady member of lesser nobility living at Versailles, previously a member of Moliere's theater company. A ture person in history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.239 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a true person. Louise de La Vallière was one of the many mistresses of King Louis XIV. Xn4 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Information about Amy Bjork Harris, Co author of Staying OK

Respected Sir,

I have searched the net but could not find information about the life of Amy Bjork Harris, coauthor of STAYING OK. Only information about the life of Thomas A Harris, co author of Staying OK is available.

Kindly put the information on the life of Amy Bjork Harris on Net.

Thanks & Regards Ritu Singh 05:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. If Amy is not notable enough to have anything about her on the Net already, she is not notable enough for Wikipedia. See WP:NN. But if you find anything out, do let us know.--Respected Sir 08:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis More' pronounced -MORAY

I asked for help with this search once before ,recieved some suggestions ,followed them up but to no avail.Some time around 93' or 94 I walked into an artists studio on South Beach,Fl., of a then 21-23 year old (+or-) artist.On the walls and in his brochures were reviews and articles of him and his work. He was reputed to be a master on the level of Michelangelo and others of that leveland in fact there a couple of articles which spoke about him even being the reincarnation of Michelangelo which he did not care for as everyone likes to be known for their own works and so on. He had works in his studio from different artistic mediums,oils, watercolors pen and ink I think and sculpture.There was a sculpture titled " Jesu Cristo de la Roca". There was also an oil painting of Lorenzo de Medici in armor but not wearing a helmet and with about a three day beard. All of his work was magnificent in my perception .I am interested in finding out anything I can about this artist. I've done web searches, google searches , all the web searches and everything I know of to find any info on him or his work and can't find anything.Any help you could lend would be greatly appreciated. jcord8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.0.73 (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal income

What was the average personal income in the US in the 1880s, 1900, 910s, 1920s, and 1930s? Thanks! --S.dedalus 06:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The US government did not begin collecting data on income until the late 1920s, so your question is difficult to answer. The U.S. Census's Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 mentions the pioneering work of Charles Spahr (Charles B. Spahr, The Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States, 1896), estimating incomes as of 1891. According to Spahr, the average family income in 1891, at a time when most Americans were farm workers living partly by subsistence, was about $380 in 1891 terms. The same source refers to work by Willford King (e.g. Wealth and Income of the People of the United States, 1915) on incomes during the first two decades of the 20th century. The census's historical reference (cited above) cites a mean household income in 1935-36 of $1,631 in 1936 terms. Marco polo 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tudor solutions to the problem of vagrancy

Good morning. I heed some background please of Tudor approaches to the problems of poverty and vagrancy. Thank you for your help. 217.43.15.118 09:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You might start with Elizabethan Poor Law (1601). Marco polo 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient grudge

Here in Britain we have longstanding enmities with the Spanish (the Armada), the Germans (the phrase "Two World Wars and one World Cup" springs to mind) and the French (more wars than I can begin to enumerate). But as far as I can recall, there is no particular rivalry with the Italians, beyond their shortlived dalliance with the Axis in World War II. Is there any reason for this? 80.254.147.52 10:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We've probably forgiven them for the little unpleasantnesses involving Julius Caesar and Claudius, because they produce some very nice ice cream. Funny how we've also forgiven the Danes and Norwegians, and more recently the Dutch who made a habit of thrashing the navy. -- Arwel (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we really still hold a grudge against the Spanish about the Armada? And anyone who uses the phrase "Two World Wars and one World Cup" is an idiot (this is not directed at the OP). Besides, the Germans have three World Cups... Hammer Raccoon 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about the Spanish, actually. But they were always painted as "bad hats" in the traditional 1066 and All That approach to history, whereas the Italians never were.

Amazingly, I have discovered there is an article on Two World Wars, One World Cup (which makes much the same point about the Germans' superiority on the football pitch); Wikipedia really does have articles on the strangest things. 80.254.147.52 14:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody hate the Italians? They seem pretty good at not developing hate-ships (vs. friendship). Wrad 15:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The French? Hammer Raccoon 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. I mean besides soccer. :) Wrad 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ethiopians? Rmhermen 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Good point. The Ethiopians, Somalians, and Libyans probably have good reason. Wrad 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the question in hand, the reason we have a grudge with the Germans is because of our very direct conflicts in the past century. As for the French, you mention yourself the sheer volume of our wars with each other. The fact that we are neighbours (familiarity breeds contempt) doesn't help either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but besides from World War Two, we haven't had much military engagement with the Italians since Roman times. I really do think it is as simple as that. And don't discount the impact the football... "Two World Wars and One World Cup" probably sums up our two reasons for holding grudges against anyone. Our rivalry with the Argentinians is half Falklands War, half Hand of God. Or maybe that's just me. Hammer Raccoon 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It may simply be a matter of, "What have you done for (to?) me lately?" Compare the relationships of the U.S. with the U.S.S.R./Russia and China pre-, during and post-WW II. — Michael J 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad trouble between the Germans and the British was a 20th century phenomenon, driven by the rivalries which began to develop between the two of us in the late 19th century. If the Germans have an old enemy (Erbfeind), then it isn't the English or the British. I think the point about the Italians is that during the Middle Ages, and well into the modern period, Italy itself was divided between various empires and kingdoms and the Papal States. While we (the English) fought some of those from time to time, let's face it, who haven't we fought? There was, of course, tremendous fear in England (and in some other parts of what became the UK) of Roman Catholicism in general and of the Pope, who was almost invariably Italian and was usually portrayed as devilishly wily. The affair of the Popish Plot gives us some flavour of that. But while most of the British were hostile to Popery, that wasn't identified specifically with Italy and the Italians. In any event, there was no united Italy for us to see as even a potential foe until 1861, after the Risorgimento, and there was generally goodwill towards the new Italy. After beginning the First World War as a neutral country, Italy came down on the Allied side, so the British only ever fought the united Italy for less than four years during the Second World War. We failed ever to see it as a permanent enemy, no doubt greatly helped by Italy's changing sides during the War and ending it as one of the Allied Powers. Luckily for Anglo-Italian relations, during the Falklands War of 1982 the penny failed to drop with the British at large that Argentina is a country of largely Italian blood, and that most of the Italians were seeing the Argentinian point of view at least as well as that of the British. For the English, the only true «ennemi héréditaire» is France, that continental spider which has so often maddened and baffled us, but which remains our home from home. Xn4 00:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for my potential misunderstanding, but my impression, from over here across The Pond, is that while the English and French have their long-standing animosity and a history of war (now mostly quite in the past), there is also a strong tradition of interaction and bonding -- that it has been common for English people to speak French to some degree -- and that while the two nations have had old disagreements and conflicts, there is an extremely strong relationship and understanding between the two. As I understand it, even during the Napoleonic era there was a fairly thriving interaction between Engand and France, at least in, for example, the scientific community. No? Pfly 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"France... which remains our home from home" was meant to be shorthand for most of that. On the whole, the English and the French like each other's style, and the French and the Scottish get on even better. Many French things are chic in the UK, while the best British things are très snob in France. We don't, I'd say, understand each other very well, it takes some effort, and real political rivalries cause real tensions. The British, for obvious reasons, aren't so good at foreign languages as other Europeans are, while many of the French resent the progress of English as the European lingua franca, at the expense of French. So the two like each other more when an effort is made to speak the other's language. Xn4 06:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why PicaSSo and not PicaSo?

SS is rather uncommon in Spain, why was the name of Picasso not Picaso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.94.120 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, the name Picasso is of Italian origin. Marco polo 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As, indeed, it says at Picasso (disambiguation).

This says his mother, Doña María Picasso y López was "from Andalusia and of Arabic descent". Presuambly "Picasso" was her father's (first) surname, and he was ultimately of Italian descent? I wonder where the Arabs come into it... -- !! ?? 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Arabs from Al-Andalus presumably. DuncanHill 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, although the Reconquista was getting on for 400 years earlier. -- !! ?? 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that Picasso's father's surname was Ruiz, and the galleries of the world would all have paintings by "Pablo Ruiz" had he not chosen to use his mother's name Picasso. Our article doesn't explain why he did that. -- JackofOz 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He isn't alone, thousands of artists, writers, musicians, and performers of all kinds have preferred distinctive names to dull ones. Ruiz is a very humdrum Spanish name, while Picasso has more about it. Just think of the ballet dancer Margot Fonteyn, who began life as Peggy Hookham. Picasso at least used a name which was his. Xn4 01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not unusual that a name or surname will continue an older spelling (for example 'ss' or 'ç'), long after it has been abandoned in general language. It also may be from an Andalusian dialect spelling. Steewi 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bicasso they wanted to be different? Clarityfiend 05:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Spencer Perceval

Spencer Perceval was the only British prime minister to be assissinated. If he is memorable it is for that and nothing else. Is there any reason why he should be the forgotten prime minister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.103.55 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby was "the forgotten prime minister". But I may not have remembered that correctly... 80.254.147.52 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Bonar Law the Unknown Prime Minister? DuncanHill 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is he not remembered? For the simple reason that he was a not very memorable man, heading a not very memorable ministry at a not very memorable time. I can think of no better assessment of his premiership than that of Joyce Marlow, who said that his chief achievment was to survive as long as he did, passing a much stronger political inheritance to Lord Liverpool (Spencer Preceval, in H. V. Thal ed. The Prime Ministers, vol. 1, 1974). Clio the Muse 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Second and Third

What elements of German history during the Second Reich foreshadowed the Third? Thanks. Bryson Bill 14:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This rather sweeping question begs for an essay from Clio, if she is still gracing the desk. As a stopgap, here is a modest response. The Third Reich self-consciously aimed to appropriate the traditions of the two earlier Reichs, as its very name suggests. The Nazis believed that the democratic interlude of the Weimar Republic was an aberration from German traditions of paternalistic autocracy, which the Nazis wished to restore. Obviously, the Second and Third Reichs shared an autocratic structure, more extreme in the case of the Third Reich. They both also rested to a fair extent on the political support of conservative plutocrats, both agrarian and industrial. While Jews actually made social advances during the Second Reich due in part to a strain of economic liberalism, the Second Reich also maintained the old German (Christian) tradition of anti-Semitism, and it was during the Second Reich that Germans began to embrace the scientific racism that later formed a basis for the Nazi party's tragic racist ideology. The culture of the Second Reich, like that of the Third Reich, was strongly militarist and imperialist.

Having drawn these parallels, however, I don't think that one can say that German history during the Second Reich really "foreshadowed" that of the Third Reich. Nothing in the Second Reich pointed inevitably toward the emergence of the Third Reich. On the contrary, the history of the Second Reich was one of gradual liberalization and the emergence of a strong socialist working-class movement. Marco polo 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

She graces, Marco; she graces! Also I have to say that I quite like your 'stopgap' and 'modest' response (ever so 'umble!), so much so that I really have not that much to add.

I am at present reading, amongst other things, France the Dark Years, 1940-1944, Julian Jackson's impressive study of Vichy and the German occupation. The author devotes over a hundred pages at the beginning of the book to explaining the pre-history of Vichy: to uncovering the trends in French history that lead to that particular political outcome. But then, like a magician, he conjurs it all away, by quite rightly pointing out that none of the patterns he has identified would have had any significance but for the French defeat in 1940.

So it is, too, with the Second Reich. In 1918, with the corpse on the table, the tempation is to look at the entrails for auguries of things to come. Yes, there are signs that point to a particular future, but there are just as many signs to suggest that things could have gone in a quite different direction. Beware of teleology; beware always of the Shirer school of history, reading backwards from consequences to causes. I personally always stress Arnold Toynbee's maxim for those setting out on historical investigation: avoid the trap built into all recorded history, the possible disproportionate over-emphasis imposed by future developments which were unknowable to those living through the period itself. There was no Sonderweg. There is little in the Second Reich that foretells Hitler. The old Fisher Thesis, motivated more by ideology than scholarship, is giving way to a far more nuanced approach; that a pluralistic and democratic society was beginning to emerge from under the cloak of Junker militarism. Hitler was not inevitable; he was born out of defeat, of a loss of historical direction. Clio the Muse 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

statute of limitations

What is the statute of limitations for child endangerment in Kansas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J69ss (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rosina Bulwer-Lytton

I see from the page on Edward Bulwer-Lytton that his wife, Rosina, seems to have been declared insane for public denunciations of her husband. What's the story here?81.156.5.250 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rosina and Bulwer-Lytton suffered a long and acrimonious break down in their marriage, both accusing the other of adultery. They separated in 1836, and in 1839 she published a book, Cheveley, or the Man of Honour, which included an obnoxious character based on her husband. Looking for evidence against her of adultery, Bulwer had Rosina followed. Eventually, in 1858, she went to a political meeting and accused her husband of cruelty and of adultery. Bulwer was able to get Rosina committed to a private asylum as insane, but after a few weeks she was released, following an inquiry by the Commissioners in Lunacy. Bulwer and his friends went on accusing Rosina of being crazy, melodramatic, a publicity-seeker and a drunk, all making every effort to discredit her. Bulwer even accused Rosina's mother, Anna Doyle Wheeler, who was an early feminist, of being mad, too. In 1880, after Bulwer's death, Rosina wrote a book about it all called A Blighted Life: a True Story. For more on this, see A Blighted Marriage: The Life of Rosina Bulwer Lytton, Irish beauty, satirist and tormented Victorian wife, 1802-1882 by David Lytton Cobbold. Xn4 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Her release from confinement was prompted, in the first instance, by public outcry. Bulwer-Lytton coined the phrase 'the pen is mighter than the sword'. It was Rosina who proved this to be true! Clio the Muse 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychology

What is the name of the psychological condition or cause whereby a bitch turns upon one of her litter, thinking that it is somehow not a properly-fitting part of the group, and kills it? – 91.104.6.104 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The behavior is described in the article Infanticide (zoology) (filial maternal infanticide), but I don't know what the animal-psychological condition causing it is called. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hy Little - Lancaster

I am looking for any information you might have on a , Hy Little. I have a vintage clock with the name of, Hy Little , Lancaster. Wondering if he was a clock maker in Lancaster England. Thank you for your help. Please R.S.V.P. == <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.118.45 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine the Hy means Henry, if so there was a jeweller's shop in Lancaster called "Henry Little's" which is now closed (gets a mention in [10]) Foxhill 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "war"

Why do we have the concept of "war" as something separate?

Why don't we treat an invading army more or less the same as we would treat any band of thugs doing similar damage?

How can there be such a thing as a "war crime"? Isn't war a crime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.129.15 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Without turning the reference desk into a soapbox, you may be interested in the concept of just war. — Lomn 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not stepping on the soapbox either, but you might also be interested in number VI of the Nuremberg Principles which addresses the criminality of war under its first item, Crimes against peace, before War crimes:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

---Sluzzelin talk 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, without also soapboxing, you might be also interested in reading casus belli. Azi Like a Fox 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey 207.210.129.15, that sounds like Petroleum V. Nasby's "solution" to the civil war -- if a member of Robert E. Lee's army shot at someone near Gettysburg, then the proper way to seek a remedy was to bring a lawsuit in the courts of Pennsylvania against the specific individual who fired that one particular shot. Doing anything more to oppose Lee's soldiers would be blatant warmongering, according to Nasby... AnonMoos 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

France-Russia

How was the relationship like between France and Russia in the 17th Century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.187 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There was not much of a relationship between the two. Each was outside of the other's sphere of territorial interest. Russia was seen in western Europe as a remote and exotic land. However, during the 17th century, Russia was engaged in hostilities with two French allies: Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, French rulers and diplomats would likely have been somewhat antagonistic toward Russia. Marco polo 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

L'Abbe Tramblay

Was there a person named L'Abbe Tramblay, who was a Jesuit member of the clergy, now assistant to the Bishop of Notre Dame in Paris but formerly a musketeer friend of D'Artagnan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.187 (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This Tramblay is also fictional, but there's a French name which is almost always spelt 'Tremblay', and I've found several Abbés Tremblay since the 17th century. Xn4 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2

George Bush speech and history

George Bush recently said the following (which had been attacked by Hillary Clinton), and I was wondering to what extent this is true: "History teaches that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin, as he laid out his plans to launch a Communist revolution in Russia — and the world paid a terrible price. In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler, as he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany, take revenge on Europe, and eradicate the Jews — and the world paid a terrible price," Bush continued. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is: Will we listen?" [11] I was wondering how much is correct and how much is wrong, as I (perhaps incorrectly) thought a) It would not have been possible, nor especially desireable, for major powers in 1917 to interfere in the Communist revolution in Russia in any way from the outside. b) Hitler never announced any of the above in the 1920s. How much of Bush´s speech is historically accurate, and is the analogy fair anyway? Thank you. --AlexSuricata 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all hyperbole, Alex, with no relationship at all to real history. As late as the winter of 1916/1917, the very threshold of the events that brought the fall of the Tsar, Lenin was of the belief that there would be no revolution in his lifetime. Besides, what was the Bush-minded reader of, say, What is to be Done? or Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism to do; go and kill the author? Hitler, moreover, made no such statements in the 1920s; it would have been altogether too obvious. Mr Bush clearly needs a better class of speech writer, or a better class of historian! Incidentially, the Allied powers did make some attempt to overturn the Bolsheviks, with not very impressive results. Clio the Muse 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Were the Carribean people part of the Black Mafia? Black gangsters or just African Americans?

--arab 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, arab. Could you clarify? "Black Mafia"/"gangsters" and African Americans aren't mutually exclusive categories. Which Caribbean people are you talking about? Wikipedia has articles on Bahamian American, Cuban American, Dominican American, Haitian American, Jamaican American, and Puerto Ricans in the United States, as well as articles on African-American organized crime and Black Mafia with further links you might be interested in reading. There's also Category:African American mobsters. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The questioner has edited such articles in the past,[12] with an understanding of the issues that is commensurate with that displayed in the above question. I hope he will not expand his scope of activities to even more articles.  --Lambiam 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Government Bonds and Interest Rates

Hello. How do interest rates (prime lending rates and overnight lending rates) affect government bonds? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 03:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, treasury security bonds (commonly just called savings bonds) have a fixed interest rate. I do not know of one with a variable interest rate. While the interest rate is fixed once you purchase the bond, the interest rates go up and down depending on the Federal interest rate. Since the maturity is usually a very long time (30 years), it spans the ups and downs of the normal economy and the fluctuating interest rate has little effect. I have no idea about government bonds in other countries. -- kainaw™ 03:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

US Government bills (short-term), notes (intermediate-term) and bonds (long-term) are auctioned. Bills are auctioned at a discount, i. e. bid USD9900 for a note worth $10,000 at maturity of 90 days = 4.04% per (360-day) year (100/9900 x 4). So the rates are determined by the bids in the financial markets. The stated rate of the longer-term notes and bonds is based on estimated market rates to sell the desired quantity of bonds, but at the auction, bids may still be higher or lower. E. g., 10-year note at 5.00%. The bidders may pay more than face value, resulting in a true yield of less than 5%, or pay less than face value, resulting in a true yield of more than 5% (because full face value is paid at maturity). So, in effect, the yields are determined by conditions in the financial markets at the time of issuance. (Global financial markets, as US Govt. securities are bought in many other nations.)

Those who wish to sell an existing bond before maturity will find the sales price determined by the same factors.

Short-term obligations tend to move very closely with short-term rates such as the prime rate and Federal funds rate. Longer-term obligations may move more slowly, influenced more by perceptions about the long-term prospects for inflation, etc. Unimaginative Username 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Short story about the study of logic versus love

We read a short story in high school (more years ago than one cares to remember cough) about a young man taking his first course in logic, who forces his new knowledge on the lady of his interest. Later, he makes his plea for her affections, but in each of his pleas, she finds a logical fallacy (Argument from ignorance, appeal to pity, etc.), because of what he has taught her. Can't for the life of me remember the story's name or author. Does anyone else know the name, author, where to find it, etc.? Thanks, Unimaginative Username 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

meaning of a name in latin

What is the meaning of the name "mundi universitate" which is a book by Bernard of Tours, the philosopher. 78.109.196.169 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It should mean "University of the World". Steewi 06:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Also I believe it is a large volume of books, not unlike an encyclopedia, unless I am thinking of something else. Dureo 06:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The title is missing a word, "de", which puts "universitas" in the ablative. For Bernard "universitas" probably doesn't mean a university yet, and given the nature of the author and the book, it probably means "wholeness" or "completeness", or "about the world as a whole" since the two parts of the book are the Megacosmus and the Microcosmus. Unfortunately I don't think there is a standard translation of the title in English, it is always just referred to as the "Megacosmus". Adam Bishop 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Finance

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this but here goes: Has any (publicly traded) company lost 70% of its share price and not defaulted on its (long term) debt? What about 60% or 50%? Any country and any time period. Zain Ebrahim 09:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Lots of companies did that when the market crashed in the 1970s. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I just read Stock market crash of 1973–4 but there was no reference to defaults or debt. Could you please provide with me a reference or an example?Zain Ebrahim 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Elected kings

In 1776 Americans began a war against George III, allegedly a 'tyrant' in their view. Would it be true to say that they end by creating their own tyranny in the form of the Presidency, far more enduring than that of the British kings? 86.147.185.218 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because Presidents have to be elected. Kings don't have to stand for election, so the term "elected kings" is meaningless. Lurker (said · done) 11:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxes for international traveller

If you live more than 183 days in one country, you have to pay taxes there. But what if you live between three countries about 120 days in each? Can people escape the claws of goverment taxes this way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.66.241 (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you get 183 days from. The law will vary considerably from one country to another. Also there are several different kinds of tax, some of which apply immediately to everyyone, regardless of how long they are in the country.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, the question refers only to income taxes. But, why would someone pay taxes in a country if he is only a couple of days there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.66.241 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

operation thunderbolt

What was operation thunderbolt? something to do with the eastern front in the first world war i think.