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 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)

That sounds like something that Joachim de Fiore or Ramon Lull might have been interested in, but it's quite remote from most modern trends of thought... AnonMoos 19:58, 2 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)

"Single login" has been promised for about a year now, but never seems to arrive... AnonMoos 19:58, 2 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.[1][2][3]  --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)

Interestingly, there's also a "Nuestra Senora de las Nieves" church in Oaxaca, Mexico; it refers to a different event (a miraculous snowfall that saved travelers in those mountains from thirst). Vultur 16:32, 3 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)

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=yaphank&ie=UTF8&ll=40.845867,-72.941709&spn=0.006566,0.01134&t=h&z=17 seems to be the current location. hilter street is now park blvd

A student at Harvard in the 1990s wrote an undergraduate thesis about Camp Siegfried that contains information from Marvin Miller's book as well as hundreds of other sources. A copy is on file in the Harvard University Library in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Good luck!

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)

Pytheas is another good candidate for early record holder, having visited far enough south to see the sun in the Northern sky, and Iceland. If it was only Norway he discovered, it might not be quite a record for that time, but it might be.209.244.30.221 12:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

You might have better luck if you posted this question on the Language Ref Desk. -- JackofOz 22:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Siss. Hum. Swoosh. Will you know it when you see it, or are you saying that there is a word whose definition is exactly that? --Milkbreath 23:21, 2 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)

You might also try looking at volumes 2 and 3 of Historical statistics of the United States : earliest times to the present (ISBN 0521817919). It's similar to Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, but it's newer and it's much larger. You may find data in it that wasn't included in the older Census book. RedPen 22:19, 6 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)

The first anti-vagrant statute was passed by Parliament in 1495 during the reign of Henry VII. Officials were ordered to seize "all such vagabonds, idle and suspected persons living suspiciously and then so taken to set in stocks, there to remain for the space of three days and three nights and there to have none other sustenance but bread and water, and after the said three days and nights, to be had out and set at large and then be commanded to avoid the town." Definitely no ASBOs! Clio the Muse 03:24, 3 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)

Oh yes, I'm very well aware of the alternative names that many celebrities have adopted. I was just commenting that our article makes no note of the fact that he adopted a name other than his father's, or when and precisely why he did this. Maybe someone who has the facts and a citation can update it. -- JackofOz 21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just to put to rest a myth about Fonteyn. She was registered as Margaret Hookham, but was generally called "Peggy" by her family. -- JackofOz 22:02, 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)

Surely, Clio, you do not grace but rather muse? Algebraist 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I both muse and grace! Clio the Muse 23:26, 3 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)

This has had a latter-day resurgence on toilet walls as "the penis is mightier than the sword". -- JackofOz 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A contention that no male, I suspect, will ever care to put to the test! Clio the Muse 01:47, 3 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 [4]) 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)

Why did French become the de facto language of the aristocracy in Russia? Corvus cornix 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the language of the educated elite-the international language-throughout Europe at the time, Corvus. And remember that as the Empire expanded in the days of Peter the Great a lot of the nobles were not Russian at all. Indeed, a great many of them were of German origin. Clio the Muse 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But even in the time of War and Peace, in the Napoleonic Era, the aristocracy spoke French to each other. Corvus cornix 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they did. Also remember that Catherine the Great spoke French, and undoubtedly German, but very little Russian. But then, she had virtually no Russian blood, and certainly no Russian heritage. She was Prussian, and she only came to the throne via a coup while her husband Peter III was away. Being merely a tsar's consort, she had as much right to the throne as the humblest serf, i.e. zero. -- JackofOz 01:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it was still the language of the educated elite, not just in Russia. Frederick the Great, for example, preferred to speak French. Right into the twentieth century French remained the language of diplomacy. There is an amusing story connected with this. When Joachim von Ribbentrop was ambassador in London, generally a disastrous period of his career, he decided that he would stop using French, instructing his staff to issue invitations to diplomatic functions in German. So back the replies came from all of the other embassies and legations: in Turkish, in Arabic, in Serbo-Croat in Chinese and so on and so on. The embassy spent days in translations! Clio the Muse 02:36, 4 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)

The most famous one being François Leclerc du Tremblay, the origin of the term "eminence grise". -- JackofOz 21:50, 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?" [5] 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)

Mein Kampf was published in 1925-6... AnonMoos 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so it was. I assume that observation is offered in support of the Bush perspective; but such a spin would demand a retrospective reading from the heights of 1945. Now, a contemporary reading would suggest that there was at least one man who took the first part of the Presidential message seriously: that Communism was a danger. Not just that, but here was a man who was not complacent, and was just as anxious to tackle the 'Axis of Evil' as good old Dubya. As for listening to Bin Ladin's words, well, Bush listened so hard that he invaded a country actively hostile to the message, whatever other sins it may have been guilty of. Those who live by rhetorical banalities die by rhetorical banalities. Clio the Muse 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Assume for a moment that Bush was 100% accurate about his examples of "evil words." The result is a retrospective analysis with extreme selection bias. There have been millions of people spouting evil words and being ignored, Almost all of them go no further than words. There have also been millions of people spouting "good" words and being ignored. A few of them have gone on to do horrific evil. By Bush's logic, the world would be a better place if we pre-emptively shot all of these people who speak evil or good. -Arch dude 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Hitler and Lenin were of minor prominence compared to Bin Laden today. The analogy is ridiculous. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:22, 3 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 Americans, 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,[6] 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)

I remember it being about a 1940's college student and the fatal raccoon-skin coat (a revival of a 1920's fad). Google searching turns up "Love is a Fallacy" by Max Shulman (e.g. [7]). AnonMoos 17:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

YESS! -- the link you gave is indeed it. Now that you mention it, it does sound like something Shulman would have written -- I should have thought of that. Thanks for ending the brain-racking. Unimaginative Username 21:19, 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)

Offhand -- without looking it up -- didn't the Dow Jones Industrial Average lose 90% of its value in the 1929 crash? Don't think that blue chips like General Motors or AT&T defaulted -- maybe check that out. Unimaginative Username 21:12, 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)

There were many elective monarchies throughout the world and throughout history. As for whether the presidential system of government in the US is a form of tyranny or not, is a matter of opinion, not fact. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be said that in the formulation of the Constitution Anericans created in the Presidency a substitute for kingship; and furthermore that as history has seen the decline in the power of the one it has amplified the power of the other, one of the more subtle forms of irony. For example, Benjamin Franklin said that after his vist to Europe in 1761 that he could understand the sovereignty of the Crown but not the authority of Parliament. In his biography of George III (1972) John Brooke took this observation one stage further, saying that the "fathers of the American republic were the heirs of the Tory tradition in British politics", adding "Perhaps the only true Tories in the world today are to be found in the United States."

You see, at its simplest, the problem was one of perception, or misperception, it may be more accurate to say. The Americans of 1776 placed far too great a weight on the person of King George, who was not the executive but, in the deepest sense of the evolving English Constitution, merely another 'branch of government.' In short, all of the complaints laid out by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence should really have been directed against Parliament, not the Monarch or the Monarchy. But notions of monarchy reached deep into American consciousness. In 1797, Benjamin Franklin Bache, Frankllin's grandson, was to write that the Americans had created a constitution before they "had sufficiently un-monarchized their ideals and habits" (The italics are his).

So, what were the practical results of this? It meant that the Founding Fathers-setting aside the example of the Republic of Venice and the elective monarchy of Poland-drew on the model of constitutional monarchy for their own style of government. Kings, Lords and Commons it was, an avoidance of the hazards of 'pure democracy' at all costs. But checks and balances established the Presidency as an independent power in the Constitution, one that has occasionally overshadowed the other elements, a far more complete form of authority than that ever possessed by George III. His Excellency George Washington was merely a republican version of His Majesty King George. William V, Stadtholder of the Netherlands, was among the first to recognise this, when he said to John Adams "Sir, you have given yourselves a king under the title of president." It was not long before the Americans began to recognise this themselves; and when Andrew Jackson became president his opponents often depicted him in the crown and robes, the true despotic monarch. Is it any surprise, then, that his main opponents were the Whigs, calling to mind constitutional struggles that had been fought out in England in the seventeenth century, not against the limited powers of George III but the absolute powers of Charles II? Clio the Muse 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Americans of 1776 understood British government perfectly well, they being born-and-bred British subjects and all. And Thomas Paine was practically just off the boat from Britain when he wrote Common Sense. No need to blame it on "notions of monarchy [that] reached deep into American consciousness": it was the guy fresh from London who in 1776 first dared to call the king a "royal brute." The reason the Declaration of Independence was addressed to the King and not to Parliament was not due to "misperception": it was because the Revolutionaries had already moved beyond the notion that Parliament had any authority over them. For them, the king was the symbolic last link to the empire, and it was this last link that they were breaking in the Declaration.

But yes, the Americans created a form of government that, in time, created a very powerful presidency. President George Washington certainly had far less power than the king he replaced. So, probably, did Andy Jackson. But, as the United States grew in power, so, correspondingly, did the power of the presidency. When exactly the scales tipped so that an American president had more power than kings of old—and thus more potential for tyranny—is an interesting question. And who (if anyone) became the first tyrant is also interesting: I'm guessing Thomas DiLorenzo would say that the first presidential tyrant was Abe Lincoln.

In American entertainment, we sometimes portraty our presidents as tyrants because it makes for good entertainment, as in the series 24 or Oliver Stone's films JFK (LBJ is the tyrant) and Nixon. These three examples are closer to Shakespeare than reality in their portrayal of a president as a tyrant: poetic license is necessary because Richard III is more fun to watch than Richard Nixon. In entertainment at least, we still look to British kings for our tyrants. ;-) —Kevin Myers 06:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And long may you continue to do so, just so long as you recognise your own fictions! Please do not misunderstand me, Kevin: I fully appreciate that the Declaration of Independence had a clear political purpose, one best achieved by addressing itself to the real person of the king in concrete terms that ordinary people could relate to and understand. The point I am making here, perhaps not as clearly as I would have wished, is that colonial reverence for monarchy did not die with the Revolution, or with the creation of the Republic. I hope you will not take this the wrong way when I say that I can detect in American politics of the day-Thomas Paine notwithstanding-a sense of frustrated love, of inverse admiration.

Well before the Revolution Americans did not look to the British Parliament for their notions of legitimacy, but directly to the person of the king. Was it not Oliver Wolcott, one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence, who wrote that the reservoirs of respect for George III were so deep that 'the abilities of a child might have governed' the colonists. George III may have been rejected in the Declaration of Independence, but he seems to have stood in spirit among the formulators of the Constitution, an unacknowledged Founding Father! People like John Adams looked to incorporate a monarchical elements, as did Alexander Hamilton. Even Thomas Jefferson, that most 'republican' of presidents, was to hold his own royal levée in 1805. The essential point is that the 'monarchical element' in the Constitution perpetuated concepts of kingly authority, it might be said, which were already in decline in the fluid constitution of England itself. America, in other words, may be said to have cast off a perceived tyrant, only to incorporate elements of tyranny, or steady monarchy, or perpetual kingship, however one defines it, into the Constitution. Did not Patrick Henry write;

If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute. The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him...Away with your president! We shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch.

Just think: control of the army and virtually a freehand in foreign affairs, the power to make treaties, appoint ambassadors and grant pardons. To find that level of monarchical power in England one would have to go all the way back to the early seventeenth century, all the way back to the reign of Charles I and the divine right of kings. The potential was there, and it really makes no difference if the first to recognise this was Jackson or Lincoln or Roosevelt. Has not the court of George IV involved the United States in foreign adventures that no British king could ever have contemplated? How the ghost of George III must be laughing...or crying. Clio the Muse 01:07, 4 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)

183*2=366, or just over half a (non-leap)year. Also hasn't this question been asked over and over? It doesn't even mention country, there is no international tax law, I suggest you phone your local Inland Revenue or national equivalent. Lanfear's Bane | t 15:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, for example, the basic rule is that you pay income tax on all your income if you are resident in Canada, and on your income derived from Canadian sources if you are not. But it's the Canadian authorities who decide if you are resident in Canada. If you used to be resident in Canada and then you told them that you were now living 4 months at a time in successive countries, they might very well say that until you establish a permanent residence somewhere else, they will still deem you to be resident in Canada, and demand their taxes. Another country might have quite different rules but could also decide what they liked if you did something odd like that. --Anon, 11:13 UTC, Nov. 3, 2007.

Afterthought: Does anyone know what country or countries Paul Erdős paid taxes to? --Anon, 11:15 UTC.

operation thunderbolt

What was operation thunderbolt? something to do with the eastern front in the first world war i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.24 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, its another name for Operation Entebbe. See the article for details. Lurker (said · done) 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There may also be an Operation Thunderbolt which is something to do with the Royal Navy, as the name Thunderbolt has been used for HM Ships. A first class sloop launched in 1842 and wrecked in 1847 was called HMS Thunderbolt, and also a Second World War submarine, previously HMS Thetis. Xn4 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a common name. There was an Operation Thunderbolt at the beginning of American involvment in the Korean War. As mentioned by Lurker, the Israeli hostage operation was called Operation Thunderbolt (name changed after completion of the operation). There was even a railroad merger named Operation Thunderbolt. All in all, "thunderbolt" is too common a word to be confined to a unique event. -- kainaw™ 17:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Operation Thunderbolt is an arcade game :) Exxolon 00:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Second World War rather than First, and thunderclap rather than thunderbolt? If so, that was the plan - using the word very loosely - for the German 6th Army to break out of Stalingrad to link up with the relief effort, Operation Winter Storm (Operation Wintergewitter). And after that, now I see that we even have an Operation Donnerschlag article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was an Operation Faustschlag-translated into English as Thunderbolt-on the Eastern Front in 1918. During the negotiations that would eventually lead to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Communist delegation, headed by Leon Trotsky in his capacity as Commissar for Foreign Affairs, continually delayed reaching a settlement with the Germans, in the daily expectation that the 'World Revolution' would come to their aid. Trotsky was encouraged in this view by the wave of strikes that hit Germany in January 1918, in which the leaders called for a 'peace without annexations.' In reality the strikers were tired of the war rather than anxious for revolution; but Trotsky, against the instincts of the more hard-headed Lenin, read into it the signs he was looking for, with disastrous consequences. Russia would not sign; neither would it fight. There would be neither peace nor war. Demobilisation of what was left of the Russian army was even announced on 29 January. On 9 February a German ultimatum was issued at Brest-Litovsk, requiring the Bolsheviks to sign the treaty by the following day. When this was allowed to pass Faustschlag was launched.

In the eleven days after 10 February the Germans swept forward to a predesignated line. Bolshevik forces in White Russia, the western Ukraine, the Crimea, and the Donetz Basin were overwhelmed, as the Germans pushed on, all the way to the River Don. It was to be the most rapid, and deepest, penetration of enemy territory in the whole course of the war. Trotsky's misjudgement came close to unravelling Bolshevik power. Under the cover of German protection, a number of national minorities established their own governments. The failure of the Bolsheviks to resist persuaded the western Allies to send their own forces to Russia. Finally, and most important of all, the scattered anti-Bolshevik elements took heart and began to organise themselves. This was the beginning of the Volunteer Army, which came close to destroying the Communists in the ensuing Russian Civil War. Clio the Muse 01:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeavering Bell

Clio the Muse, thanks for your answer on the Lockerbie Lick. I'm looking at border history in general and I keep coming across mention of things I cannot trace. Do you know what the battle of Yeavering Bell was? Donald Paterson —Preceding comment was added at 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles Yeavering Bell, Battle of Yeavering and Battle of Humbleton Hill may help. 86.21.74.40 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Donald, make sure that you draw a clear distinction between the Battle of Homildon or Humbelton (1402) and Yeavering (1415). In the latter a large raiding party was intercepted by Sir Robert Umfraville in the valley of the River Glen at the foot of Yeavering Bell, part of the Cheviot range, two or three miles to the west of Homildon. Umfraville was heavily outnumbered, but he had 300 longbowmen who made good use of the restricted ground. Some sixty of the raiders were killed and almost 400 taken prisoner as the remainder were driven off, pursued twelve miles back to the border. It was a foretaste of things to come. Clio the Muse 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Help identifying a Beethoven piece

I need help identifying a piece supposedly by Beethoven that was included in volume 3 of the piano Suzuki method of teaching. Here is my rough midi file of the piece. The piece in the Suzuki Method was just titled "theme", and I was told the piece I was playing was part of a theme and variations - and the theme was played with strings only. I've looked on the Internet in book catalogues but all they say is "arranged from work by Beethoven", without specifying the work. Any help identifying it would be appreciated. Graham87 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the theme from Beethoven's Prometheus or Eroica Variations (for piano), but it (or a slight variant) is also used in the last movement of his Eroica Symphony. AndrewWTaylor 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it - I've found a midi file of it. Graham87 15:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven originally wrote the theme in his ballet The Creatures of Prometheus (1800-01), and he also borrowed it for the 7th of his set of Contredances written around 1801. He used it again in the Variations (1802) and finally in the "Eroica" Symphony (1804). That symphony was the first work to be given the subtitle "Eroica", and the Variations were retrospectively nicknamed "Eroica" some time later. As Andrew says, they were also known as the "Prometheus" Variations at an earlier time. -- JackofOz 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite so - I was rather surprised to find 'Eroica Variations' used as the title of the article, as I'd always thought that was just an informal name based on the fact that the tune was used in the symphony, as JackOfOz says. I can't find my copy of the music (Edition Peters) at the moment but I'm pretty sure the title there is something like "Variations on a theme from Prometheus". AndrewWTaylor 10:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If "Prometheus Variations" is another designation used for the Eroica Variations, this ought to be mentioned in the article, and the redlink should be a redirect.  --Lambiam 22:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How fascinating. I've heard this work played a gazillion times on radio and in concert, and I have recordings of it. I've never heard or seen it referred to as anything other than the "Eroica Variations". (My score is inaccessible right now so I can't check). Yet when I consult my trusty Grove V (1966 printing), in Beethoven's Catalogue of Works it's simply called "15 Variations with Fugue, on a theme from 'Prometheus', E flat major", with no mention of any "Eroica" nickname. In a separate article titled "'Eroica' Variations", Grove gives the history and concludes with The name "Eroica" Variations is thus not a title, but is useful for identification. Back to Beethoven's catalogue of works, and the "Pastoral", "Appassionata", "Waldstein", "Les adieux", "Hammerklavier" and "Emperor" concerto are all shown as if these names were part of their original titles. Yet the Appassionata was not so named until years after Beethoven's death, by a publisher; similar story for the Emperor concerto and most of the others. They get it right with Sonata quasi una fantasia in C-sharp minor, Op.27/2, which has the words "so-called Moonlight Sonata" in brackets. This all leads me to suppose that the Eroica Variations have acquired this nickname comparatively recently, but it now has stuck so firmly that it would seem inappropriate to name the article by the original title that would mean little or nothing to most people any more. Whether this accords with Wikipedia's naming policies is another matter. -- JackofOz 00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

btw, I've alerted others who might have an interest in this at Talk:Eroica Variations. -- JackofOz 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the Eroica Variations mentions the history of the theme, the catalogue title first and "commonly referred to" title second. I don't think a change is needed here, but I'm also flexible. The other nicknamed works above have the luxury of also being numbered works (e.g. Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven), Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven)), so there was never an issue of the appropriate title for the page as there is here. Using the full catalogue title of the piece as the title of the article might be confusing to readers. Certainly it can't hurt to flesh out the title discussion in the article, though. At present, its all there, but perhaps a bit too terse. We can continue the discussion on the talk page there if any discussion is needed. DavidRF 02:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems my memory was completely wrong what on the Edition Peters book says: it has "Fünfzehn Variationen" as the main title and "Eroica-Thema; mit Fuge" as a subtitle. Not a word about Prometheus. It also has the dedication 'Dem Grafen MORITZ von LICHNOWSKY gewidmet". AndrewWTaylor 15:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

British Royal family

If Prince Charles were to die before Queen Elizabeth, would William be the heir to the throne, or would it pass to one of the Queen's sons? --82.36.182.217 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy. If Charles was to die before his mother, Queen Elizabeth, then succession would automatically pass to his brother Prince Andrew Duke of York and then on to Princess Beatrice. Exactly similar to the situation of succession during the abdication crisis of Edward VIII. Prince William's succession depends entirely on his own father being King at some stage (even if uncrowned). The published line of succession is only valid within certrain presumptions.83.148.88.37 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Prince William is second in line to the throne, so he would become the Heir Apparent. See Line of succession to the British Throne. AndrewWTaylor 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hypothetically, if the entire royal family were wiped out in an explosion or something, who would become the monarch then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In the event of a mass extinction of the House of Windsor, the matter would probably be handed to the Garter King of Arms who would track backwards to find the closest living descendant that fulfills all relative obligations. This would be 'overseen' by the Duke of Norfolk (Earl Marshall of England and Premier Duke). The findings would be presented to a constitutional committee of parliament and the Prime Minister. Both houses of Parliament would be required to agree on the selection, if not, then back to Garter King to search again. Dukes of Norfolk can not be made King as they are also the senior 'lay' catholics in the realm. I would imagine that this information on succession is already known and kept 'ready' - just in case!83.148.88.37 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If by "entire royal family" you mean "all living descendants of the Electress Sophia" - and that would be one hell of an explosion, then Parliament chooses who, if anyone, would be monarch. - Nunh-huh 15:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be impressed by anyone who managed to get all thousand plus people into one country let alone one area to bomb them. It amuses me to see so many germanic names on the list for a country so fiercely proud of such silly figureheads. (I know that is a generalisation, but we still have them sponging around so I feel it's justified.) Lanfear's Bane | t 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox. 80.254.147.52 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See the article Act of Settlement 1701. That's a remarkable anachronism, as it excludes all Roman Catholics (and those married to Roman Catholics) from the British throne. So your "entire royal family" amounts to "all living Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover who aren't married to a Roman Catholic". There are hundreds of such people, so the chance of the bloodbath happening is pretty remote, but in that event I should say the heir with the best claim to the throne would be the present King over the Water, that is, the heir of James II, who was the King dispossessed by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. That heir is Franz, Duke of Bavaria, a German born in 1933, whose heir is his brother Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria, born in 1937. I can't believe there would be the political will now to refuse to accept Franz because of the old religion. Max's heir presumptive is Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, born in 1967, who has a university degree in English. Her eldest son is Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, who was born in London in 1995.

We have a problem with the Act of Settlement, 1701. I've heard it said that if Prince William were to want to marry a Roman Catholic, then the Act would quickly be amended. But once we abandon the principle that we can't have a Roman Catholic monarch, then the whole claim of the present Royal house becomes shaky, compared with that of the Duke of Bavaria. And there's a precedent for a remote cousin inheriting a throne. When King Henry IV of France (1553-1610) came to the French throne in 1589, following a distant cousin, his claim was based on being the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King Louis IX (1215–1270). Failing the descendants of James II, one would have to go back to the other descendants (ruled out in 1701 because they were Roman Catholics) of Princess Elizabeth, the eldest daughter King James I and VI. The best claim may be that of Margherita, Archduchess of Austria-Este. Xn4 17:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If Prince Max's heir presumptive has a son, then surely that son would be Max's heir apparent? Or does it no longer work like that? 80.254.147.52 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because an heir presumptive can be displaced. In theory, Max could still have a son, who would then become his heir apparent. Xn4 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the Archduchess Margherita is a Roman Catholic? Corvus cornix 19:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That, indeed, is where we have a problem with the Act of Settlement. But if all descendents of the Duchess Sophia are gone, it doesn't help us. Xn4 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider the second question in this thread to be quite tenuously hypothetical, since as a matter of practical politics, if just the queen and the first dozen on the list were blown up, that might very seriously call into question whether Britain should have a monarchy at all. Also, the French monarchy's history of succession is no precedent for the UK monarchy, since the French monarchy was purely patrilineal ("Salic"), while the English and Scottish monarchies weren't, and the UK monarchy isn't... AnonMoos 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The OP hasn't asked us to speculate about whether the UK might become a republic, and in any event I see little support for that. My point about the accession of King Henry IV of France is not that the Kingdom of France had a different system of inheritance, but that it shows a country can accept an astonishingly remote cousin of the monarch as heir to its throne. Xn4 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, someone would instantanously accede to the throne. The question of moving to a republic would come later, and maybe the new monarch would then have to be dethroned. The Act of Settlement also contains the (admittedly never tested) anomaly that a person who becomes a Roman Catholic is disbarred from acceding, but if they renounce Catholicism they're back in the list - whereas a person in line who marries a Roman Catholic is disbarred forever, even if their Catholic spouse dies or is divorced before they would otherwise have acceded. That is, having ever been married to a Catholic - even for a day - is a permanent disbarment, whereas being a Catholic is only a temporary disbarment. -- JackofOz 21:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No one can instantaneously accede to the throne if everyone in the line of succession designated by Parliament is dead. There would be an interregnum until appropriate legislation was passed (or until someone seized power). You misstate the law regarding "Papism": you lose your place in line forever by either marrying a Catholic or being one (i.e. professing the popish religion): "all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown." Renouncing doesn't get you back in line. The interesting anomaly is that if your spouse converts to Catholicism after you are married, you're still good to go. Unless, presumably, you re-marry her. Being married to a Catholic is not a problem. Marrying a Catholic is. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The question was what if the entire Royal Family were wiped out. The vast majority of people in the line of succession are not members of the Royal Family, or even British subjects. So I do think that whoever came next in line would become monarch instantaneously - even if it were Hank Jones of Dry Gulch - and it wouldn't need Parliament to confirm this. The law says who accedes to the throne when the monarch dies, not Parliament. Parliament can of course amend the law - which it had to do to enable Edward VIII to abdicate, because it was impossible for him to do so unilaterally - but the existing law at the moment of the monarch's death would determine the matter. And there's no way Parliament could amend the law in advance of the blowing up of the entire Royal Family unless the majority of members of parliament (a) had advance knowledge of the atrocity, and (b) either were party to it or at least had no objections to it, which in either case means they'd be acting treasonously under the pretence of parliamentary legitimacy. -- JackofOz 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right, it depends on the definition of "royal family" vs. "Royal Family". I was envisioning the death of everyone descended from the Electress Sophia, Catholic and Protestant alike, for the sake of simplicity :) Parliament could of course amend the law at any time: it needn't be a party to any dastardly plans in order to decide that a more extensive provision for succession is needed. (Not that I think one is). - Nunh-huh 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone descended from Sophia? Hmmm, that would probably be millions of people by now. Even discounting the Catholics and those who married Catholics, there'd still be millions of her descendants who'd qualify to be in the line of succession. Our list only shows the first 1289 people, but the line is theoretically limited only by the population of the Earth whose descent from Sophia can be demonstrated. -- JackofOz 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The total is around two five thousand. Poor Sophia was a woman, and not a rabbit. We can notice that she was the heir to the throne herself from 1702 until 1714 and came within a whisker of inheriting it at the age of 83, dying less than two months before Queen Anne. If Sophia had outlived Anne, she would still be the oldest British monarch of all time. Xn4 07:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was ever so slightly hyperbolic with "millions". The article says "Presently there are almost 5,000 descendants of Sophia although not all are in the line of succession". We know the line has at least 1289 members. I'm interested to know how you estimate it's "around 2000". -- JackofOz 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As the list includes those skipped, without numbering them, I roughly estimated how many of them there seemed to be. Perhaps someone has counted them all and arrived at the higher number. Whichever it is, no doubt there are even more illegitimate descendants. Xn4 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

William Addams Reitweisner's comprehensive 2001 list, which omits bastards but not papists, contained 4804 individuals. There are probably a few he's missed, and certainly some born since, so about 5000 seems a reasonable statement. - Nunh-huh 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the answer is obviously King Ralph. :-) --Anon, 11:22 UTC, November 3, 2007.

Proper Flag Etiquite

When at a sporting event where there is a permenant American flag posted and then you have a color guard which flag do you salute or follow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.103.24 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's kiss and tell acquittal

Where can I find more info on Wikipedia's recent acquittal in Paris for having outed 3 celebreties as gay (that's all I know)? Keria 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

here, and here. The ruling actually was that Wikipedia is an Internet host that is not responsible for the actions of its users. The next logical corollary, of course, is that the users are responsible for their own actions, which is precisely Wikipedia's position. - Nunh-huh 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

North American Standard Account Ratings

Hello. Why is there no R6 on credit ratings? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

R5 = 120 days *or more* late. Not too much need to give specifics for accounts more than 4-5 months delinquent, because at some point, those are going to go to collection, judgment, or write-off, and hence be R9. Unimaginative Username 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Was there used to be an R6 credit rating; but someone took it away? Or were credit ratings arranged in a manner that R0 is too new to rate, R1 to R5 determine how late credits are paid, R7 to R9 determine how deep in trouble is one debtor, and O's and I's meant open and installment respectively? Thanks in advance again. --Mayfare 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference Service History

who was the first reference librarian in the USA, in which library did he work, what year? Can you help me please answering these questions? My e-mail is (removed because the guidelines at the top of the page say not to leave email)

UK publics view on Northern Ireland

What are the results of any opinion polls done in the UK, asking if people want N.I to remain part of the UK, or become part of the Republic of Ireland? And how have the results changed over time? If the majority of the UK population 'wanted rid' of N.I., do you think that would be a justification for the U.K 'abandoning' the territory, even if the majority of the N.I population still wanted to stay in the U.K? Willy turner 19:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because that's not the way politics works. In the run-up to a general election, all the parties publish their manifestos, which are basically stating what the electorate can hold them to if they win the election. If any of these manifestos were to advocate withdrawal from N Ireland, then that policy would be voted on along with all the others. If the manifesto of the winning party were to include a policy of withdrawal, then yes - it would be justified. Governments are not run by opinion polls.

The only other possible scenario would be a referendum. If the question of withdrawal were to be put to the electorate, and a majority voted in favour, then again withdrawal would be justified (from a purely electoral standpoint). In practical terms, the likelihood of either of these scenarios occurring is pretty remote. I don't know the answer to your question about opinion polls. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have slightly misunderstood the question, maybea its my fault. I obviously wasnt saying that the province would leave the UK merely because of an opinion poll result! Obviously there would be a vote in the commons etc, or a referendum. And by the way you attach way too much importance to the contents of a parties manifesto. What i meant was really to do with democratic legitimacy and the idea of self-determination. ie do the views of the 60m population of the U.K (or their representitives) count for more than the views of the 2m population of N.I., or should the views of N.I, the territory in dispute, count for more? Does a territory have a right to remain part of a larger state, even if the people of that state dont want it? Willy turner 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The UK parliament and successive governments have made their position very clear. As long as the majority of the population wish to remain part of the UK, then parliament will protect that right. Should such populations decide otherwise, parliament will respect that decision. This goes for Gibraltar, Falklands, Channel islands etc. However with the advent of the European Union a decision to leave would be somewhat 'academic'83.148.88.37 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In Can terrorism be legally justified? (above) I said - "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)." I don't believe you could make out the case that Northern Ireland is a nation - it's a region carved out of Ireland, artificially created and designed expressly to have a loyalist majority - but the explanation of the partition of Ireland is that the Northern unionists were willing to fight to stay British ("Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right"). For more than eighty years, the UK has honoured the choice it made then to support them. A British government would have the greatest of difficulty in throwing out of the UK a population which had voted (as NI has done at every election for generations) to be part of the UK. Of course, demographics change and the world moves on. Conor Cruise O'Brien used to argue that the boundary of NI should be changed, transferring parts of it which have a nationalist majority to the Republic. That idea appealed to many people, including some unionists who saw that it would fend off the day when NI as a whole might have a nationalist majority, but it didn't find favour with the British or Irish governments... Xn4 22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"...it's a region carved out of Ireland, artificially created and designed expressly to have a loyalist majority"—What is artificial about it? Why does the island of Ireland have to be one state, any more than Iberia or North America? Nationhood rests on the self-consciousness of a group of people sharing a national identity—of course it was designed for a loyalist majority that's the reason for it existence. The Ulster-Scots of northeast Ireland do not identify themselves as part of an Irish nation apart from the United Kingdom—they are consciously distinct from the rest of Ireland in that they are British and wish to remain so. They are self-evidently a nation. To Willy Turner, all opinion polls I've seen have shown a majority in Great Britain for a united Ireland. I doubt the rightness or otherwise of NI being a part of the UK has influenced successive British governments than the threat of rebellion by Ulster Protestants (as in 1912-14) if the British Government tried to force them into an all-Ireland state.--Johnbull 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing that's artificial about it is that the present border (dating from 1920) could go somewhere else, achieving much more precisely the purpose it was created for. Indeed, I'd say the arguments about repartition are much more interesting and revealing than those about the Partition of 1920. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, we can only start from where we are. I have far more sympathies with the Ulster unionists than most British people do. I can't see anything inherently permanent about what was agreed in 1920. Xn4 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

with genuine respect i think its a bad idea to start debating whether N.I is a nation or not. Unless we want to start our own reference desk version of 'The Troubles'. I agree youve hit the nail on the head that its not the rightness or wrongness of the issue but the fear of huge violence from unionists if the British pulled out. You could make an attmitidly callous point that it wouldnt be our problem anymore. But i think any unionist resistance to the Irish authorities would fade away sooner than people presume. Violence from republicans lasted so long because they genuinly thought they had a chance of achieving a united ireland. If britain pulled out i think unionists would have far less hope that britain would ever come back. Regarding the opinion polls thats very interesting. I think id always subconsciously presumed that the UK public would favour the unionists, just because British parties do. Willy turner 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is - people on the mainland just don't care - NI ranks below wondering if we can pay our gas bill, it's only when the IRA were murdering people that us on the mainland cared (and even then only if you lived in cities - if you lived in the country like me, you didn't give that much of a thought). NI is an issue that greatly concerns politicans and people living there but it's an issue that the rest of us don't give a toss about - sorry. --Fredrick day 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

but does the un charter say anything about the rights of a state to decide which territories it wants to be a part of it? and what specific dificulties would we have in 'throwing it out'? The unionist mp's would be upset, but big deal. there would be initial violence in N.I., but im sure it would fizzle out when they realised we were gone for good. i personaly think repartition is a more rational solution than most people think. i agree most people dont give a toss about most political issues. but perhaps if someone made the economic argument for the UK disowning N.I.? until recently public spending accounted for about 50% of its GDP. Willy turner 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A personal comment - I think the PIRA have done more than any other organization to promote Unionist sentiment on the mainland, and Ian Paisley has performed a similar rôle in promoting sympathy for Irish Nationalism. DuncanHill 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What examples are there of surreal, bizzare, or funny things that have happened during a war?

like the guy surfing in appocolypse now. the story that brought this question to mind was from the korean war. british troops were fighting the chinese. they were vastly outnumbered, and had just run out of amunition. their commander instructed the troops to throw their tins of processed cheese at the enemy, in the hope they would be mistaken for grenades! obviously the chinese werent fooled when they failed to explode. but can you imagine the look on the chinese soldiers faces when they realised the crazy british were throwing cheese at them! Willy turner 21:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Surreal? How about the Angel of Mons or the (now debunked) disappearance of the Norfolk Regiment at Gallipoli. -- JackofOz 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the Sandringham Company of the Norfolks which 'disappeared' into the morning mists. As you say, Jack, that legend was debunked, it turned out that the Sandringham men had been overwhelmed by the Ottomans and any prisoners taken had been shot in the head on the spot. Xn4 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The remarkable Christmas Truce, even if the legendary football match can't be vouched for. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing into the mist; sounds like that story influenced the film Deathwatch. And from what ive read the football match definatly did happen. Willy turner 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Willy, the film you want is All the King's Men (1999), which is by that superlative director, Julian Jarrold. Xn4 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

btw the story of the Christmas Truce is one of the saddest things ive ever heard. for a few hours they realise theyre all just the same, and become friends, then they have to get back to massacring each other. They made a film about that too didnt they? i bet its pish though. Willy turner 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That was Joyeux Noel, nominated for Best Foreign Film at the 2006 Oscars. The episode was also featured in Oh! What a Lovely War (1969), not much remembered these days, but a minor masterpiece that is still mandatory viewing for those of an anti-war bent. -- JackofOz 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And available on DVD, after years of being generally unsourcable. :) The marketing of Joyeux Noel puzzled me, as it seems to claim that the Christmas truce was almost forgotten. I seem to remember it coming up a lot in just about anything to do with war or the first world war, even fairly frequently at Christmas. Is it generally little-known outside Britain, or is the film just trying to sound more important? Skittle 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahah, partly answered my own question. Apparently, it is in France that the story is little-known. Skittle 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

War being always chaotic, and soldiers being generally pragmatic, there are thousand of instances of humour as a result. My favourite if the surrounded force of paratroopers at Arnhem in WW2. Facing a couple of SS Armoured Divisions the fate of the 30 or so un-injured men at the bridge appeared 'bleak'. The German commander sent an envoy to discuss surrender terms- he was told by the british that they could not possibly accept their surrender as the small building they occupied was unsuitable to hold that many german prisoners!83.148.88.37 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well if its french its bound to be brilliant. those guys seem almost incapable of making a bad film. Willy turner 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny? Well, let me see now. During the Second World War food production was clearly of considerable importance to the British government, and civil servants were directed towards co-ordination of the national effort, sending out directives and instructions to the farming community. In the spring of 1942, in the face of yet another official directive, one farmer wrote back, saying that he was unable to comply because he was in the middle of the lambing season. 'Delay lambing season', was the message that came by return. Clio the Muse 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC) that is rather amusing. certainly says something about the misunderstanding between town and country folk Willy turner 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I always found stories such as that of Shoichi Yokoi or other Japanese holdouts bizarre, though not necessarily funny. For holdout farces in film, I strongly recommend Underground (1995). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of the Milvian Bridge, at which God is supposed to have appeared before the Emperor Constantine, quoting in hoc signo vincit, and showing Constantine a cross, at which Constantine had his soldiers put crosses on their shields, and the battle was assured. Corvus cornix 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a battle where Attila fled the field because the sun stood still? Corvus cornix 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean he had the time to look at the sky?! Clio the Muse 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ever hear of the Russians attempting to utilize dogs with bombs strapped to their backs against German tanks in WWII? The dogs had been specially trained to run and crouch beneath tanks, whereupon a large lever on the explosive device would be triggered by physical contact with the undercarriage. So the story goes, the Russians made a significant mistake in training the dogs using *Russian* tanks as props. Supposedly, Immediately after the dogs were set loose on the battlefield, they turned around and made a beeline for their own tank column, causing several minutes of panic as the Russian soldiers attempted to shoot the dogs in their tracks before disaster occurred. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-tank dog? It never happened. dr.ef.tymac 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There's the curious story of the role of the Czech Legion in the Russian Civil War. That's right -- the Czechs. These were POWs and deserters from the Austro-Hungarian Army who were being organized before the October Revolution to fight for the Allies. After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks agreed to let the Czechs travel east via the Trans-Siberian Railroad to Vladivostok, where they would board a ship for the U.S., cross America by train, then get on another ship for the Western Front. Not all of the Bolshevik militias got the message, and after a tussle in the Ural Mountains, the Czechs would up taking over the town. Then they took over all of the other stops eastward along the railroad from the poorly organized Bolshevik forces. The Komuch government in Samara, one of several anti-Bolshevik forces in the country, convinced the Czechs to help them drive the Reds out of the Volga region. With the rise of the Red Army and destruction of the Komuch, the Czechs were driven back to Siberia. Eventually, the Czechs paid the Bolsheviks for passage to Vladivostok, and most of them were able to arrive in their homeland -- more than a year after its independence. -- Mwalcoff 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Antonov A-40 flying tank.

As always Wikipedia has a list of random amusing things that happen in war. Read Wikipedia:Unusual articles#Military. The flying tank and Bat bomb are two of my favorite. --S.dedalus 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two similar medieval stories/legends - one takes place in the 12th century where Frederick Barbarossa is besieging Alessandria, and a guy named Gagliaudo feeds all the grain in the city to the cows/sheep/pigs/whatever, knowing that when he takes them out of the city the besieging army will kill them. They do, and discover all the grain in their stomachs, and so they assume the city must have vast amounts of grain if they can waste it on the animals. Surely the city will outlast a siege, so they go home. A similar story is told of Herculanus of Perugia, who tried it when his city was besieged by Totila in the 6th century, but Totila figured it out and had him skinned alive. Probably not true in either case, but still bizarre. Adam Bishop 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

British History on American Revolution

I was just wondering if somebody could tell me generally what is taught in British schools or universities on the American Revolution. For example, do they not teach the US was a country until the treaty ending the war was signed? Do they mention the Declaration of Independence? Are Washington, Jefferson, Adams et al made out to be rebel nuissances with horrible characters? Any information would be appreciated. A web link somewhere with a British perspective would be great too and I'd be happy to do the research and reading myself if I could be pointed in the right direction. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can remember as a) a pupil and b) a teacher - the answer is that next to thing is taught about it - it might be covered in a couple of hours but that's about it. We don't also tend to teach our history as good guys or bad guys (as your question suggests) but we look at the social context behind what occured. --Fredrick day 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From my own experience in school only (up until 1995), the only American history that was taught was in relation to slaves, Roosevelt, WWII and Vietnam. All of this was touched on as optional units in Secondary school before the reintroduction of History as a separate subject (we just had one subject - Humanities - in many non-public schools for a while). Following the re-introduction of the separate subject, pupils are now taught some American Civil War events as part of Key Stage 3 History (curriculum here) mainly revolving still around the emancipation. I think someone else may step in for info on Key Stage 4, College and University topics. 86.21.74.40 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

86.21.74.40 would be pretty much right, I remember teaching about Roosevelt when covering for a history teacher. A quick check reveals that a couple of the exam boards teach "The American West, 1840-1895" but that's about it. Again, while the americian revolution will be taught on some university courses, they would never take such a simplistic position as "they were rebel nuissances with horrible characters". hopefully someone else will turn up and provide the links you need --Fredrick day 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember being taught that the Americas were a colony that successive governments failed to govern correctly. That the source of the revolution was more british error than colonial intransigence. Clearly remember being taught that if it wasn't for the meddling French we would have won! On a serious note I think this is probably true, but that it would have just delayed the inevitable split.83.148.88.37 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ive no idea what if anything they teach in schools. universities obviously mention the D of I, and they dont slur your leaders. im not sure what you meant by the first question. regarding generally what is tought at universities; i would say the complete objective truth. its not like we still have a big hang up about the event. or that education is distorted by any bias. Willy turner 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When I was at school, the American Revolutionary War was an option in the curriculum for the O & C Board's GCE A-level. It was well taught by my school's youngest and most earnest history master, and of course the subject couldn't possibly have been covered without reading the Declaration of Independence (that hyperbolic document). I'd say all the leading players, including Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, were given a fair crack of the whip. We had an older history master who was of a more whimsical turn of mind, and his line on American independence was that it was the greatest possible blessing for the mother country, and even the timing of it couldn't have turned out any better. Xn4 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 161. Yes, I did work on American history, both at school and as an undergraduate at Cambridge. I know how the subject is taught in the States, and the almost religious reverence with which the Founding Fathers are approached. I suspect, therefore, that you may be looking for a counter-perspective from a British angle? But this is a foreign country; we do things differently here! For example, we would never-assuming we still made films on our own-, produced anything quite as dreadful and unhistorical as Mel Gibson's The Patriot, in which we Brits seem to be the precursors of the Nazis. It's unthinkable. There is very little 'nationalism' in the teaching of history this side of the pond; it all tends to be quite modest and self-effacing in good-old Anglo-Saxon style. No passion, please! We do not have the American reverence for the likes of Washington and Jefferson; but we still recognise them as figures of considerable historical importance. Our general approach, however, is altogether more objective, seeing the Revolution as much of a civil war as a war of national liberation. I cannot give you a web link to a British perspective. However, you might care to get a hold of Rebels and Redcoats: the American Revolutionary War by Hugh Bicheno and Richard Holmes, which offers a challenging alternative to some of your most cherished preconceptions. I have no idea if it is published under this title in the United States. Clio the Muse 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebels and Redcoats: the American Revolutionary War is available in the US under the same title, and twelve US booksellers have it today at amazon.com. Xn4 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Xn4. I was clearly too lazy to check myself! Clio the Muse 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Back when I was doing O and A-level History, back in the mid-70s, the American Revolutionary War was before the start of history (which was in 1867 and 1815 respectively, for the two exams!), though I vaguely remember doing the Boston Tea Party and the rest in a week or so, back in my third-year pre-O-level history, but that was mostly just a continuation of our study of the Seven Years War... -- Arwel (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

French and Indian War I think you mean, Arwel! Clio the Muse 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the responses it must depend when and where you went to school. I did History throughout my secondary schooling in the late 1990s/early 2000s (including for GCSE) and I wasn't taught the American Revolution at all.--Johnbull 03:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Holmes book: for American viewers, there's also a PBS video version, hosted by Holmes, called Rebels & Redcoats - How Britain Lost America. Holmes, a military historian, is great when he's talking about battles, but he embarrasses himself a bit when it comes to the politics of the Revolution. He's apparently not kept up with the scholarship since his own schooling -- no Bernard Bailyn or Gordon S. Wood for him. And so his American Revolution-bashing seems rather old-fashioned on this side of the pond -- American writers and scholars first went through that phase in the 1920s. (See, for example, William Woodward's George Washington: The Image and the Man [1926]).

The best British books on the American Revolution, like Piers Mackesy's War for America (1964), tend to have a more military and more global perspective than American histories. For Americans, the Revolution was about what happened to them on their own turf; for the British, the war was another in a series of worldwide imperial conflicts. Most Americans don't know that holding on to Jamaica was a major British concern in the war, or that the last battle was not at Yorktown, but off the coast of India. Traditionally for the British, what the Americans are pleased to call their "Revolution" was just a minor bump on the road to the greatness of the British Empire. It was about events, not ideas. Who has time to care about republicanism or the writings of Thomas Paine when you've got the Empire to build and maintain! I wonder to what degree British students still get this imperial perspective. It's probably passé, but hearing Richard Holmes talk about George Washington rather reminds one of Churchill talking dismissively about Gandhi.

How the Revolution is taught in the U.S. depends on the age of the student: young kids get the nationalistic mythology, high school kids get a bit more of the politically correct stuff (more on slavery particularly), and in college, anything goes. American kids today probably learn more about Sally Hemings than they do George Mason! The only picture of a Revolutionary soldier in my college history textbook (in the 1980s) was of Deborah Sampson! I wonder if the British approach to history is similar: national mythology for youths, politically correct stuff in the middle, and then perhaps a few challenges to the standard narrative in college. —Kevin Myers 05:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So Holmes thinks that George Washington was a half-naked fakir?! Sorry; I could not resist that! Actually, Kevin, I offered Rebels and Redcoats not as the 'best' or the most scholarly treatment of the subject-which it clearly is not-but as the kind of perspective view that I think the questioner is looking for. I did not see the series you refer too, but I did watch Holmes on Wellington, which managed, at least in my view, to balance the military and political dimensions of the Iron Duke's career quite well. But in general telly history is, well, telly history, not the sort of place one should look for deep scholarly insight.

I must confess that your contention that the American Revolution was only a 'minor bump' for the Brits on the road to imperial greatness is a novel one for me, as it is, I suspect, for most people who work in this field in England. It was certainly a part of a prolonged struggle with France-sometimes referred to as the Second Hundred Years War-but it is perceived as a unique event in its own right. So, let me respond to your wondering: there was no detectable Stufenplan in the British imperial project, not one that I have ever detected in my own studies of the rise of Empire at any rate. As for your second point of wonder, I thought, perhaps, I may have gone some way towards addressing that in my initial contribution. However, for the sake of clarity, I will make the same point again: there is little or no nationalism or national mythology in the teaching of history in England (not at my school, anyway!), though I do not know if this is also the case in Scotland. Clio the Muse 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Johnbull has said "Judging from the responses it must depend when and where you went to school." Don't forget there are also differences between the various examination boards. Xn4 07:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

May I recommend an excellent fictional approach to this topic, Robert Graves' historical novel Sergeant Lamb of the Ninth? Rhinoracer 13:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio says "The Patriot" was "dreadful and unhistorical" and it may have made the British look like Nazis, but considerBanastre Tarleton whose war crimes were the inspiration for the bad guy in the movie, and who would probably have been right at home with the worst excesses of the Third Reich. The article speaks for itself. Of Tarleton's deeds at Waxhaw, a British surgeon wrote ""... Tarleton with his cruel myrmidons was in the midst of them, when commenced a scene of indiscriminate carnage, never surpassed by the ruthless atrocities of the barbarous savages." Edison 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on The Patriot:

Ben Fenton, commenting in the Telegraph on the sadistic character of Colonel William Tavington, purportedly based on Colonel Banastre Tarleton, wrote: ‘there is no evidence that Tarleton, called "Bloody Ban" or "The Butcher" in rebel pamphlets, ever broke the rules of war and certainly not that he ever shot a child in cold blood.' Liverpool City Council, led by Mayor Edwin Clein, called for a public apology for what they viewed as the film’s ‘character assassination’ of Tarleton, a former local Member.

Of greatest concern was the film’s anachronistic transposing of Waffen SS atrocities into the Revolutionary War, including the heavy emphasis on the killing of prisoners, wounded and children, culminating in a group of townsfolk being burnt alive in a church, in a scene that closely resembles the massacre of Oradour in German-occupied France in 1944.

The article continues in a similar vein. 80.254.147.52 11:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You and I are surely mature and objective enough to realise, Edison, that things happen in war, and in the heat of battle, that would not otherwise be condoned; that ordinary men do things which in normal circumstances they would not be capable. Yes, the Waxhaw massacre was bad, but the facts are by no means as clear cut as you suggest. If Banastre Tarleton was to stand accused of anything it would be that he lost control of his subordinates in the midst of combat. Bad, yes; but that is in no way comparable to rounding up women and children and, in a cold blooded and deliberate fashion, burning them to death in a locked church, the kind of thing that was a regular feature of SS anti-partisan campaigns in Russia. 'Bloody Ban', the myth of 'Bloody Ban', and it is a myth, served a useful propaganda purpose at the time for the Patriot cause. But for Gibson to be perpetuating myths and lies two hundred years later, yes two hundred years, is, as I have said, both dreadful and unhistorical. If you care to make a home for Colonel Tarleton in the Third Reich, then can we not also make a place there for Light Horse Harry Lee, the father of Robert E Lee, whose men fell upon loyalists heading to join Lord Cornwallis in early 1781, cutting down scores despite their attempts to surrender, and hacking some of those who had already been taken prisoner to death? And what about Francis Marion, upon whom the Gibson character in The Patriot is based? When the historian Christopher Hibbert, pointed out that good old 'Swampy Fox' committed atrocities just as bad, if not worse, than Colonel Tarleton, Michael Graham, one of your delightful radio hosts, responded in vigorous style,

Was Francis Marion a slave owner? Was he a determined and dangerous warrior? Did he commit acts in an 18th-century war that we would consider atrocious in the current world of peace and political correctness? As another great American film hero might say: You damn right.

So, Marion is to be celebrated not despite but in the face of his record? In that case why not him or her? Perhaps the time has truly come for the English to remember Colonel Tarleton as he really was: a hero, a good soldier, a decent man and a loyal subject of the crown, free of the obloquy in which he has been unfairly covered. As for Gibson, well he is quite adept at purveying anti-English prejudice in one form or another, is he not?; from The Patriot to the even more ludicrous Braveheart. Clearly a man of many talents...and many prejudices, both on screen and off. Clio the Muse 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarleton violated the then-understood rules of war. His excesses actually aided the patriot cause, with the battle-cry of "Tarleton's Quarter." To now glorify him as a "hero" is reminiscent of recent Japanese revisionist history, and of Russian glorificati0on of Stalin. Edison 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Both the point I was making-and my use of irony-have clearly escaped you, which, I regret to say, does not really surprise me. But, for the wider community, I will try to make mself just a little clearer: If Tarleton 'violated' the laws of war so, too, did many others, on both sides. When Nathanael Green took command of Rebel forces in the south in December 1780 he reported on "dreadful, wanton Mischiefs, Murders, and Violences of every kind, unheard of before" as society crumbled under the impact of war. If the war was not already lost by 1781 the Loyalists could conceivably have invigorated their campaign with calls of 'Lee's Quarter!' Tarleton is no more than a victim of contemporary propaganda, a convenient scapegoat. American condemnation of Tarleton, and his alleged 'violation of the laws of war', has not stopped you elevating Marion as a hero. You can maintain all the anti-English rhetoric you wish, but your final point is cheap. I would have thought that your obvious sense of denial is far more reminiscent of the examples you conjur up than my defence of Tarleton. Clio the Muse 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio goes too far in trying to rehabilitate Tarleton, in my opinion, but her larger point is correct: wars are messy, and even otherwise good guys do things in war that may seem ugly in less sanguinary times. Tarleton certainly oversaw a massacre at the Waxhaws: most Revolutionary battles killed about 6-7% of combatants, but 75% were cut down at the Waxhaws, many slaughtered while trying to surrender. But as American historian Col. Mark Boatner wrote, "a successful cavalry charge exploited by a bayonet attack is bound to be messy...." And Tarleton's intentions are open to question. As historian John Ferling writes: "Tarleton did not order the slaughter that ensued, but he did not stop it either." Today, Tarleton would probably at least be investigated for war crimes, especially if the slaughter was caught on camera, but the same applies to many actions on both sides of the Revolutionary War.

To generalize, I think it's fair to say that overall the British and Hessians treated American prisoners and civilians worse than Americans did to the British and Hessians (David Hackett Fischer writes that British soldiers inflicted an "epidemic of rape" on American women), but Americans cannot really claim the moral high ground when it comes to the conduct of the war, especially when you take into account how some of them treated their Native American opponents. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. —Kevin Myers 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

All very well, but don't forget that this discussion was originally about The Patriot, which is as villainous a piece of black propaganda as Hollywood has ever produced. You sit there talking about cavalry charges, when the film depicts women and children being shut in a church which is then burnt to the ground. That is neither historically accurate nor equivalent to the "violations" you speak of. Malcolm Starkey 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone here has actually defended the historical accuracy of The Patriot, although it still clearly touches a nerve, because you can't have a discussion on Wikipedia about the Revolution without a Brit bringing up Gibson's silly film. ;-) (I say Gibson's film, though of course it was actually directed by a German.) If Brits are concerned that Americans took the film's cartoonish villain seriously, they shouldn't be. Never in my 40+ years have I heard another American voice any anti-British sentiment. We take the villan in The Patriot about as seriously as any James Bond villain. I know above Clio says that the British approach to history is "No passion, please!", but it's the Brits who are still passionate about The Patriot. Americans watched the movie and then went back to hating the French. ;-)

By the way, I've never read a film review that accurately identified where the church burning scene in The Patriot comes from. Some have compared the scene to the infamous massacre of Oradour, but come on, the filmmakers of The Patriot clearly didn't know enough about history to mine it for ideas. Hollywood hacks don't read history books -- they borrow from other films. In this case, I'd bet that the scene from The Patriot was actually lifted from another silly film, the Sean Connery movie First Knight, featuring a screenplay written, as it happens, by a Brit. Funny that. :-) —Kevin Myers 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So it was a Hessian, was it? Oh, well, that would seem to explain everything! I suppose I must confess to some passions; and seeing my countrymen likened to Nazis produces a gut reaction, no matter if the countrymen in question are long dead, no matter if the film is quite as silly as The Patriot. It's particularly hurtful when such depictions come from our closest ally. I assumed that, as it was no longer fashionable for Hollywood to beat all hell out of the 'Redskins', the English were an easy substitute! But I take your point, Kevin, and, speaking personally, will now lay the matter to eternal rest. Clio the Muse 01:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My unfavorable opinion of Tarleton predated the motion picture "The Patriot" by decades and has nothing whatsoever to do with any depiction of the burning of people in a church. It is based on the historical record of his actions in the American Revolution. Criticism of one rogue officer from 230 plus years ago should not be taken as a general bashing of all things British, any more than criticism of William T. Sherman's American Civil War excesses should not be taken as a general criticism of all things related to the United States.Tarleton was consistently a rogue. He plundered and burned the town of Pond Ridge, New York, for instance [8] although, happily, the townsfolk were able to exit before the torch was applied. Tarleton was certainly not seen as just another British officer. After the British surrender at Yorktown, the Americans sat down to a dinner with the captured British officers. Tarleton was not invited, because of his history of atrocities. [9] says "he practiced total war -- burning houses, destroying crops, the end justifying the means -- when the European ideal was limited war confined to a field of battle. In effect, he was probably no more brutal then some other British officers and even some American officers. But, at the Waxhaws, his reputation for brutality stuck, as Patriot officers encouraged fear and anxiety of "butcher" Tarleton for propaganda purposes." I expected a little higher level of discourse than the bashing of other editors along the lines of "Both the point I was making-and my use of irony-have clearly escaped you, which, I regret to say, does not really surprise me.". Please address the subject under discussion without attacking the intellectual ability of other contributors to the discussion. Edison 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear; I've obviously hurt your feelings, Edison,-judging by the number of times you have come back and forward here over several hours-which I truly regret. I was not in any sense attacking your 'intellectual ability' or 'bashing' you, as you have expressed it. I was, rather, commenting on the extent to which you seemed to have completely overlooked what I had written in response to the truly ludicrous contention that Tarleton would have been "right at home with the worst excesses of the Third Reich". In consequence, I gave 'heroic colour' to his career, with deliberate ironic intent, which, again, you failed to grasp with your subsequent points about historical revisionism. Look, at the risk of amplifying my offense, can I draw your attention to the point made in your second link: that Tarleton was "probably no more brutal than some other British officers and even no more brutal than some American officers." No more brutal, in other words, than Light Horse Harry Lee or Francis Marion, which is precisely the point I was making all along. Practitioners of total war, perhaps; Nazis, no. All I was asking you to do was think beyond the black propaganda.

I have a vigorous and relentless style in debate. In my professional life I make few allowances for more tender souls, people who are, perhaps, a little less robust than I, a little less used to 'gladiatorial dialetics'. I confess it is something of a failing on my part. I think it best, therefore, if I make no further comment on anything you may write on the Humanities Desk in future, to avoid misunderstanding and wounded feelings. More than that, I think it best, Edison, if we avoid one another altogether from now on...for both our sakes. Regards. Clio the Muse 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

November 3

How did King Moshoeshoe II die?

Lesotho#History says he died in a car 'accident', but the New York Times says "no foul play was suspected". What's the real story? thanks F 03:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything to contradict that New York Times story, though Moshoeshoe II's obituary in London's The Independent is silent on the cause of his death. Evidently, the US Ambassador, Bismarck Myrick, believed it was a road accident. Supposing that's true, it's hardly surprising, as Lesotho is a very mountainous country with a great many dangerous roads. It seems the King was driving back to Maseru through the Maluti Mountains late at night in what we can suppose was a powerful car. One can see some parallels with the deaths of Grace Kelly and Diana, Princess of Wales.

The Moshoeshoe II article is a bit thin and has no references at all. I'll add a few things, like his full name (Constantine Bereng Seeiso) and one or two external links. Xn4 07:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no inconsistency between a car accident and absence of foul play. I don't see the problem. -- JackofOz 23:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The article says "car 'accident'", meaning an assassination staged to look like an accident.F 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I now see the problem. -- JackofOz 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Smiles

In Samuel Smile's book on self-help, who does he think is responsible for the poverty in England and what does he think can be done about it?

66.53.209.95 05:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Amy

Here maybe able to help. Dureo 09:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

...but don't cut and paste text for this homework assignment. --Wetman 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? I thought quoting the text you're supposed to be analyzing was a good thing? Algebraist 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-Help is, in essence, what it purports to be: a manuel directed at the improvement of the individual, full of uplifting examples. It is not, therefore, concerned in any direct sense with the structural causes of poverty, or the perception of need as anything other than self-inflicted. It is a text that really belongs to the high-noon of Victorian capitalism. Yet he did come from a radical tradition, and was an admirer of Richard Cobden, the Corn Law reformer, amongst others. Smiles own preoccupations in the area of social policy tend to be a reflection of his background and education. His training in medicine led to concerns over issues of public health. Some of what he writes in this regard is at least the equal of Dickens;

When typhus or cholera breaks out, they tell us that Nobody is to blame. That terrible Nobody! How much he has to answer for. More mischief is dine by Nobody than by all the world besides. Nobody adulterates our food. Nobody poisons us with bad drink...Nobody leaves towns undrained. Nobody fills jails, penitentiaries, and convict stations. Nobody makes poachers, thievs and drunkards. Nobody has a theory too-a dreadful theory. It is embodied in the words: laissez-faire-let alone. When people are poisoned with plasrer of paris mixed with flour, 'let alone' is the remedy...Let those who can, find out when they are cheated: caveat emptor. When people live in foul dwellings; let them alone, let wretchedness do its work; do not interfere with death.

Though a believer in at least one form of laissez-faire-that of economic liberalism-Smiles was prepared to concede that legislation was necessary in some cases to remedy abuse. Clio the Muse 02:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Japanese expansionism in 1930s and 1940s

Was this motivated solely by ultra nationalism? K Limura 06:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This was certainly the leitmotiv of the Tokyo trials. As far as I am aware the earliest attempt to revise this view came with the publication in 1966 of Japan's Quest for Autonomy: National Security, and Foreign Policy, 1930-1938 by James Crowley. Crowley's contention is that the outward expansion was motivated less by militarism and nationalism and far more by economic factors and traditional reasons of state. Those in favour of overseas expansion included important civilian leaders, not just those in the military. Our understanding of the complex range of factors that determined policy in this area was deepened still further by the publication of Gordon Berger's Parties Out of Power in Japan, 1931-1941, an examination of how notions of realpolitik shaped and influenced domestic policy. In his view the forms of national defence and the planned economy that emerged in the 1930s was a measured response to new European concepts of total war, not ultra-nationalism. There are few people who work in this field now, I suspect, who would resort to the simplistic interpretations favoured in the past. Clio the Muse 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Tanaka memorial... AnonMoos 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If David Bergamini is to be believed it was for no other reason than expansion/sustaining of the Japanese empire. His book", "Japan's Imperial Conspiracy" (1971) is fascinating reading and a remarkable work considering that he was not a professional historian. (Blawearie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.251.98 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Guns, Germs, and Steel question

In the prologue to Guns, Germs, and Steel, the author states the following:

Today, segments of Western society publicly repudiate racism. Yet many (perhaps most!) Westerners continue to accept racist explanations privately or subconsciously. In Japan and many other countries, such explanations are still advanced publicly and without apology.

Could someone give an example of what the author might have meant by these explanations that are advanced publicly? I haven't seen one in the text and I'm curious where he came up with this. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a Japanese biology textbook entitled Evolution: from the Ape to the Japanese. Rhinoracer 13:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about this. Racism may be taboo, but in the United States at least there's plenty of public and unapologetic nationalism. Given the degree of demographic overlap, I'm not sure I could tell the difference between Japanese racism and Japanese nationalism at first glance. Why not call it nationalism, thereby erasing the difference? I'm sure a lot of it is actually racism, but I'm equally sure that a lot of people who say they're proud to be Americans are really proud to be WASPs. -- BenRG 14:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia Koreans in Japan and Ainu. --Wetman 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Guns, Germs and Steel specifically tries to counter the unconscious (generally) racist thought that European dominance in the world is due to some inherent European superiority. Corvus cornix 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, I don't see what your response has to do with my original question. Wetman, thanks for the links. I'm still a bit confused though. Dismas|^(talk) 11:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Diamond is considering most theories regarding European dominance when he made that statement. In most texts I've read the actual mechanism for why Europeans have been so successful has either been couched in carefully euphemistic terms ("The people are no different, it's just that their societies are backward), swept away with blatant generalizations ("It's too hot in Africa for folks there to invent things...", "It's too cold in Siberia for folks there to invent things..."), or simply never touched on (presumably because the question leads to an answer the writer knows to be racist). Those are the racist explanations he's talking about. Before you read the book, why did you think Europeans took over the world? Just random chance favouring them again and again and again?

As distasteful as it is for me to admit, I guess I'd accepted that it must have been due to some kind of innate superiority, if only because there really wasn't another theory out there to supplant it. Maybe I didn't think about the question very much precisely because I didn't like that answer. I'm very grateful to folks like Diamond who not only decide to think about stuff like that, but who see through two centuries of various levels of racism to arrive at answers. Matt Deres 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

James_D._Watson#Opinion_concerning_the_possible_links_between_race_and_intelligence and The Bell Curve spring to mind. -- Diletante 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Peel

Would it be true to say that Robert Peels greatest error was to believe that government could rise above party? 217.42.104.154 09:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it the unenviable fate of Robert Peel that he has been judged as a 'great statesman' by posterity and a 'traitor' by his political contemporaries and one-time allies. I can now detect the same process at work with Ramsay MacDonald, another 'traitor' from a different tradition. It takes a bold politician to stand party politics on its head by going against policy once, as Peel did over Catholic Emancipation; it takes a foolhardy one to do it twice, as he did in the repeal of the Corn Laws. Conceivably the best assessment of Peel ever written was that of Benjamin Disraeli, his political nemesis, who wrote in his Lord George Bentinck: A Political Life that in resisting reform to the very last minute, and then conceding at the very last minute, he was responsible for measures introduced in turbulence and implemented in haste. Furthermore, Disraeli writes, in seeking to place himself beyond the ties of party Peel weakened the whole process of parliamentary government, the very thing he wanted to preserve most. I suppose in some ways that Peel belonged to a past age, an age where good government was above and beyond the importunities of Party. It was not a mistake that was to be repeated by William Ewart Gladstone, the greatest Peelite of them all. Clio the Muse 03:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What means "you have a solution and you are searching for a problem"

In the context of critizising Philosophy. So what does it mean? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.66.241 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"X is a solution in search of a problem" means "X is useless". Here are usage examples from Google. It's a play on "a problem in search of a solution", meaning a problem that nobody knows how to solve. -- BenRG 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Spectrum of Theistic Probability

Richard Dawkins states

• Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

which is a quotation from Memories, Dreams, Reflections. I have always assumed it meant Jung was certain there is no God. Was I wrong? - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so. My understanding is that Jung was certain there is a God. 'I do not believe, I know' could be paraphased as "The question of belief is irrelevant when there is certainty about something". Just how he was so certain is something many atheists might wish to question him about; but theists would have no issue with it. -- JackofOz 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely the Jung sentiment expresses certainty that God exists, not certainty he does not. But some theists will not like the nature of that God - a gnostic kind of God, "a God beyond good and evil, just as much dwelling in myself as everywhere else", and might well take issue with it. For background on the statement itself, see this page. The pertinent part of the 1959 BBC interview with John Freeman in which the statement occurred:

    Freeman: And did he [your father] make you attend church regularly?
    Jung: Always, that was quite natural. Everybody went to the church on Sunday.
    Freeman: And did you believe in God?
    Jung: Oh, yes, yes.
    Freeman: Do you now believe in God?
    Jung: Now? …[pause] Difficult to answer. I know. I needn't… I don't need to believe. I know.

- Nunh-huh 07:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Will we be known as Elizabethans?

In 100 years time when people look back and study the history that we are making, will we be generalised as Elizabethans? Does it still match that British people will be categorised under which monarch was on the throne during their lifespan?

I am sure that as a child they did a piece saying this was the case and that if/ when Prince Charles becomes king we will known as Carolines... is this just a dream from my childhood or is this true.... and if it is true, what indeed will the nation be known as under the rule of Prince William?

Thank you very much in advance for your help.

Kate Phipps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.69.129 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the only historical periods to be commonly named after the (English/British) monarch of the time are the Elizabethan era, the Georgian era, the Victorian era, and the Edwardian period (plus perhaps the Regency period). Thus it is by no means a foregone conclusion that periods are named after monarchs. Algebraist 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Algebraist is quite right, Kate; historical periods are not automatically named after monarchs. More than that, I rather suspect that particular convention is now a thing of the past. There has been no serious attempt, for instance, to call contemporary Brits 'Elizabethans'. Clio the Muse 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, we're all supposed to be global citizens now. I think this naming convention only ever applied in anglophone countries. Do the French, for example, use the term "l'éra victorienne"? I doubt it. -- JackofOz 01:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've often thought that if the human race is still around in 100 years, as they search for clean water and food or other people to eat, that they might call us something like "plenties" (because we lived in a time of relative plenty). --Fredrick day 00:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading the remarks of one historian, Frederick, I can't remember which, that some distant archaeologist might coin the term the 'Ring-Pull People', along the lines of the Beaker People, to describe us, because ring-pulls would be the only evidence that we ever existed! Clio the Muse 01:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ring pull people? I already don't know what a ring pull is. You mean a pull tab, right?Rmhermen 14:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pull tabs? I suppose I must, Rmhermen. Anyway, the thingies we pull to open cans. England and America; two nations divided by a common language! Clio the Muse 23:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Chiz, chiz, as everyone kno the 1950s were the New Elizabethan Age. We New Elizabethans live in a Golden Age of Discovery and Skylons and Dan Dare and giant computers called LEO and power too cheap to meter and Whizz for Atomms!. Or something like that. I learned most of this from reading Molesworth. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"New Elizabethans" was kind of a slogan of 1952-1953 and the next few years, reflecting the fact of recovery from WW2 (rationing finally came to an end), and feelings of hopefulness coinciding with Elizabeth's accession. I'm not sure all that much was heard of it after Suez and the dismantling of the British empire in the late 1950's / early 1960's... AnonMoos 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It can't be at all likely, as Elizabethan has such a wide use already for the age of Elizabeth I. On the same lines, 'Georgian' doesn't refer to the reigns of George V and George VI (1910-1952, with a tea break for most of 1936), but to the first four Georges (1714 to 1830). Xn4 03:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but do not forget the Georgian poets and Georgian Poetry! Clio the Muse 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, Charles has stated that when (if!) he becomes monarch, he will be taking a new regnal name, likely George, as the previous two Charlies were not all that popular. So it's unlikely we'll ever be known as Carolines either way. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Britten wrote an opera called Gloriana in 1954 to celebrate the accession of Queen Elizabeth II. Although the plot was based on events in the reign of Elizabeth I, maybe we can borrow the title and call ourselves Glorians. -- JackofOz 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In The Earth Abides (I think - that or another post-apocalyptic novel, maybe A Canticle for Liebowicz), we are known as 'the Road Builders'. Steewi 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Causes

What were the causes of War of Devolution, War of the Reunions, Franco-Dutch War, War of the Spanish Succession and War of the League of Augsburg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.115 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at War of Devolution, War of the Reunions, Franco-Dutch War, War of the Spanish Succession and War of the League of Augsburg? -- Arwel (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

French ambition. What else? Clio the Muse 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the meaning of my surname

My surname is Durose ,which I believe may have originally been of French origin.I am trying to find if it has any meaning or translation into anything english . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.145.131 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that it is French. It basically means "The Pink". However, that does not mean that the family had some fascination with the color pink. It may very well have been that "Durose" in French was the closest translation of a non-French surname when the family came to France. -- kainaw™ 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Durose really doesn't make sense as du Rose, as rose is a feminine word, so it would be de la Rose. There is, though, the French name du Ros and also the medieval English name de Ros. For hundreds of years, very few people anywhere could read or write, and in an English-speaking country either of those names could turn into Durose. I suspect there must be other possibilities from other languages. Xn4 03:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Although Xn4's explanation is the most interesting so far it is possible to have a literal translation of your name from French. Keeping with the meaning of "rose" as "pink", du rose could be translated as "some pink" as in tu pourrais ajouter du rose: "you could add some pink". This translation is literal but I doubt it is the appropriate one. You could have a look at the word rose or ros as a replacement for Roi or in old French Roy for "King" in which case it could be a coded way of identifying supporters of the monarchy in unfavourable times (du as a supporter of or servant of). This is however purely speculative. Some people make a living of finding the origins of a name so maybe you could try there as well. Good luck Keria 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rose" as a color name did not signify "pink" until the C17. Robert de Ros (died 1227), a son of Everard de Ros, possessed lands in Yorkshire including Ros or Ross in Holderness. (He was one of the barons signing Magna Carta.) The title Baron de Ros, created by writ in 1264, is the oldest English barony that survives today. --Wetman 16:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

name for music style

I don't know how to describe it but if you have ever watched Tom and Jerry or any other animated series you will know what I am talking about. When tom chases jerrry we have fast, high pitched piano music going on in the background. Does this piano music have a specific name to it? Please help me with it. Wikilinks are very welcome. Regards from a fellow Wikipedian --Kushal^t 19:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... --Kushal^t 00:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope I will get some response when the weekend ends. --Kushal^t 01:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Scott? AnonMoos 02:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the wikilink above. I continued my research and I found this

Bradley expressed considerable pride in his "funny music" and believed scoring for animation offered far more possibilities to the serious composer than live-action films.

from Scott_Bradley but it did not go into much detail or use technical terms. --> --Kushal^t 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

lets wait and see ... ---Kushal^t 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

November 4

World tree qn

Somehwere I remember a reference to the idea of the World Tree as having its roots in the sky and its top in the earth when most beliefs put it the other way round like normal trees. I've looked at the article including axis mundi and tree of life, but nothing. Any tips? Julia Rossi 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We also have World tree. It doesn't seem to mention an upside-down tree, but clearly the motif appears in different forms in many cultures. Xn4 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Failed protests preceding WWI?

I recall reading that there were large international protests before [WWI] started, one somewhere around 1910 or so that put it off for a few years, and then another in 1914 that failed. Where can I find Wikipedia's articles on this?

209.51.73.60 05:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt whether any protests delayed WW1. There were certainly peace-minded people and groups in the early 20th-century, but in some European countries even Marxists who theoretically held an ideology of working-class internationalism effectively supported their governments after the war broke out... AnonMoos 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

When governments decide to go to war, 209.51, no amount of protesting will ever put them off. Indeed, the only demonstrations that I know of associated with the war were those actively in favour of conflict, a great burst of national passion that embraced people from Paris to Petersburg. What you may conceivably have in mind is the Bosnian crisis of 1908-9, where the European powers came close to war over the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina but pulled back at the last moment. Clio the Muse 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose that would depend on whether you consider the Russian Revolution a protest :) Exxolon 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx

I was told recently that there is some theory floating around that Karl Marx suffered from a skin condition, causing some form of personal depression reflected in his writings. Do any of you know anything about this? Stockmann 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Google Karl Marx skin condition. 152.16.59.190 07:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading a letter he wrote to Friedrich Engels in 1867 saying that the bourgeoisie would have occasion to remember the carbuncles on his backside! As for the more general aspects of Professor Shuster's thesis, he does not seem to grasp the huge difference berween alienation as a personal and as a philosophical concept. I have little sympathy for Marxism, but the suggestion that a complex set of ideas is reducible to boils and eruptions is truly absurd! I see some of the links flagged up by 152.16 have headings like 'Bad Skin made Marx a Communist.' Why not a Fascist? That particular form of political self-loathing seems altogether more likely! Clio the Muse 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is RMS Quetta located?

I want to know the exact location of the shipwreck RMS Quetta. I am about to write the Wikipedia article RMS Quetta and I think it would be good to locate the wreck on a map. This NASA map contains the area where the ship is and would be fine for the article, but I'm unsure of the exact location, although sportextreme.com has a rough location (No. 19). A book I have describes the location as near the middle of the Adolphus Channel, I don't know where that channel is either. Maybe a diver had recorded the GPS coordinates of the wreck? Or someone has access to a detailed map of the area? Thanks, --Commander Keane 08:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this interactive map? It should give enough detail at whatever scale you want so that you could create your own static map for the article. 152.16.16.75 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychology of waterboarding

The article about waterboarding states that: "In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex and can make the subject believe death is imminent."

However, why does the gag reflex makes us believe death is imminent? Could it not be just a extremely unpleasant or traumatic feeling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.66.241 (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence reads: "In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while leaving no physical damage." The comma would lead me to believe that the gag reflex is not necessarily the part that makes the person feel that death is imminent. Although, gagging due to water can have a psychological effect in that the person associates the two together (gagging and water) as drowning which would lead to death. Dismas|^(talk) 12:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gagging is a reflex against choking which could indeed cause you to suffocate to death. -- Diletante 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sudan

Having just read about the Sudd in southern Sudan, I wondered when Sudan started using that name and what it meant. A quick scan of 5 different Sudanese history articles on Wikipedia did not help answer my question. When did Sudan get its name and what does it mean? 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This site indicates some of the confusion about the name, inasmuch as it was once a general term for most of sub-Saharan Africa. Our article on History of Sudan is not quite explicit regarding when the term came into use for the area (more or less) of today's nation of Sudan, but it seems likely that it was about when the Anglo-Egyptian co-dominium began in the late 1890s. That would have been about the earliest that borders were even vaguely defined - and they were not really defined until much later, and some are still disputed. Cheers Geologyguy 16:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, also, that on the basis of our articles Sudd and Sudan (region), the origins of the names Sudd and Sudan are not related. Cheers Geologyguy 16:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Canary Islands part of Africa?

Are the Canary Islands considered in any way to be part of Africa? I have read the Canary Islands article, and the impression I get from that is no, that they are geographically close to Africa, but that's all. I just wanted to confirm that answer in case I am misunderstanding the situation. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 14:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All these volcanic islands lie in oceanic crust shifting over a hotspot; they have never been connected to Africa: see here--Wetman 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Have there ever been any political connections to Africa? --BelovedFreak 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

They are controlled by Spain, and are considered to be actually part of Spain, not a "colony," which is one reason the issue of where they are "really" located doesn't come up more often. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That's a big help. --BelovedFreak 16:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

However there are parts of Spain that are definitely in Africa - the ports of Ceuta and Melilla. Spain does not lie entirely in Europe, as most people assume. -- JackofOz 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A modern term for all the Atlantic archipelagos from the Azores to the Cape Verdes, including the Canaries, is Macaronesia. Pfly 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Its very name, Macaronesia, is redolent of the artificial assemblages of islands with various geological origins and disparate current political affiliations: cf. the artificially assembled Macaronic verse.--Wetman 12:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Animal's head in medieval illustrated manuscript

In one of the illuminated pages of a German book of courtly love songs from the 13th\14th Centuries called "Große Heidelberger Liederhandschrift" (a.k.a. "Codex Manesse") appears the image of a minnesinger named Heinrich von Sax. Above him at top left is a shield with the arms of the knights (barons?) of Sax , and at top right the head of an animal that might be a black feline (a black panther?). Is this a black panther (in the sense of a black leopard)? If not, what animal is this?

Thanks!

Ron Berger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergeronz (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(The image can be seen here, and another image with the Sax shield is here.  --Lambiam 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I believe so, though leopards were more usually illustrated as having manes (like lions) and portrayed less naturally. Our article on leopard (heraldry) gives some info. Matt Deres 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be a panther. The red line I at first took for a tongue is probably the flame it always has issuing from its mouth. It's facing the right way, but it's black. --Milkbreath 01:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A newer version of the coat of arms of the Toggenburgers

Arms of the Toggenburgers

I would say it is a Dogge (german) a special dogbreed. It is related to the de:Toggenburger, a noble family of todays Switzerland. Heinrich von Sax inherited part of their territory. See images.--Tresckow 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

MANY THANKS to the kind members of the reference desk who answered my question! After viewing the sources they referred me to in their answers I feel confident that the animal is a heraldic panther - there is no mane so the leopard possibility looks weaker than the panther, and the face is too wide and the snout too short for it to be a dogge. The reference desk is a superb site for anyone looking for help in finding details for studies and articles. In the future I intend to place more questions here and if possible offer answers on subjects I know something about. To me sharing knowledge is the best mental "high" there can be. For the future - can someone refer me to a simple explanation on how to attach an illustration to a question or an answer? In a quick search the only explanation I found was too technical for me, and I think it didn't refer to the reference desk but to the encyclopedia in general - or are they the same in this respect?

To make an image appear with a question, just copy-and-paste what you see in the edit window and substitute the right name. Monkey with it if necessary, and use "Show preview" until it looks OK. Don't worry; if you mess it up, somebody here will come along and tidy it up. Of course, the image has to be somewhere the software can find it. You can search Commons or upload the picture you want to use to Commons first. To link to a picture outside of Wikipedia is easy; just put the address, a space, and the text you want inside square brackets . --Milkbreath 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Details of service of a British navy needed

The British navy (i.e. military fleet, not including merchant and private vessels) had over the years several ships named "H.M.S. Panther". One of them was a ship of the mid 1800's (I know as a fact that it was in service in the Mediterranean in 1859). I also know that a ship of this name ran aground in the sea off Wallace Island, British Columbia (Canada) in 1874, and have reason to believe it is the same ship. Can someone find more details about this ship - years in service, history in the navy, identities of captain\s and officers, personnel, armament etc.? I am interested especially in its tour of duty in the Mediterranean during the first half of 1859, but all relevant details will be welcome.

THANK YOU!!!!

Ron Berger

We only have articles for three ships named HMS Panther. The Royal Navy has an excellent web site Tha you can try. -Arch dude 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Arch Dude - I need to consult in more details than is proper here. Can you please let me know how to get in touch with you? Do you have a web page with e-mail link to you? I awear I am not a spammer nor do I have any intentions to take up a lot of your time. Being new here I don't know if you can access my registration with the reference desk. I you can, my e-mail address is there and you are welcome to contact me that way. Please respond. Thanks! Bergeronz 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

broadband for intellectuals

I've been using dialup for ages on the internet, and I'm thinking of upgrading to broadband. However, this comes at a price, in the form of 12 month contracts and the like. What does broadband offer an intellectual that a dial up user wouldn't (realistically) have access to? I'm interested in things like archival audio/video footage of significant events, and playing intellectual games with some historical flavour (e.g. those involving recreation of an historical era in the form of an online world). Online tutoring (by me or for me) is also an idea I might toy with at some point. Any opinions from satisfied/ disgruntled users? 203.221.127.45 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

While the speed difference is important, even more importat isthe fact that the broadband connection is always on. This changed the way you thinks about the Internet and the way you interact with it, because ou never need to actually establish a connection. If your dial-up line is also your phone line, you also have a feeling that you really must get off the internet ocasionally to free up the phone line: this goes away with boradband. I suspect that many users care about video, but I find it a waste of time. -Arch dude 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

you might appreciate the fact that you can download software and documents faster with broadband but how often does anyone download a 25 MiB document in PDF ? My advice, if you don't need it, don't get it. --Kushal^t 19:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note—given that many online databases full of journal and newspaper articles in PDF format are now available, it is not at all uncommon to download large PDFs for someone who does work in an academic field that relies heavily on citation and journals. When I am in the throes of research I can easily download 25 MB of PDFs in a day. I currently have about 10GB of space devoted just to PDFs on my hard drive at the moment. --24.147.86.187 15:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Arch dude - We have a campaign going in Australia to turn computers off at the wall when not in use, to help reduce greenhouse gases. There may be similar campaigns elsewhere. This is good in itself, but it does have the effect that your broadband connection has to be re-established every time you log on. You don't incur a call cost as you would with a dialup connection, but there's still the waiting for it come up, and it still feels like dialup. -- JackofOz 22:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sharing broadband with a neighbor has been good for me. If you are in an urban area, it is possible you can locate people with wireless networks and make an arrangement with them.Polypipe Wrangler 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The speed difference can be astronomical. In my dialup days I was lucky to download 300k a minute - now I get up to 300k a second and my broadband is a bog standard type one. This is great for downloading large video files or photo archives or for transferring files. You can stream video directly off the net and not wait for it to download before watching it. Pages load much faster, your phone is always available. Best thing I can advise is borrow a friends broadband connection and experiment to see how much it changes your net experience. Exxolon 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just think how much more Wikipedia you will be able to enjoy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.95.158 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you have segregated the world into "intellectuals" and "everybody else", with the former only using communications and media in the most low-tech, image-free, video-free forms. Alas, intellectuals too look at images, moving pictures, large files of all sorts, and sometimes want to be able to communicate at less-than-crawling speeds with the world around them. Perhaps you mean "an intellectual who does not really know how to use the internet". In any case, intellectualism is not really the main factor you are getting at. There are many media- and communications-savvy intellectuals, and I count myself among them. The life of the mind is not specific to a medium. --24.147.86.187 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters in the rain

Moved to the Science Desk. 80.200.238.237 09:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard III

I was wondering why Richard III continues to have such a draw on the imagination considering his reign was one of the shortest in English history. Any ideas? 86.153.161.62 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that has more to do with Shakespeare's treatment of him, than his actual reign. Note that Shakespeare wasn't exactly accurate in his portrayal, I hear Richard III was a very pleasant and benign ruler. risk 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Are rulers ever pleasant and benign? This was a time when the pleasant and benign were likely to end up pleasantly and benignly dead! Our image of Richard, the abiding fascination we have for him, does indeed owe a lot to the malevolent figure depicted by Shakespeare, just as Shakespeare owed a lot to the history of Sir Thomas More. Why does he fascinate? Because he is our very own English MacBeth, a kingship full of drama, thunder, blood, and still more blood. No witches, though. The Cat the Rat and Lovel our Dog, Rule all England under a Hog. Clio the Muse 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor old MacBeth. Killing one's predecessor was hardly uncommon in 10th-11th century Scotland, which seems to have been even harder on kings than late medieval England. He reigned a good while, and may have been secure enough to undertake a pilgrimage to Rome. He certainly wasn't the subject of a near-contemporary damnatio memoriae. The Duan Albanach - which seems to date from the reign of Duncan's son Malcolm - calls him "Mac Bethad the renowned" and the slightly later and very bizarre Prophecy of Berchán says (§192): "The ruddy,pale-yellow-haired, tall one, I shall be joyful in him. Scotland will be brimful, in the west and in the east, during the reign of the furious Red one." It seems to be a good while before the Macbeth seen in Holinshed and Shakespeare emerges. Richard III was a miserable failure as a king. Macbeth seems to have been well-regarded and successful. If he died by violence, well every other Scots ruler in the 11th century until Edgar, with the possible exception of Malcolm II, died the same way or was deposed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Angus, my allusion was not the historical MacBeth but to the Shakespeare play of the same name; hence the nod in the direction of the witches. So, please sheath your claymore, extinguish the fiery cross, and take the clans back over the border! Pax vobiscum. Clio the Muse 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between Caucus and Primary?

In U.S. Presidential election what is the difference between a caucus and a primary. My understanding is that caucus is a non-binding primary and, since it is the primary that chooses the candidate, caucus is not as significant as primary. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyeditor (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

According to United States presidential primary,

The primary elections are run by state and local governments in the states which do not have caucuses instead.

Does it have any significance? --Kushal^t 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See Iowa caucus#Process. In a primary, you go in and vote. In a caucus, those supporting a candidate all stand in a corner of a room and try to convince others to join them. Big difference. Rmhermen 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nivelle Offensive

I've been readong through your pages on the battles of the First World War, some of which are very good but, hey, look at the one on the Second Battle of the Aisne which contains the following stunning assesment "Although often characterized as a dismal failure, the offensive did net gains of as much as seven kilometers". Seven muddy kilometers at the cost of 187,000 casualties! This must be a joke, right? Anyway, sorry, my question relates to the Nivelle Offensive as a whole. Your articles say little about the German defensive response and why it was so effective. Can any of you war experts fill me in on this blind spot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plekhanov (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you may have a point, Plekhanov; that statement about 'gains' seems woefully out of place. I'm reminded of an episode of the comedy Blackadder Goes Forth where General Melchet is looking at what appears to be a scale model of the front laid out on a table, which turns out to be the actual amount of land captured in a British offensive.

Anyway, to your question. To begin with the Germans had ample warning of Nivelle's plan to rupture the front. In anticipation they put in place a scheme for defence in depth, devised by Colonel von Lossberg, which meant leaving the forward trench virtually unmanned apart from observers, while an intermediate zone to the rear was held by machine gunners dispersed in strongpoints. The artillery was arranged not in a line but in a haphazard fashion, ensuring almost total coverage of the French line of advance at several points. Finally, and most decisively, strong infantry reserves were held back from the line, well outside the range of the French artillery. It was to be devastatingly effective. Clio the Muse 01:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Two Revolutions?

While I'm waiting for an answer to the above I thought I'd lob in another, just to keep your brains active. Here it is: can any comparison be made between the French Army Mutinies of 1917 and the events that led to the outbreak of the Revolution in Russia? And this time I remembered that I had to sign! Plekhanov 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no basis for comparison. The very term French Army Mutinies is really quite misleading, in that, unlike Russia, there was no collapse in military order and no attacks on officers. If anything the whole event was more of a strike than a mutiny. Even then the front at no time was left undefended. But the biggest difference is that in Russia disorder in the army was a symptom of the wider collapse in the economy and in the authority of the state. Although the Russian Army continued to function up to a point in the period between the February Revolution and the October Revolution, the establishment of soldiers' Soviets weakened the authority of the officer corps still further. Clio the Muse 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are a star, Clio the Muse. Thank you for such illuminating answers to both of my questions. I have one other that you might care to tackle-how important was Philippe Petain in bringing the mutinies under control? Could Alexi Brusilov not have acted as a Russian Petain? Sorry, that's two. Plekhanov 17:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Petain played a vital part, both in restoring order and in addressing some of the concerns of the ordinary poilu over their conditions of service. Aleksei Brusilov, a brilliant commander and a decent man, would doubtless have done the same in similar circumstances; but in Russia the situation had slipped beyond remedy. Clio the Muse 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-WW2 U.S. soldiers being sent to Europe

How many U.S. soldiers were sent to Europe right after the fall of Nazi Germany? They had to provide law and order. They also had to replace wounded and tired soldiers. -- Toytoy 21:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

don't know how many but here is the medal they earned: Army of Occupation Medal. Rmhermen 01:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Army's historical series on the occupation of Germany. Chapter 18 notes that the occupation began with 1.6 million troops in Germany (p 319) with a goal of about a 400,000-man occupation force (p 333) and a later 40,000-man constabulary (p 340). Now, to get around to your actual question: Zero troops were sent to Europe right after the fall of Nazi Germany. In the immediate aftermath, there were far more troops in Europe than necessary and the effort was to redeploy soldiers to the Pacific front for the invasion of Japan, as well as rotating veterans with enough points home. Even once Japan surrendered, the efforts of the first few months were still to get veterans back to the States while reducing the occupation size. While some soldiers did deploy to Europe post-war (my grandfather being one), this wasn't until 1946 and even then was probably only to maintain that 40,000 number. In 1949, West Germany assumed self-rule and became fully sovereign in 1955. US troops have been in Germany on a continuous basis, though, as part of NATO and as a defensive foil to perceived Soviet aggressions. All that is to say that picking a stopping point to "occupation troops" gets kind of fuzzy.

Not strictly a clear answer, I know, but hopefully an enlightening one. — Lomn 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

history of theatre in Paris

Sorry - this should be easy, but I need it in a hurry, and Google isn't helping - can someome give me the names of a couple of theatres extant in Paris in about 1650?

Thanks a lot Adambrowne666 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Théâtre du Marais, L'Hôtel de Bourgogne (Comédiens ordinaires du Roi). Le Théâtre du XVIIème siècle (typed in a hurry) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna give you Reference Desk guys a big thank you when my novel's published. Thanks yet again, Sluzzelin Adambrowne666 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious: why would you need anything in a hurry when writing a novel? --Sean 16:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question - it was for a single line in a chapter that had already been drafted, and deserved only a few minutes thought, rather than taking an hour away from other work that needed doing on other unfinished chapters - I'd already spent at least 40 minutes on it, and was growing increasingly frustrated. Writing is such a time-consuming pursuit that it is best left to immortals - the rest of us have to muddle along as well as we can in the alotted four score and ten. Adambrowne666 20:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Think of Wikisource when the book is finished! Keria 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

November 5

Units of measurement in Soviet Russia

02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)199.30.0.49After watching "The Hunt for Red October" on TV, I noticed that the submariners used meters as their unit of measurement when piloting their sub. Did the Soviet Union use the metric system (at least during the late Soviet period, i.e. after 1984)? It says on the page for "Convention du Mètre" that the Russia Federation adopted the metric system in 1875, but did this continue through the Soviet years? Thanks! 199.30.0.49 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, why on earth would they have switched to a less logical system? And I doubt that the Russian Federation went metric in 1875 since it didn't exist then; the Russian Empire, yes. -- Arwel (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See 101st kilometre and Siege of Leningrad#Supplies. I'm sure that round numbers like those weren't converted from another unit. --Bowlhover 07:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that almost no countries use the Imperial system at this point, not even the English. By the 1980s (when the movie takes place) this was pretty much the case as well. When in doubt, assume a foreign country uses the metric system. --24.147.86.187 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

navel

How come for some people when one fingers them in the belly button, it hurts and other it tickles?Jwking 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your query is a matter of physiology and would probably be better asked on the Science reference desk rather than here. -- Deborahjay 07:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot we don't know about tickling, an interesting article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Habsburg and Valois

What impact did the lengthy struggle between the the Imperial Habsburgs and the French Valois have on international politics in the sixteenth century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.2 (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will this be on the midterm? Or is it an assignment? --Wetman 12:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It had a tendency to draw in other powers, lesser and greater, to the point were the dispute between dynasties looked to turn into a general European war. It made for strange alliances, with the Papacy, and even the Ottoman Empire. siding with the Most Christain King against the Holy Roman Emperor. It gave Henry VIII the opportunity to cut a figure in international affairs, dreaming vain dreams of another empire in France. The struggle between the two leading figures of Catholic Europe was to provide a great boost to the Reformation. Protestantism survived in Germany and the French gained a permanent hold of the fortresses of Metz, Verdun and Toul. With the Emperor and the King locked in struggle the Sultan extended his power across the Mediterranean and the Balkans. It changed the political and the religious shape of Europe. Clio the Muse 02:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot

What was the catholic reaction to the news of the plot, disapointment or relief? Seems a fitting question for today of all days. Qurious Cat 11:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A single, "Catholic" reaction? What would that mean? What would assessing it have required? How could it be assessed in retrospect? --Wetman 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it fairly safe to assume that most English Catholics were in full agreement with the Archpriest George Blackwell, who, with the approval of Pope Paul V, issued a statement denouncing the Gunpowder Plot as "intolerable, uncharitable, scandalous and desperate." He was horrified to learn that a Catholic, Guy Fawkes, had been privy to "this detestable device." He went on to say that "private violent attempts could never be justified; Catholics must not support them in any way." When the Duke of Lerma, favourite courtier of Philip III, learned of the attempt he described the plotters as 'atheists and devils', hoping to hear that some of them were Puritans and not Catholics at all. Clio the Muse 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Aging-limitations on learning the arts?

I guess this could be either a science or a humanities question. I figured I'd post here since my main concern is arts-related.

How badly (or not-at-all) does aging affect one's ability to master an art?

Say I just begin learning to draw properly (as in, not drawing like a fifth-grader with Parkinson's, which is how I draw now at 27... just awful) at 35. Is there a certainty I will be just as good from 5 years of practice by the time I'm 40, as if I were to have started at 15 by the time I'm 20? What about learning to draw at 40 and your practice reflecting at 45?

I wonder this because I notice most successful artists' careers seem to take off when they're in their early 20's -- not just illustrators but musicians and such. Are there any instances of an illustrator or musician (or any other artist) who was a "blank slate" throughout the first 30 or 35 or 40 years of his or her life and then got into it, and then influenced the world late in their life? The only example I can think of is Rodney Dangerfield... didn't he take a 3-decade hiatus from standup comedy as a salesman before going back into comedy and being hugely successful? But that's comedy, an art that isn't as "motor skill" based as drawing or playing an instrument.

Anyway, I hope I can get some perspective on this. --75.165.55.66 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you gauge success by popularity then age has a big influence on how well you can make relatable material to the now generation... just another x-factor that might apply to your theory. Beekone 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, brain plasticity is greater when one is younger than one is older. But there is some evidence that this might be partially culturally determined insofar as in youth a greater portion of one's life is spent learning new things (although there is a causation/correlation issue here). People who continue actively learning new skills and ideas have greater learning capability than people who do not (although there is, again, a causation/correlation issue at play). Donald Hosek 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another factor is that people of 15 often have a lot more free time to spare to practice their skill than people of 30 or 35. Time spent in practice is vital in developing a skill, and the responsibilities of the world tend to crowd out the time available. SaundersW 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What one can often notice is that artists going into their 50's tend to get more sloppy and careless about their drawing and painting. In the field of comics (which, since you are talking I think about figurative arts, seems relevant), great draughtsmen such as Jean Giraud, Enki Bilal, Rosinski or Hugo Pratt (who might be considered an exception since he has always been playing with the sloppyness of his drawings often not penciling before inking) tend to apply much less care to their drawings. Wether this is due to boredom, failing eyesight or genuine physiological and neurological changes would be hard to say. An interresting example to have a look at might be that of Lucian Freud who might be considered to have been a poor draughtsman in his early twenties and then got gradually to be extraordinary in his thirties (talking here of technical aspects of his paintings not his qualities as a complete artist). A case could be made that the passion one can put in the study and practice could easely level the playing field accross the generations - a passionate 50 year old will do better than an unconcerned 20 something. I assume so anyway. There's no doubt that you will have a tough time though. Since drawing illustrations requires a high degree of organisation (pre-planning, composition, applying colors in the right order, etc) and there is a huge amount of concrete things to learn (tricks, and shortcuts to make your drawing look good, general knowledge about colours that can only be learned through practice) not to mention avoiding the last minute blooper that leaves a big smear of ink accros the whole page (happens more often than you would think) it might be that you will be at a disadvantage starting late. Your experience in other fields might come in handy. I'm not sure there is a quantifiable answer to your question but you can always remember that great artists are not necessarely great draughtsmen and that the artistery part of the mix comes from somewhere else. Best of luck for your plans anyways. ps I wish I could get tricks on how to have a steady hand and not do parkinsonian drawings, that seems the hardest to me. Maybe Chinese calligraphy? Keria 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Age and perceived drawing ability have nothing to do with it. I once did a short course based on Betty Edwards' book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. It was an eye-opener for this artistic troglodyte. I didn't pursue my artistic leanings, but I thoroughly recommend the book, which will help you approach drawing from an entirely different angle. -- JackofOz 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are only interested in a scientific answer to your question, and you plan to earn all or part of your living with what of drawing you master, what difference does it make? You are the age you are. If drawing interests you, take it up. With a very modest amount of practice, you will certainly be better than you are now. If you enjoy it, you will continue to do it, and continue to improve. I know an art teacher who recommends keeping a drawing pad and some good pencils on the front seat of the car. Every time he is stuck in traffic, is early for an appointment, or has to wait anywhere for anyone, he gets out the pad and makes a few sketches: a chair leg, the tsil tail light of the car ahead of him, a tree branch, the traffic lights, the corner of a building. You will be amazed how much better you get, how fast it happens and how much more sanguine you become about the small delays in life. Bielle 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, daily practice is essential to learning your drawing (I can't say how to draw, there are so many different ways of drawing and you can only ever learn your way). Then there is also the problem of what you want to draw. Do you want to draw from real life, draw things from reference, draw figurative subject from memory and practice as in comic books or cartoons or do you want to go for experimental or even abstract drawing/painting? These all require learning connected but rather different techniques and you would save yourself a lot of time by knowing which route you want to take (then of course not necessarely stick to it) before planning your exercises. Keria 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I am appalled by Keria's blithe dismissal of Moebius'and others' middle-aged artistic output. There is NOTHING to suggest these artists weren't at the top of their form. Keria had better apply him/herself to actually studying these artists before pontificating on their fictional decline; then something of value might ensue from his/her ex cathedradamnations.

No, you can perfectly well learn to draw at age 40 +. Maturity and trained vision easily make up for any lack of native facility. I've seen it! Rhinoracer 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Champions league

What is more important ex European Champions Cup or todays Champions league??

Because,in Champions Cup,there were less games,but only real champions of countries were in it,while now,theres more games,but some teams never even won their own countrys championship?

So ,whats greater achivement,winning old Champions Cup or new Champions league?

77.105.13.56 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, It's not really any difference, only the name is different. There are the same "amount" of prestige in both CC and CL since it is in truth the same competition, just given a new name and expanded into containing more teams. I'll give you an example of my team that i am familiar with, Liverpool won Champions league recently in 2005, and they're among the most succesful teams in CC/CL's history. for they have won it five times. i think only Real madrid(9 times I THINK) and AC Milan(6 times I THINK) have won more times. and my point is that back when Liverpool won CC/CL in the seventees and eightees (1977, 78, 81 and 84) then it was the competition was called Champions Cup, but now when they won in 2005 it was called Champions League, and we just now today count it as if they have won the Champions league (or CC if you prefer) 5 times throughout the history ever since CC was founded.

Same thing goes for what was called the Cup-winners cup in the past, today it is called the UEFA-CUP. ofcourse u already know this i think, but its the same thing with this cup and there is no different in how great the achievement was.

However, if u think about it, in the past, only ONE team, the league-winner in its country could partake in the next year's CC so it was more difficult to enter the competition but "easier" to win it becoz there were fewer teams. Today, you can come 3rd or 4th in the biggest football-country's leagues and still come into CL, so it is easier to enter the competition today, but probably harder to win it becoz there are more teams and more matches. And another thing is that modern football is probably more even and the teams are more equal to each other than they were 20-30 years ago when the biggest clubs were far better and bigger than the others. That claim of mine can be backed by the fact that the biggest teams often won several years in a row or many times over only few years. Like when Liverpool won 4 times in a eight-years period (77-84), leaving little doubt who was the kings of europe at that time. Today however, you rarely see a team win CL so frequently. Maybe becoz its harder competition..?

But still, the prestige is the same really.

Hope I gave an satosfactory answer to your question ;) Krikkert7 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A fistful of useless dollars?

In 1952, U.S. President candidate Eisenhower made some "Eisenhower Answers America" TV ads. In one ad, a hired woman holding a grocery bag said it costs her US$24.

• Eisenhower Answers America ads
• The $24 groceries ad
• Other ads (QuickTime)

How could anyone in the early 1950s pay $24 for a bagful of ordinary foods? -- Toytoy 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the bag was a metaphor for the entire grocery trip? I remember learning about that ad campaign in History class in high school, btw Beekone 19:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

eugene lanceray sculpture

i have a signed bronze sclpture by lanceray. I shows a russian man and 2 horses looking forlorn and seeming to return from war. do you have any information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.136.157 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ArtPrice shows Lanceray bronzes currently (2007) selling at auction for around $US10,000, depending on size, condition and provenance. Yours sounds like one of several he did with figures of two horses. If you have the dimensions of the piece, I can likely find out more. Bielle 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Texas Indians

Are the Jumano Indians extinct? Do they still exist?; If so where are they located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.45.211 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See Suma-Jumano, which links to this page, where you can get the address of someone claiming to represent the tribe in 1998. According to our article, some still-existing tribes such as the Havasupai have been refered to as Jumanos. Wareh 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FANTASY NOVELS & LITERATURE for me

hey.

I am extremely interested in FANTASY. However, unfortunately my experiences with it are *mostly* through computer-games. And I seek to read more novels of the genre. I have read very few books/novels and I find it difficult to find quite what I am after, or what i believe i am after. (you might say i never know before i have read a book whether it is good or bad)

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (D&D), and escpially the fantasy world FORGOTTEN REALMS are one I am very familiar with as most of my fantasy-"experiences" has been in that world. I am also a little familiar with other D&D-worlds like GREYHAWK, EBERRON, DRAGONLANCE and the likes, and my impression is that it is very very very difficult to find fantasy-novels that does NOT take place in any of the D&D-settings. I have read only a few novels from these worlds, and I have read reviews and such things about the works of well-known authors of the genre like Ed Greenwood, R.A Salvatore, Elaine Cunningham and so forth and it just seems to me that so much of the D&D-literature is too heavily based on the early rules and works of the old miniature wargames/boardgames that D&D were based on from the beginning, way back. I hope whoever answers this is a little bit familiar with D&D, or else you may not know what I talk about. But it just seems that the whole rule-system and statistics and so forth from the old games are brought INTO the novels, influencing the way the authors write too much and it kind of ruins the story-telling - for ME, and many others too after what i read. I feel that Fantasy, as a literary genre, is so prone to being amateurishy written dreck. many novels shows its roots at the Dungeon's and Dragons table (you can practically hear the dice-rolls), and as such lacks any clear narrative thrust.

The few novels i have read have been like that, and the reviews i read tells me that many other books, and possibly even most of them are like that too. This makes it very difficult to go on and actually buy these books/novels when the reviews tell me what they do, and past experiences with the few books I already have read only adds to it.

So i guess i dont really know what answer to expect from anyone by asking this. I guess i just hope that someone that shares my love of fantasy knows a little bit about this and even if they dont know much about D&D (which as i said seems to me to be mostly the only setting/world from which fantasy-literature comes) maybe they still have some knowledge about fantasy-literature that i don't have, and that they know what to look for and where. Even direct suggestions for good titles would be very welcome.

And jsut so i've made it clear, so that anyone that may answer this doesn't think that by FANTASY i mean Science-fiction or horror or something, for i really don't. I talk about fantasy that has Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Goblins, wizards, warriors, sword and shield etc. all set in a medieval-like world you know. Maybe that is "High-fantasy" to some... i don't really know the difference.

Any guidance or suggestions from a bookworm or two would be welcome, even though i'm not sure what kind of answer i expect or hope for. I just grow frustrated not to find quality-fantasy that i really would believe is out there to be found.

thanks, Krikkert7

Krikkert7 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are umpteen gazillion non-D&D fantasy novels. An awful lot of those gazillions have elves and orcs, rather too many for my liking, and aim to be High Fantasy (Epic Pooh as someone once said) without coming remotely close. Michael Moorcock's Elric books are fantasy, with weird beasties, and lots of death and destruction, including the end of everything, but nothing like D&D. Grunts by Mary Gentle is almost the antithesis of a D&D fantasy novel ("Pass me another halfling, this one's broken" is a great line). Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stuff has been ransacked by modern pulp fantasy writers, but the originals are much better. Conan books won't be everyone's cup of tea, but they do sell well it seems. Elric and Fafhrd are probably the safest bets and are usually available in multi-novel volumes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Back in the late 70s/early 80s I used to read a lot of the kind of fantasy that you're looking for -- before the D&D novels took over the market -- though these tend to be a little short on orcs and elves and such. I was a big fan of the Deryni novels by Katherine Kurtz (the first two published trilogies, beginning with Deryni Rising and Camber of Culdi), as well as the first cycle in The Chronicles of Amber. I also fondly remember a novel called Master of the Five Magics. The series that began with Lord Foul's Bane was pretty interesting, though some of my friends hated it. The Sword of Shannara series was an amiable Tolkien ripoff, if you insist on dwarves and elves. —Kevin Myers 00:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see. You could start with the grandaddy of them all, the Lord of the Rings. The works of David Eddings and Raymond E. Feist are worth a look possibly. Terry Pratchett is fun if you like seeing the conventions of fantasy turned on their heads. Terry Brooks has done many different works too - the Shannara and Landover series for a start. Have fun! Exxolon 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a great number of excellent fantasy novels out there if you know where to look. I agree with all the suggestions above but also suggest a few others: The Majipoor series by Robert Silverberg (sort of science fiction, sort of fantasy, but all around great), the The Prydain Chronicles series by Lloyd Alexander (supposedly for kids but fun), The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley (Arthurian legend), The Crystal Cave (and three other books in the series) by Mary Stewart (Arthurian legend), The Once and Future King by T. H. White (by now you can be sure I read a lot of books based on Arthurian legends in my younger days), the Empire Trilogy by Raymond Feist and Janny Wurts (oriental-ish "universe"), Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart (set in ancient China). And then there are the many excellent novels by Steven Brust including the ones about "Vladimir Taltos" and my favorites of the bunch, the Khaavren Romances inpired by the Three Musketeers. Stardust (novel) by Neil Gaiman is luscious, I hope the movie they are making of it does it justice. If you can tolerate something a bit less medievalish, the the "Elemental Masters" series by Mercedes Lackey is generally pretty good as is the "Free Bards" series (a bit more medievalish). Lois McMaster Bujold writes a mean fantasy novel as well, without a hint of a dice roll. Recently I found Poison Study by Maria Snyder to be interesting and original. Oh, and classics not to be missed include the Martian (Barsoom) books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. And don't forget Glory Road by Robert Heinlein, and much of Andre Norton's output (not that the two authors works are very similar). And try to find the Earthsea books by Ursula K. Le Guin. So many books, so little time, but that's all that spring to mind at the moment. . . . Hope this helps get you started. Crypticfirefly 06:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There's Lord Dunsany's The King of Elfland's Daughter; his stuff is mostly shorter pieces, all magnificent. Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast "trilogy" has been described as a tour-de-force of Gothic fantasy, but I think it's more fantasy than "Gothic" (the third one is not to everyone's taste). The Well at the World's End by William Morris is good. The prequel, if you will, to Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, was a pleasant surprise for me; it reads like mythology. --Milkbreath 11:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And for some comic relief, should you feel the need for it, there's The Tough Guide To Fantasyland.--Rallette 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot go wrong with Jack Vance. His The Dying Earth, and its sequels, set the bar as high as it may go. Equally wondrous is his Lyonesse trilogy. Rhinoracer 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

tnx guys, a whole lot bigger respons than i could have hoped for. tnx again :) Krikkert7 14:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that D+D wasn't a miniature or a board game. It was a mind game. My group never used miniatures even when we partly adopted the "Advanced" rules. Rmhermen 16:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

TTC Route

Hi there, I am not sure if this the right place to ask but my question is: I live in Crescent Town Road and I am going to middle school called D.A. Morrison, located at 271 Gledhill Ave, next year, after I graduate from grade 5. My problem is that which TTC subway and TTC bus do I take to go to that middle school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.130.191 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be less than a mile, so you could walk. Search for both addresses on this route map for more options, and also see the TTC website. Wareh 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The subway station is Woodbine Ave on the Bloor-Danforth line, from whence you go south to Danforth Ave (about 100 feet) and then east (left) to the next traffic lights (Gledhill Ave)and turn left (north). You can see the school from the corner. Bielle 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wareh has answered you anyway, but in general, 76, it would be kinder to the people you asking for help from, if you indicated what town, or even what country, you were asking about! --ColinFine 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While you are quite right, ColinFine, Wareh and I both recognized the vocabulary, and I had a cousin who lived in the neighbourhood about four decades ago. I may have made a mistake, however, if there are two schools on Gledhill now. The one I knew was at the corner of Danforth and Gledhill, but used to be called, I think, Gledhill Public School. Apologies, 76.64..., if I have led you astray. Bielle 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

D.A. Morrison school is on Gledhill between Lumsden and Cosburn, not at the corner of Danforth. If you live near the west end of Crescent Town Road, I think the easiest way to get there by TTC would be to take the 23 Dawes bus south on Dawes Road and ride to the end of the line at Main Street subway station. Then take the 62 Cosburn bus and get off at the stop nearest Lumsden and Gledhill.

If you live nearer the east end of Crescent Town Road, it is probably easier to walk to Victoria Park subway station using the footbridge over Victoria Park Avenue; then take the subway westbound one stop to Main Street, and the 62 Cosburn bus as above.

In either case, both bus or subway rides are quite short and when you consider that you will have to wait for the bus or subway each time, you may find it easier to walk the whole way.

Coming back from school there is a more direct route, the 404 East York community minibus, but it only runs once every 75 minutes. You can board it on Cosburn at the eastbound stop nearest Gledhill (currently the last three trips of the day are at about 2:40, 3:55, and 5:10 pm), and it will take you directly to Crescent Town Road in about 15 minutes. You can't use this to go to school because it doesn't start running until after 9 am.

--Anonymous, 07:07 UTC, November 6, 2007.

Well done, Anonymous! I shouldn't ask others to rely on what I remember from 40 or 50 years ago; it may not be even wise to rely on it myself. Thanks for staightening me out. Bielle 07:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Power of US States Over Actions of Federal Govt. within State

Hypothetical situation: a hijacked airliner lands at a US air force base in, say, California. What could the state government do (if anything) to ensure that what goes on inside the base regarding the terrorist suspects is to their liking? Can the state government exercise jurisdiction over the land a military base occupies? Could the Federal Government keep representatives of the state government off the base so they can't interfere with whatever is going on?

No political soapboxing please, thanks. Danthemankhan 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the Air Force base. Many air force bases are federal enclaves, under military jurisdiction. There are also bases on which state and federal government exercise concurrent jurisdiction. The matter of jurisdiction is determined by law (see [10] for an example) and any conflicts over jurisdiction would presumably be settled in court rather than an impromptu shoot-out. - Nunh-huh 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

November 6

Source of cucumbers and other vegetables sold in Israel

Can any user please tell me what percentage of cucumbers, tomatoes, marrows, green peppers and other vegetables sold in Israel originate from Arab sources? (I am referring to a NON-SHEMITTAH year.)Thank you. Simonschaim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.233.53 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If your interest stems from Shmittah, you probably are also interested in the percentage of produce that's imported, which would be a lot easier to determine, given that no-one would have any reason to track whether produce comes from Israeli farmers of Jewish or Arab origin. --Dweller 16:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Poster sized world map

Hi, I'm looking to buy a poster sized world map to put on my office wall. I would like something that is easily readable and nice looking, but with a lot of detail, subdivisions of large countries (US, Russia, India, China etc) in particular. My main fields of interest are economics and history and so climate/natural geography is not as important as borders and cities, but information is always good. I prefer shape distortions to size distortions (I'd rather avoid approaching the Mercator projection). Preferrably I would buy it from a Norwegian or European online store, but I guess I can afford shipping from the US as well. The question is: Any recommendations? Thanks a lot! Jørgen 12:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The best maps, in my opinion, are those produced by National Geographic. They are the most accurate, most detailed and most attractive, I believe. Their maps can be viewed and ordered here. A U.S. firm that has very good maps is called simply A Maps and Graphics Co. You might also try the International Map Trade Association to find a European dealer. — Michael J 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey offer an excellent range of large wall maps of the world in various projections, including the Eckert IV correct size projection. These show country names and boundaries, large towns and cities and various other things. The OS are based in the UK so are European.GaryReggae 13:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Eckert IV (equal-area) map GaryReggae describes can be found here. National Geographic uses the Winkel Tripel projection, which has some area distortion as part of a strategy to minimize the sum of area, distance, and direction distortions ("the only portions...that suffer from severe area distortion are the polar regions near the east and west edges of the map").[11] Wareh 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dardanelles Campaign

What would have been the outcome if the allied campaign of 1915-6 had succeeded? 217.42.105.98 13:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The outcome would have been a success for the allied campaign of 1915-1916. Anything beyond that is a matter of opinion, not fact - which is not appropriate for the reference desk. -- kainaw™ 14:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tower Ravens

Can anyone trace the origin of the legend of the ravens in the Tower of London? Your article says it is unkown by I was hoping one of you might have managed to dig a little deeper. Thanks. Margaret Campbell —Preceding comment was added at 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The origin of legends is always hard to establish but Dr. Parnell, the official historian of the Tower of London, seems to think that it was a Victorian creation and not as old as we think. Article on this from the Guardian [12] Lord Foppington 17:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

However, the connection of the legend of the head of Bran with London, possibly Tower Hill, appears to go back farther... AnonMoos 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To become a writer/author - a successful one!

I've been writing for 4 years... my own novel. created my own fantasy world, in similar style to that of Lord of the Rings and Forgotten realms. Though I would never set my work up against others or compare my work with other published works, at least not to anyone but myself. And as fantasy is a very popular literature-genre and many famous works has been done in this genre, it will be/is a real challenge. I enjoy it. Now in my young years, it is not something i spend all my time with but i work on it more in periods when i feel the call, so to say. So i guess you can call me a "wanna-be-writer"

And I'm far away from being finished, and it will be many many years yet before i complete it coz i am in no rush about it, and i'm extremely detailed in my work. I know i have a special talent for writing, I found that out from an early age, and i am quite confident about my writing-abilities. But i have no education whatsoever on writing, and I am all self-taught. I don't even know if author-schools or the likes excists where one can get education in this. If so, it could maybe have been of interest to me in order to improve and expand my writing, and learn new aspects of it.

But anyway, what i am am eager to find out here is if there are anyone out there that reads this that has an OBJECTIVE view or opinion on how difficult it is to go on and actually get a book published, and potentially from there become a well-known writer whose books will be sold and read all over the world?

I mean, you really don't have to tell me that i need to be a good writer and write a good, intriguing story. Coz that is plain enough - a writer has to fully deliver a worthy product, and that is all up to ME to achieve that.

But let's say i do deliver an absolute complete product, then where do i go from there when I stand with all these pages in my hands? I must seek out a book-organisation/publisher of sorts to have them read my work and then judge if it is good enough? So will the whole thing be in the hands of ONE person who reads it and then judges it?? If its thought not good enough, then I would just get my work back before being sent away with a clap on me shoulder? And if it is thought good enough to publish, then they'll ... eh, just say ok, and start produce it? I doubt it is that straight forward, but as you can see, i am completely green on how to venture forth with a complete product, and what and where to go... or what to expect.

And I'll wager there are many people like me trying to write, and hoping to "break through", and what is the case with those people? Are most people cut off, being told their product is not good enough, and that they simpley have to come back when and if they can come up with a better product?

Statisticly speaking, how many writers fails before ONE succeeds, to at least some extent? Very few writers get really big i know, and though i know little about this, i guess the average writer isn't very famous or big-selling.

I dream not at all about becoming a writer simply for some stupid hope to become a famous one, which very few does anyhow. I guess I dream about it because I just like to write, and the idea of being able to show my work to people in the end compels to me. I liek the thought of my writing being read by as many as possible, and that my own-created fantasy-realm becomes something that all can involve themselves in and become fascinated with...

I hope there's someone on the references who sits with some knowledge about this :)

Krikkert7 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as becoming a great writer - I continually see the same advice: write. The more you write, the better you will get. As far as getting a book published, you just have to keep shoving it into the hands of publishers. I don't know of any real publishers that accept manuscripts - but they actually do accept them, or they wouldn't have much to publish. A recent trend I've noticed is getting one of those vanity publishers to publish a condensed version of your novel and use that to send to publishers. They might think it is a book at first and start reading it - but then they may think it has already been published and trash it. If you have no interest in money, you can go directly to a vanity publisher. You are guaranteed that the book will be published because they don't care who or what they publish. However, you won't make a lot of money off the deal. -- kainaw™ 15:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out Novel & Short Story Writer's Market. If I were you, I would ask a successful fantasy novelist how to do it. They might not answer, but what have you got to lose? --Milkbreath 16:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the style in which you wrote this question, I'd say the best advice, more important even than writing more, is to read more, and to read fiction that has earned a high reputation among critics. I assume you are young, and I hope you will not be insulted if I say that your goal should be to keep reading and reading until you possess a close enough acquaintance with English usage and idiom that you would not dream of writing "education on writing" or "excists." (These are humble matters, but along the way, if you do have a knack, you will also pick up the art of narrative.) You may only aspire to publish in a genre that is relatively tolerant of stories whose rough edges haven't been smoothed away by good editing, plausible dialogue, etc., but still, reading in great quantity from authors who really did write well will give you an edge. Here is a reasonable list of novels from the period from 1923 on, which you could supplement by reading widely in the classic 19th-century English and American novelists and short story writers. Wareh 16:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You will also need an agent if you want any chance of being published, and getting a good agent is almost as hard, if not harder, than getting a publisher. It is extremely rare for a book that just comes in the door, without a known agent's recommendation, to get out of the "slush pile" where anyone in the company might read it -or not- in weeks, months or years -or not at all. I suggest taking some courses, both in writing itself and in how to approach a publisher. That way, you may get to know some published authors who sometimes take and often teach such courses. As for getting your manuscript back, that will only happen if you send repacking materials, stamps and an address label. I know; I've worked in editorial in a publishing house. Bielle 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/December 2005#publishing a book and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 May 14#Publishing a fantasy novel.  --Lambiam 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion: force any friends and family you have to read it. Listen to their suggestions with an open mind. Works conceived in isolation usually suffer for it. --24.147.86.187 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An important thing is to keep trying! Some authors try for years before they get a single book published. There is no other way. Most authors do not experience immediate success like J.K. Rowling. Most of the greatest books ever written are the result of diligence. Most are rejected many times, perhaps even hundreds of times, before anything happens. Just keep on trying, and eventually you will see success.

204.113.50.74 18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Floodbud

White Rose

The Last Days of Sophie Scholl was shown on British TV last night. I would like to know more about her background and that of her brother Hans. Your article on the White Rose is OK but I would really like to know what led them to their act of resistence. The flim mentions that their father was an opponent of the Nazis though not much detail is give. What else was significant? Bel Carres 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

help!!

It's very important for me to find other language schools, like the "American Language Center" in Florence. I can't find any!!

I'm going to Florence for an interview as an English teacher but it's very important for me to find other schools too. Please help. Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.131.176 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Try this link. Marco polo 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Restaurant Etiquette: Napkins

In most restaurants, I have noticed that waiters always serve your food with a napkin over their right arm. Is this simply a matter of convenience for cleaning up spills, or is it rooted in old etiquette rules?

Thanks, 204.113.50.74 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Floodbud

Has there ever been a coup against the USA government?

If not, why not? 64.236.121.129 18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I imagine that people here were generally happy and enjoyed there lives. Jack THE Pumpkin KING 18:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there hasn't. The revolution that replaced the British local government with an independent government was a revolution, not a coup d'état. Since then, a coup has not been possible because the power of government is spread among three highly separate branches with the least powerful being the most visible. To be effective, a coup must overthrow and shut down both Congress and the Supreme Court and then take control of the Presidency. Of course, maintaining military control during all of that is very important and difficult to do. -- kainaw™ 18:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

that's a good answer, and arguably every presidential assassination is like a visible "coup" - it doesn't get the coupers into power or anything, but it feels like the government has been overthrown.