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.
According to Livy's Ab Urbe condita, in 296 Claudius and Volumnius defeated a combined Etruscan and Samnite army which had invaded Campania, in a battle near the river Volturnus (for more details, see Livy's History, Book X, 20 here. A stub at the French Wikipedia (Lucius Volumnius Flamma Violens) says he was a Roman politician, a new man, the first member of his family to become a consul, in 307 and 296 BC. However, in Studies in the Romanization of Italy, Mario Torelli says "...the famous P [sic] Volumnius Flamma Violens, cos. 307 and 296 BC, could be among the (plebeian) descendants of P. Volumnius Amintinus Gallus, cos. 461." In a book review in The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 62 (1972), pp. 187-188, John Briscoe says "The first plebeian consul known to have presided was L. Volumnius Flamma Violens in 296 [sic]." A note to an edition of Livy says: "Lucius Volumnius Flamma Violens, Verginia’s husband, ascended the cursus honorum as a plebeian to be elected consul twice, once in 307 BCE and again in 296, the very year in which the patrician matronae insult his wife by forbidding her access to the ceremony honoring the female virtue pudicitia.Xn400:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have come acros the following quote concerning the Cathedral in Cologne in a nineteenth-century manuscript and would like to know its source. It may even be from a guide-book.
“Among all who live art for its own sake, a general conviction seems to be growing up that the most eloquent defence of their doctrines has been set forth on the banks of the Rhine. Universal consent appears to point to the fact that there stands the noblest and mightiest of all monuments of mediæval thought and skill. The Cathedral of Cologne, wasted by time and the elements, despoiled by French soldiery, despised by classic connoisseurs, and neglected by its own proper guardians, has come to be considered the most beautiful of poems which man’s hand has ever written in stone.”LShecut2nd (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your quotation can be found in the Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal, Scientific and Railway Gazette, vol. 10, February 1847, p. 33. Read it here, and find it in a nearby library here. Wareh (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure whether this should go here or not, but it seemed like the best place:
This following quote was said at the begining and the end of NBC's show 'Life'. It sounded like a piece of philosophy, and considering that the main character 'practices' Zen, I thought it might be from there. Are there any Zen masters on Wikipedia who recognize something like this?:
We are none of us alone
Even as we exhale it is inhaled by others
The light that shines upon me shines upon my neighbor as well
In this way everything is connected to everything else
In this way I am connected to my friend
Even as I am connected to my enemy
In this way there is no difference between me and my friend
In this way there is no difference between me and my enemy
We are none of us alone
The phrase "We are none of us alone" is established in a Christian context; Google Books shows multiple usages in the 19th c., as early as 1856.[1] I found it interesting how rife the internet is with speculation and admiration over this. Wareh (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentiment is very close to John Donne's "No man is an island : No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.[2]SaundersW (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Online I have found a few articles from the Moscow Times that speak of a sequel to Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" titled "Pierre and Natasha" and the authors of the sequel were appearantly kept secret. Was this sequel ever published in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in need of information concerning getting started a non-profit for animals in central Indiana. Names of books that break it down, sites that hook you up. Any and all. I know not much at all. But I am buying property and reaching out for any and all advice. This is my first time on this site and I found it very remarkable. Thank You
Nichole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.170.39 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect no one has tackled this question because it is both enormous in scope and likely quite specific to your local area. Aside from cost, zoning will be a concern, as may be licensing, registration, availability of health professionals, local support, "competition" (being other similar private enterprises or government-finded operations) and the like. I would suggest spending some time with those who run shelters in the general, if not immediate, area, and finding out from them directly what is involved and how you might go about doing the most effective job with your funds. If you are a member of the Gates' family, however, you can likely get permission to do almost anything you want, short of housing 11 horses in a one-bedroom apartment in a city. In other words, the size of your budget will be a very significant part of what choices you have and how easy getting the appropriate permissions will be. If you are doing it all by yourself, and on limited funds, you may need to start small and build. I know of one bird sanctuary that started with an injured hawk that couldn't be kept in a local shelter. An employee took it home, and nursed it back to health. Now, some 20 years later, she is the local expert in "repairs" for raptors, has both flying and "nursing" cages housing about a hundred birds at any one time, and is a registered, charitable organization. Dreams can come true, though some take longer than others. Bielle22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RAFUR
In an obituary of Jack Meyer, I found this line : "He served in the RAFUR during the second world war" - RAFUR is in all capital letters. There is nothing in wikipedia or in the early pages in google about a place called RAFUR. What is it, or if it is a typo, what can it be ? Tintin16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Kaifeng Jews article states the following:
The current situation of Kaifeng Jewish descendants is complex. Within the framework of contemporary rabbinical Judaism, only matrilineal transmission of Jewishness is recognized (a Jew is a convert or someone whose mother is a Jew), while Chinese Jews recognized only patrilineal descent. They are not, therefore, recognized as Jews by other Jewish communities and are also ineligible for automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
From my reading of the relevant articles, it seems that is indeed how the process would work. Law of Return says that the 1970 ammendment "provides citizenship for anyone covered under the Nuremberg Laws." Reading Nuremberg Laws, we find that the Nazi definition of a Jew was anyone with three or four Jewish grandparents, which is not the halakic definition of a Jew. After several generations of patrilineal descent, those considering themselves Jews would not be Jews according to Halakha, nor could they claim three or four grandparents who would have been considered Jews according to Halakha. While they would still have other options for attaining Israeli citizenship, they would not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Law of Return. It seems the question of Who is a Jew? has been the matter of much debate and that many around the world who consider themselves Jews would not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Law of Return. 152.16.59.19005:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are modern Islamic Revolutionaries Republican?
Do modern radical Islamic revolutionaries support republicanism? Nasser,Qudaffi and Khomeni all created Republican states but the Taliban and Osama have never reffered to themselves as republican. I believe Osama has referred to himself as Caliph and the Taliban as Emirate. Does anyone know the type of state Al Quda wishes to create, what technical political term they use? They seem to be the first revolutionary movement since 1848 to not at least call themselves Republic in name. --Jacobin1949 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the political agenda of the revolutionary. Modern radical Islamic revolutionaries who are in favour of the republican form of government are more likely to support republicanism, while those who prefer a monarchy are usually monarchists. I don't think this is bound to a specific religion; it probably also holds if you replace "Islamic" by "Hindu" or "Christian". As to Bin Laden, I think he may indeed wish to see the return of the Caliphate, but I haven't heard he puts himself in the role of Caliph; do you have a source for that? --Lambiam00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is a lot of talk of establishing a theocracy, under which shari'a law is practised. There is disagreement over whether there would be different Islamic states along the lines of current nation-states, or whether a pan-Islamic state should be established. I'm not sure whether a theocratic Islamic state could in practice coexist with a republic or not (but see Politics of Sudan and Politics of Egypt). Steewi (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that they are not. The term replublican stems from the Latin 'res publica', meaning, roughly, 'public affairs' - but, the most radical of the Islamists, (Nasser, Qadaffi and Khomeini shouldn't be included in such a description), consider governance to be a purely theological issue, and that popular representation would do nothing but dillute the 'already perfect' constitution of the Qu'ran. Ninebucks21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot of thinking and reading up on this subject. It seems like the higher costs for energy are the result of growing demand from India and China. This makes the extreme jump in gas prices a systemic problem outside the purview of the industrial "first" world and the U.S.A. I do have a feasible solution to these higher gas prices, however, it might be dismissed as overly cold or inhumane, but I guess we have to ask ourselves what lower gas prices are worth to us in the "first world."
The growing demand for oil from China and India can be reversed if the industrialized nations, primarily the U.S.A. (who seems willing to do most of the world's "dirty work" these days) were to launch "total war" upon these two nations and thus annihilate their populations and economies. In my research doing so would not substantially affect the Western economies, as India and China do not as of yet produce anything of quality necessary to U.S. trade. In order to further lower gas prices, the U.S. could take advantage of the confusion resulting from this global conflict and occupy Venezuala, a major oil producing nation within our own hemisphere.
I know that the "human cost" of all this might be a bit too "high" for some in the first world, but I think its time to start facing realistic solutions for dealing with the new energy crisis. Any suggestions or comments are appreciated. Thank you all for your time. Belicia (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gasoline consumption in China and India is increasing significantly, as a proportion of their earlier use. The principal consumer of gasoline, and the principal driver of high prices, is the US car driver. The US consumes about 45% of all the gasoline produced in the world - with 5% of the population. That is the case despite increases in China and India. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Geologyguy pointed out, the U.S. consumes nearly half the gasoline produced while barely accounting for 5% of the world population. If the U.S. were to be destroyed, 45% of the gasoline usage would go away while only getting rid of a mere 5% of the population. Obviously, you didn't truly think this through. -- kainaw™19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting question, but whatever the exact number, it must be very small compared to consumption for fuel, just as in the US. Normal refining processes generate only 1.2 gallons of plastics and petrochemical feedstocks from the original 42-gallon barrel, so less than 3% of oil consumption in general goes to make plastics etc. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am having some difficulty with a "realistic solution" to cut down the cost of driving my car being to "annihilate" the "populations and economies" of India and China. That's baby, bathwater, bathroom, house, neighbourhood, country and world, all gone in one throw. Kainaw has an interesting perspective, though I live a little too close to the US border to be entirely happy with the proposal. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the proportion of energy use by India and China as a percentage of worldwide demand has grown enormously over the past 5 years and is expected to continue growing as a proportion of worldwide demand. This is irrespective of American demand as a proportion of worldwide demand. Secondly, energy consumption from the U.S.and A. has declined as a proportion of worldwide demand over the last year. And thirdly, what I am talking about is a total war, to destroy completely the demand of India and China, not some regional conflict as the Yom Kippur War, et al. Therein lies the beauty of my proposal. Don't think it is too extreme for the American government to adopt in the future if gas prices get too high. Belicia (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want anyone to take your argument seriously, you need to produce references. Where did you find a valid reference that claims the U.S. usage of oil is decreasing? Where did you find a reference that claims China and India produce nothing of value for the U.S.? Where did you find a reference that claims waging a total war on two large countries will not increase the cost of oil as every previous war (or ever threat of war) has done? You claim to have worked on this argument but all you've provided are claims that are the opposite of every valid reference source I have ever seen. -- kainaw™02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is said that divisions on the left in germany helped the nazis into power. Is this true, would the communists and socialists have stopped hitler together and how would they have done this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.180 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to suppose that the SPD and the KPD would have been any more succesful in uniting to fight the Nazis than dividing to fight each other. Divisions on the left are not high among the reasons for the ascent of Nazism. The retrospective view among sections of the left that the only way of grappling with the Nazis, a movement which fed on violence, was more violence is, quite frankly, laughable in its absurdity. A united left is far more likely to have drawn the conservative elements in German society, a vital element in Hitler's elevation to the Chancellorship in 1933, much more quickly into alliance with the Nazis. Elsewhere in Europe Popular Fronts, alliances of the left, did very little to arrest the development of Fascism. The rise of Arturo Ui was less resistable than Brecht and his allies allow. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Causes of the Great Depression. The US economy was weakening in early 1929, and there had been a financial bubble (perhaps comparable to the mortgage bubble of recent years) which had left banks overextended and vulnerable to an economic downturn. All of these conditions existed early in 1929, before the stock market peaked in September. For more than a month, stocks moved in a volatile but generally downward direction before the actual October crash. Obviously, there has not (yet) been a true crash on the New York or world stock markets. I am guessing that the questioner is referring to similarities between present conditions and those before the crash in 1929. Whether present conditions presage a crash or a serious recession, though, I have no idea. Marco polo (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman sultans & evil in history
Have just read the following passage from Dawkins' "The God Delusion" about Hitler and Stalin: "...Hitler´s ideas and intentions were not self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula - or some of the Ottoman sultans, whose staggering feats of nastiness are described in Noel Barber´s "Lords of the Golden Horn". Hitler had 20th Century weapons, and 20th Century technology at his disposal. Nevertheless, Hitler and Stalin were, by any standards, spectacularly evil men." My questions are:
Is the Ottoman dynasty that historically famous for producing rulers with "feats of nastiness" or evil, and were they generally devout Muslims? What are considered the darkest periods of evil reigning in history? Thank you very much in advance for any info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, I cannot conceive of any more malevolent period in history than that of the 'ideologically driven' mid-twentieth century. As far as your question about the sultans is concerned, they were as variable as any other human beings; some more devout than others; some more murderous than others. I have not read Barber's book, though I have never thought of the sultans as being any more, or less, nasty than any other set of powerful people. As far as Dawkin's contention is concerned that would seem to me to be quite wrong; the difference between Caligula and Hitler is not one of degree, but of intent; not one of mood, but of conception and design. In every conceivable sense it would seem to me that Hitler's ideas and intentions are self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula because they are born and sustained over time; not conceived in anger or sudden passion, but in cold calculation. Perhaps the worst kind of evil is not grand and tragic in the style of Caligula; it's numbing and mediocre in the style of Hitler. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the Ottomans specifically, take a look at Armenian Genocide. That took place under Ottoman rule and was pretty awful. I don't really like putting evil on a scale. Once you get to a certain point, it's just plain bad. Wrad (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing what Clio said: Caligula is to madness as Hitler is to evil. As for the time course of evil in the world, it is hard to see much advancement in the early 21st century compared to the 20th century, although the scale of warfare and of the slaughter of civilians has not thusfar equalled that of the 20th century. That said, the century is yet young, and more countries governed by short-sighted ideologues have nuclear weapons than in the last century. Edison (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Stalin and Hitler are (in my humble opinion) merely a couple of examples of the 20th Century's version of your typical tyrant. History is replete with examples of leaders who have done similar things to their own and to other populations. Josephus (for what he is worth) mentioned the Old Testament account of Joshua's genocide war against the Canaanites in which every single man, woman and child was put to death by the Hebrews. During the Middle Ages it was not infrequent that a tyrant ruler would go about systematically killing off entire segments of his population - a good example would be Ivan the Terrible of Russia, who established the notorious Oprichniks (which Tolkien based his "Dark Riders" on), who systematically waged war against the aristocracy of Russia. I could go on and on with this, but I'll save the bandwidth. Years ago when I first saw the movie "Schindler's List" I was struck by how similar Amon Göth, the SS Commandant of the Płaszów work camp, was to a more-or-less typical Medieval German Robber Baron. The Nazis were, again in my opinion, a throwback to an earlier, more savage, time in history, but perhaps not. Throughout the 20th Century there has been, at one place or another on the globe, ongoing genocide. It continues today in places like the Sudan and Somalia. So, in summation, evil tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler or the Turkish Ottomans are by no means a rare exception. Saukkomies12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic Law
Are there any laws in western democratic countries (UK, US etc) that could be broken by someone who also followed Islamic (Sharia?) Law?. Could a person from an Islamic country fall fowl of our laws doing things that would be legal in their country.
There are some aspects of Shari'a law which are probably considered illegal in the UK/US systems of law. For example, the method of punishment in Shari'a law (by some interpretations, for example in Sudan, Afghanistan under the Taliban) allows for death by stoning as a punishment, as well as the administration of punishment by a criminal's family or a victim's family. As Lambiam mentioned, polygyny is another area. Most "western" laws are also contained within Shari'a; that is, Shari'a is generally a stricter code. Steewi (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But is a person following Shari required to punish by stoning? Obviously the government of such a country would be violating laws.
Other areas relating to treatment of woman are the only issues I have a thought of. If a male required by law to prevent women leaving the house etc, this would violate laws in a country with protected rights. Caffm8 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic law actually requires a Muslim to obey the laws of the country they live in or visit, as long as this does not constitute rebellion against Allah. Sahih al-Bukhari 2796: It is related from Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Hearing and obeying is a duty as long one is not commanded to rebellion (against Allah). When one is commanded to rebellion, then there is no hearing and obeying."[3] --Lambiam16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
November 30
Why hasn't Bennelong declared yet?
It's 5+ days since the Australian general election, yet Division of Bennelong appears still not to have formally declared a winner. It's apparently the size of a Westminster constituency, and appears to be largely urban. A comparable Westminster constituency would have declared in the early hours of the morning - even one with a razor thin majority would have declared (after two or three recounts) the following day. Why has it taken so long? Some kind of henging ched? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see breakdown of the seat on the AEC Website here. Not all postal votes have yet been counted, though McKew is sitting on 2-party preferred vote of 51.34% so one would imagine she has beaten John Howard. hope that helps somewhat.Jpeob01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the Australian system is quite different from the UK system. While in the UK all the votes, including postal votes, have to be in by close of poll and are put into the count with the ballot boxes from polling stations, in the Australian :system the count on the night of the election is only of the polling station boxes and the postal votes are added later.
Lynton Crosby was on the Sky News Australia election night programme pointing out that the Coalition had processed many more postal votes than the ALP had, and therefore that some seats which appeared to be lost may still be recaptured. Certainly the ALP has fallen behind in Swan where it was in front on the election night, and John Howard has pulled ahead of Maxine McKew on first preference votes where he was previously behind. Another thing to note is that no seat has yet formally declared so Bennelong is not out of line. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that explains it perfectly. This (and an earlier question about how the PM was finally declared) leads me to remark that our Australian electoral system seems, to me, to be rather deficient in regard to the conduct of the election. Do elections take place on a specific day of the week (Britain habitually votes on a Thursday, some democracies by statute vote over the weekend)? Are other elections (local and regional) and measures voted on at the same time (a particular US favourite)? Are voters entitled to paid time off to vote? Where is polling conducted (schools? government offices?) and over what hours are the polling places open? Do voters receive a polling card in the mail? Are they required to provide identification when voting? Do voters receive a "voter's guide" (a al US)?
How does a voter physically vote (X in box, colour in square, punch hole, electronic, throw tinny can at chosen candidate...). Who is eligible for postal vote? How is the returning officer selected, and what are her duties? When, where, and how are votes counted? How, where, and when are declarations made, and what is the final process whereby a PM is selected and a new parliament installed? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finlay, you had me puzzled for a bit there! I thought you were saying you were Australian and you thought your electoral system was deficient! Then I realized that by "our" you meant "Wikipedia's article". --Anonymous, 23:14 UTC, December 1, 2007.
Let's see how much I remember from POLS1000;
Do elections take place on a specific day of the week (Britain habitually votes on a Thursday, some democracies by statute vote over the weekend)?
Federal elections are held on a Saturday, and usually not when something else major is happening that day (sport grand final, etc).
Are other elections (local and regional) and measures voted on at the same time (a particular US favourite)?
No. State elections are called by the state premier in a similar way to the way federal elections are called by the prime minister. Council elections (in Queensland, I don't know about other states) all happen on the same day across the state, under state law. "Measures" (called Referendums in Australia) are often voted on on the same day as a state or federal election, but they don't happen very often (Queensland has had 7 referendums in 147 years).
Are voters entitled to paid time off to vote?
No, but in Australia you can be fined if you're enrolled but don't vote. This is one reason why elections are held on Saturday, and also why there are a lot of pre, postal and absentee votes.
Where is polling conducted (schools? government offices?) and over what hours are the polling places open?
Churches and schools, mostly. 6am to 6pm.
Actually, 8am to 6pm. It used to be 8am to 8pm, but that was considered overgenerous, so they cut it back to 10 hours. -- JackofOz08:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do voters receive a polling card in the mail?
They may recieve advertising material from the candidates. If you mean actual ballot papers, then no, you only get one of those after you turn up and get your name marked off.
I think he's talking about a card that says "There is a federal election on February 31. Your polling station is at Gryffindor House, 100 Hogwarts Avenue, 9¾th floor. Please bring this card with you." (And other details like voting hours, ID requirements, and advance polls.) In Canada we get something like that in the mail before every election, if we're on the voters' list already. --Anonymous, 23:21 UTC, December 1.
Are they required to provide identification when voting?
You can be. Usually they just ask you your address.
Do voters receive a "voter's guide" (a al US)?
Newly enrolled voters may recieve various information from the AEC shortly before an election.
Individual parties issue "how-to-vote" cards, which are handed outside polling booths to those who want them. They suggest how people might wish to mark their ballot papers if they want to support a particular party. Some people take every how-to-vote card they're proffered and make their decision inside the polling booth; others just take the one from the party they intend to vote for; others (such as me) always refuse them all on principle. -- JackofOz08:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does a voter physically vote (X in box, colour in square, punch hole, electronic, throw tinny can at chosen candidate...).
Anyone who's interstate, overseas, working, or has a religious or health reason.
How is the returning officer selected, and what are her duties?
Returning officers are employees of the AEC, which has a Divisional Office in each electorate.
How, where, and when are declarations made, and what is the final process whereby a PM is selected and a new parliament installed?
The Declaration of Poll is made by the AEC when all votes have been counted. This can be no sooner than 13 days after the election, as that is how long they must wait for postal votes to come in. The PM and other ministers are appointed by the Governor-General (the Constitution only requires ministers to become MPs within 3 months of appointment, which is how Rudd and his ministers can be appointed despite the fact that the election results aren't official yet. Parliament won't sit until next year, long after the delarations). FiggyBee06:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can do a postal vote if you will be more than 8km from a polling station (in your electorate) on polling day, or if you will be unavoidably detained (i.e. in surgery), according to the AEC brochure we got before the election. Some editing would be good; if I had time, I'd dig out the brochure if I still have it). Steewi01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, 85.180, I'm not sure that there is an awful lot more that can be said about the significance of Fehrbellin, other than it began the advance of Brandenburg/Prussia into Pomerania. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite its military successes in the war, like Fehrbellin, Brandenburg has to leave all Hither Pomeranian conquests and return them to Sweden (Peace of Saint Germain-en-Laye). France succeeded to protect its ally Sweden in the negotiations and Brandenburg only gains a small strip of Land east of the Oder. The Great Elector was deeply disappointed by the lack of support by the Kaiser and Habsburg-Austria and re-orients his policy towards France.By the way, I somewhat doubt this claim: June 28th was a holiday that would be celebrated in Germany up until 1914, when on the same day, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, beginning World War I. --Tresckow16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by ancient times, exactly? Very early on, swords were very rare and not very reliable. Only a few soldiers would have had them, and to have two would be unthinkable. Wrad (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...By ancient times I meant any time before firearms that had a 95+% chance of not blowing up in your face. Thank you for the samurai info, this may be what I was thinking of... 67.42.180.114 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not the intent of the question, but the Romans had many different kinds of swords. Did they carry more than one at a time or are they just from different time periods? I'm not sure. But swords were usually heavy and expensive, so they weren't likely to own two of them, and even if they did, they would still have to hold a shield in their other hand. Some medieval swords were even heavier and more expensive and both hands could be occupied carrying a single sword. (The little I know about medieval martial arts requires the use of just one sword.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean one sword in each hand. I've never heard of an army that used that method. On the face of it, it does seem unlikely. You need a lot of room around you for that, room you wouldn't have in a line or a close melee. Melee fighters carried shields in the old days for many good reasons, not the least of which was defense against ranged weapons. --Milkbreath14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think any military unit used dual-wielding. True, some Samurai used two swords, but they were few and far between. Most samurai had two swords, but used only one at a time. Without shields. In the west, when people wanted more OOMPH with their weapons they tended to selected bigger weapons rather than twin weapons. — Shinhan < talk > 14:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a plug for a great sport, if you're ever interested in learning to dual-wield swords you should look into kendo, in which there are many practitioners (some of the best, even) who compete with two blades. The most famous dual-sword samurai, and perhaps the most famous samurai overall, by the way, was Miyamoto Musashi. And in medieval fencing manuals, I have never seen a dual-weapon guide, incidentally, though it is true that later thrusting weapons were often accompanied by a parry dagger. SamuelRiv00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Florentine is great for display but poor for combat. I once knew a rapier instructor who could put on a nice demonstration, but if hard pressed by an opponent he would drop the sword from his off-hand and use that arm/hand for parrying and disarming. Yes, he preferred to use a bare arm for parrying rather than a second full-length sword. Sword fighting is not only physically demanding, but it is also a strong mental workout. Trying to consciously direct two full-sized swords in an effective manner in combat (as opposed to an uncontested display) is more difficult, tiring and distracting than one-sword, sword-and-parrying-dagger or sword-and-shield styles. It looks good in the movies but if your life depended on winning a sword fight you wouldn't want to fight Florentine style. A member of the SCA seems to be of the opinion that Florentine was never an actual style used in medieval combat. 152.16.16.7501:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese martial arts has a style using two shorter swords, simply called '双剑 shuangjian' - double sword. I don't know how old the technique is. Maggie Cheung uses double sword for a while in combat with Zhang Ziyi in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which is not based on history, but the technique has some basis in martial arts theory. Steewi01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kung Fu and other material arts have a number of forms that include two swords. However, even with a two swords form, the practitioner always keeps in mind the second sword could be anything such as a shield, knife, club, or even bare hand. The second sword is not used much for attacking. As stated before, many warriors practiced two sword forms but more for the art, excerise, balance, and macho effort. I've never heard of an army, or style of warrior that actually used two swords during real battle.Lord Challen (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1066 and all that
Just how much history do you have to know to appreciate the wit of Sellar and Yeatman? Is it beyond the understanding of most Americans? Is it beyond the understanding of most Brits.? Kaiser Will (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example I had a standard UK grammar school education in the late 50s/early sixties and I can appreciate its humour very easily, I think its a funny book, but not very funny. But then maybe I am missing some of the better jokes - if there are any. Richard Avery (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a satire on the view of history held by the educated middle classes as the British Empire went into decline. Unfortunately it is beyond the understanding of most of the UK population these days, because to appreciate the satire you have to have some appreciation of the original. Frances Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man seems to espouse the view or wish that "America became Top Nation, and history came to a .", so I presume he isn't familiar with it either. William Avery (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Richard I think it's a very funny book, full of good things, bad things and genuine dates. It's a wonderful foretaste of Horrible Histories-my favourite childhood reading-with lots of lovely 'facts', like "Hengist was thus the first English King, and his wife (or horse) Horsa, the first English Queen (or horse)". My friends and I had a whale of a time at school writing an updated version, that is to say with all the bits after America became top nation and history came to a . Of course it did not, which is to say that our history has to be a lot better than that of the silly Francis Fukayama! Clio the Muse02:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Clio for the endorsement of Horrible Histories. I came across it by accident in a second hand bookstore (specifically the Elizabethans) and was curious to know what our resident historians would think. Do you trust the series as reasonably accurate? Hoping for a brief reply, thanks if you can, 203.221.126.12115:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so far as I remember, 203.221, they are reasonably trustworthy. The real value, though, from my own perspective, is that they stimulated me to look more deeply into the various subject areas covered. And that's as brief as Clio gets! Clio the Muse00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How long has the day of the week been universally agreed across Europe/Middle East? Can religious celebrations on a specfic day of the week be confident that they are following an exact multiple of seven days from their predecessors or could a "jump" have occurred at any point in the past? [I am interested from a context of astronomical dating] TheMathemagician (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During the Roman Republic, there was traditionally an eight-day market cycle ("nundinum", see Roman_calendar#Nundinal_cycle). The seven-day week spread through the general Mediterranean area ca. the 1st century A.D., but oddly it spread from Egypt as an astrological-based cycle (with each of the seven days assigned to one of the seven classical "planets", including the sun and moon), rather than because of direct Jewish or Christian influence at that time.
The Seven Day Week began in ancient Mesopotamia. It was developed in part due to the fact that human settlements take on a hexagonal pattern when there are no geological or other disruptions.
On the great plain of the Tigris/Euphrates Rivers this settlement pattern was allowed to develop with minimal disruption during this time period when towns and villages first began to appear. To visualize this, think in terms of how far a farmer would be willing to travel to sell his produce or grain in a market, and in turn to buy needed supplies while there, and then to return to his home. The farmer would want to travel to the nearest market where he could sell his produce at a reasonable price. Anywhere that there would be a marketplace set up would begin to draw people from an extended radius, thus creating a circle of economic influence around it, which in turn would create optimal conditions for a town to develop. Due to pure geometrical mathematics, the resulting settlement pattern across a large fertile flat plain would begin to have these towns that were set up on a hexagonal grid system, due to their radiating economic footprints. One may see this pattern in a number of places around the earth, including the North American Midwest, and the Steppes of Russia/Ukraine.
Additionally, there is another factor involved with these settlement patterns, in that settlements of different sizes are set up along roughly hexagonal patterns as well. This means that large towns would be distributed over a larger geographic hexagonal grid than small towns are. And the same may be applied to cities as well. This is difficult to explain, but think of how one travels across flat cultivated country. One must go through many smaller towns before coming to a larger town. And then more smaller towns again. Likewise, one would travel through many larger towns before coming to a city. All of the smaller towns would be inclined to naturally develop along hexagonal grids (as described above). Same with the larger towns and cities. The larger the settlement, the larger its economic footprint is. So someone who wishes to go to a location where there would be a much larger marketplace than what would be encountered in the local small village would be willing to travel further to get there. This is why larger towns and cities are spread out in equal distances from one another.
In the ancient Fertile Crescent what would take place was that there would be traveling merchants who would make a circuit of the surrounding smaller towns' marketplaces, but would then return to the large town or city to take advantage of the bigger marketplace. To coordinate this, each of the surrounding smaller towns would have its own designated market day. And then the central city or large town would have its turn, too. Because of the hexagonal settlements, a large town or city would have six smaller towns around it. Thus each of the smaller towns would take turns holding their market day - providing a six day recurring cycle. On the seventh day the central large town or city would have its much larger market day, which would also be accompanied by a religious observance such as performing sacrifices at the temple, etc. The seventh day was the high market day - and also the most significant religious day - of this repeating cycle.
The fact that there are roughly four seven-day periods in a lunar month also made the seven day week attractive, since there would be a week for the waxing, full, waning, and new moon phases to accompany each week of the month. This is problematic, though, because it is not very accurate - the lunar month is longer than 28 days. There is also an explanation that says that the seven days of the week came about because each day was named for one of the known planets in the Ancient World (the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn). However, the problem with this is that this theory places the horse before the cart. The seven day week was already in existence before the days were named after planets or gods.
So social geographers and historians mostly go with the economic explanation for how the seven day week was set up. Of course, it is still conjecture, but there is some evidence to support this. Some references to look for more information on this subject would be in any good Human Geography textbook, or here are some others:
The seven day week is just one of many influences we have in our modern world from the ancient Fertile Crescent. It's a fascinating subject, and one that always is fun to research. --Saukkomies 20:20, 2 December, 2007 (UTC)
I can give you some basic facts, 81.156, and leave it to you to make up your own mind. Edward maintained a correspondence with Oswald Mosley, the English Fascist leader, both during and after the Abdication Crisis. Afterwards Mosley was to write, "The King already had a strong aversion to war with Germany. We would have told Hitler that he could do what he liked in the East. If he wanted the Ukraine, he could have it as far as we were concerned, but we would have told him not to touach the west." In October 1937 the Windsors meat Hitler in Berlin 'to express their gratitude for the moral support Germany had shown during the abdication crisis'. At the sime time they dined with Rudolf Hess, discussing the idea of a new world order. The following November Robert Bruce Lockhart, diplomat and spy, informed the Foreign Office in London that the Nazis were convinced that Edward would come back as 'a social-equalizing King' to inaugurate an 'English form of Fascism in alliance with Germany.' Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But there is little doubt that Edward was bitter over the circumstances of the abdication, and the subsequent direction of British foreign policy. In May 1939 he met in Paris José de Lequerica, Franco's ambassador to France, who sent a report to Madrid of a lengthy conversation they had at a dinner party at the Argentinian embassy; "...the Duke...has political opinions which run contrary to the country he once governed. He believes war to be a complete catastrophe, and the triumph of Moscow...he attributes the policy of war and of alliance with Russia to the influence of the Jews, who are extremly powerful in his country." He went on, according to de Lequerica, to attribute his loss of the throne to the same influence. Clio the Muse02:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to read a law school personal statement and DESTROY IT?
I'm a poor writer. I need help! I have a first draft of a law school statement. Would anyone be kind enough to destroy it? Leave an email please.
Lucky me! Far too thick to detect any dismissiveness (if it were there, that is), and I hope somone comes along and explains what needs to be destroyed and why. ---Sluzzelintalk02:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little harsh. Soliciting feedback is something that even great writers do; it is not a sign of weakness. And personal statements require much more careful writing than most academic papers do, believe it or not—once you are in the door you are given a benefit of the doubt that you are not when you are still outside the door. In any case, I don't have the time to read other people's personal statements—I recommend to the OP to force it upon people who have some stronger investment in you than random strangers, or else pay someone to take a look at it. :-) --24.147.86.18718:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the request for the aid of an editorial eye that perplexed me, which is reasonable enough in itself, more the desire for demolition. Is there some humour here that I am missing? But I agree, 24.147, that, on a matter as important as this, Lotsofissues is better advised to call elsewhere for assistance. Clio the Muse00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Nunh! Adam, virtually everyone is a poor writer. The gift of narrative is a rarely found talent. I ask the humanities desk for help because there are excellent writers, and my peers are just as deficient in writing. I will pay anybody here with professional experience (broadly interpret) $45 by paypal to copyedit and advise two times.132.239.90.8301:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no one nearby who can talk to you in person to edit your work? I think someone who knows you would be able to give you more advice on what to say and what you probably shouldn't mention. My suggestions would be a respected teacher (your English teacher, maybe) who can give you advice on writing clearly and precisely, or someone who you know has gotten into law school already, who knows what the readers will be looking for. Interesting thought, but I wouldn't expect a bite from here. Good luck with your application. Steewi01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lotsofissues, I can't but echo Steewi here. You will get a more trustworthy and honest opinion, I feel sure, from someone you know, a friend or a professional contact, rather than from some casual responder over the internet. There should be no need for money; but if you are determined to pay for such a service, I urge you not to do so online. Please believe me when I say that I wish you nothing but the best. Clio the Muse02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andres Ortiz
Please Wikipedia do you have any page on Andres Ortiz a Spanish anarchist executed in the 1930s? I need to know his life and reasons for execution. Was it for political activities? Thank you for anything you can tell. TheLostPrince14:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mato Dukovac was born in October 1918 in Surcin. He enlisted in the Croation Air Force soon after the country was declared independent in 1941. After training he was posted to the Kuban front in Russia with the Croat Legion, flying his first mission on 29 October 1942. After scoring some early combat successes against the Soviet Air Force, his potential was recognised by Cvitan Galić, the leading Croatian ace at the time. Thereafter the two men partnered one another in a pair formation, known as a Rotte, together becoming the two most successful Croatian pilots. In February 1944 Dukovac flew his 250th mission, scoring his 37th confirmed kill, for which he was awarded the German Gold Cross by Field Marshal Wolfran von Richthofen in person. Later that year, during the Russian ofensive in the Crimea, his tally of kills rose to 40, making him the number one Croatian ace ahead of Galić. In August 1944 he was promoted to the rank of captain and sent with a contingent of the Croatian Legion to Eichwalde in East Prussia. While training in the use of the latest models of the ME-109 in September 1944 he deserted to the Soviets. He served as a time as a flying instructor with the Soviet Air Force before being sent with other Yugoslavs to Panoveco in Serbia, also as a flying instructor. In February 1945, under threat of arrest for his previous service with the Axis, he flew to Italy, where he surrendered to the Americans. He later served in the Syrian Air Force during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, before moving to Canada, where he died in September 1990. Clio the Muse01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently discovered that Frederick the Great of Prussia, among his other talents, was a writer. One of his published works was a treatise on Machiavelli. I imagine he must have been in favour of his ideas, considering his own approach to statecraft and international relations, but I would be pleased for some enlightenment. Danke! Hugo McGoogle18:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" Frederick the Great of Prussia - "I have always considered Machiavelli's Prince as one of the most dangerous works ever to be disseminated in the world" - The Anti Machiavel (1740-41). Definitely sounds a though he was a disciple! SaundersW20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However in his Polititcal Testament, he commented that he was wrong and Machiavelli was right. If you consider his pacifistic attitude when he was younger and his disrespect towards the military a rather remarkable change. Many of his problems with his father came from his "effeminate" and squeamish attitude. Just think of his reference towards the uniform as "dying smock".--Tresckow21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Machiavel is a dissertation on government; at once a work of idealist political philosophy and of hard-nosed realism. What Frederick found particularly distasteful in the pages of Machiavelli was the dishonesty and the cynicism, a cynicism based on the abandonment of conventional morality. As far as he was concerned, contrary to the precepts of Machiavelli, a ruler must in all things be just, which was the only way, in his estimation, to gain the assent of the governed. He must also be tolerant of all shades of opinion, an enemy of bigotry and sectarianism of all kinds. He was determined that Prussia should maintain the highest standards of rectitude. It should be a state governed by law; a Rechstaat as well as a Kulturstaat.
To a large extent Frederick was consistent in pursuit of these aims, though there was also a note of Machiavellian cynicism to his own character which got progressively stronger over time. His approach to war and diplomacy, for instance, were always tinged with Prince-like opportunism, even when his actions were draped in the garb of necessity. In the end he was to agree with Machiavelli that in the game of international power politics that a state that remained disinterested was a state that was likely to perish-"I'm obliged to confess that Machiavelli was right." Clio the Muse01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jurors and special knowledge
(This is a question about the law, but I'm not looking for legal advice. It's purely hypothetical. I'm not a juror on a trial or anything like that.)
Say I'm a juror in a murder trial, in which it is alleged that Mrs. Jones killed her husband Mr. Jones by poisoning him.
Testimony has established that Mr. Jones died of thiotimoline poisoning, that the substance was found in Mr. Jones' morning coffee, and that Mrs. Jones prepared the coffee. We the jury go for our deliberations, and it looks like an airtight case against Mrs. Jones.
But: it so happens that I'm a biochemist, and because of that, I happen to know that the LD50 of thiotimoline for oral dose is 500 g/kg in humans - far too much to be administered in a cup of coffee. This fact wasn't presented to the jury. I think therefore Mr. Jones was much more likely to have been killed by his lover, Ms. Smith, who's a nurse and could have injected him with the stuff, since that requires a much lower dose for toxicity.
Now, I've heard told that (at least in the UK), as a juror I would not be allowed to use that information in my deliberations - it's "special knowledge" that the average person wouldn't know, and I can only consider it if an expert witness presented that information. Is that actually true? If so, is it even possible to truly discard such a pertinent fact while thinking about the case? Would I have any option to make the fact known, like sending a message to the judge? --Bob Mellish22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I juror, I think you have the right to ask questions. So you could say in court, "Just what is the lethal dose of xxxxx." Once answered, it wouldn't be special knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk • contribs)
I can't speak to the (barbaric heathen unwashed) English legal system, but I've been a juror in Scotland. The limit of voi dire was "do you know any of the people on this list" (the defendant and the witnesses). Less like L.A. Law you couldn't have got. I can't (contempt of court) discuss the particular case, but certainly the Sheriff gave no guidance in court regarding prior general or professional knowledge jurors might have (what knowledge they did have is between me and those 14 other people). And regarding 138.163.128.42's point: there were no obvious opportunities at which a juror could have interjected such a question - a brave juror could have spoken up, I imagine. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk01:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the jury in Australia (and I presume in the UK) can't ask direct questions in court. They can, however, ask the jury usher to pass a note to the judge if they find some evidence puzzling. FiggyBee03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my own limited experience of Jury duty in England - I know that jurors can choose acquit or convict a defendant on any grounds they wish. Judges prefer deliberations to be done on the case but if you don't like the look of someone then there is nothing stopping you from lodging a vote to send them down (you'd have to browbeat the others though). 86.21.74.4002:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S. it would be very rare for a jury to get to ask their own questions. The most we were allowed when I was on a jury was to ask for portions of the testimony to be reread by the court reporter after deliberations started. As for special knowledge, the jury is not required to check their brains and life experiences at the door. They might make their own judgements about the ability of a witness to see events on a moonless night, or to read a license plate from a block away, or for a small person to beat a big person to death. A great concern is, though, when a juror proclaims that he is an expert and has an undue influence on the jury, since he was never vetted in court as to his degree of expertise, and might be misinformed or lying. The voir dire gave the attorneys an opportunity to learn the profession of each juror. If one of them says he is a vacuum cleaner salesman and gets on the jury, then in deliberation in a case involving brain surgery he announces he used to be a neurosurgeon and the facts presented in court are wrong, or that he is a firearms expert and the killer could not possibly have hit the victim from the range claimed, it seems like a miscarriage of justice. Another juror can send a note to the judge when there is juror misbehavior like this, and sometimes the problem juror is removed and replaced by an alternate, and the deliberation resumes from the start. A mistrial is another possibility. Courts absolutely do not want jurors to visit the crime scene, or to Google the persons involved in the case, or to check out the scientific testimony in Wikipedia, or to ask their friend the doctor about the medical testimony. Edison03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a real life case, if the pertinent facts about the dosage/toxicity of the substance did not come out during the trial, substantiated by "expert" witnesses, then somebody isn't doing their job. It's the judge's responsibility to ensure that every possible fact that could be pertinent to the accused getting a fair trial is made known to the court. If this information could be of significant value to the defence, and the defence hasn't bothered to mention it, the judge would "discuss the matter" with the defence lawyers and ensure it was mentioned. The system assumes this will happen, and that the jurors can go off and consider the evidence they've heard, in the knowledge that there's nothing they're missing, and they don't need - indeed, to answer your question, they are not permitted - to take any other factors into account. -- JackofOz08:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in the concept of jury nullification, although the legal status of it is much in dispute. -- 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.21 (talk)
why was there no Czech War in 1939?
After Hitler broke the Munich Pact and marched into Prague why did the Czech national army not defend the borders? (I'm not referring to the negotiated 1938 Sudetenland occupation) --Gosplan23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Czechoslovakia had lost all of its border fortifications as a result of the Munich Agreement. In March 1939 a separate Slovak state was created, led by Josef Tiso and under German patronage. The rump Czech republic was surrounded by hostile territory on all sides with no allies. It was not defensible. Clio the Muse23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Czechs might have had a chance to slow down the Nazi advance if not defeat it entirely. I understand the country had a triple line of defense -- the first two were ceded to Germany after Munich, but the third was still there. But Hitler and Goering told Emil Hacha that if he refused to sign the papers turning over his country to the Nazis, the Luftwaffe would immediately start bombing Prague. Aware of what happened to Guernica, Hacha complied. Keep in mind that the Czechs had come to the conclusion in 1938 that it could not win a war against Germany without Allied support. That was when they still had the mountains. As for the Allies, Britain and France refused to declare war in March 1939 because they claimed no "unprovoked aggression" had taken place against the Czechs. Six years later, Nuremburg prosecutors would argue very differently. -- Mwalcoff00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is axiomatic that resistance, any level of resistance, would have slowed the German entry into Prague. But the rump Czech state, with its centres of industry and population minutes away from Luftwaffe bases in Germany and Austria, would have been destroyed by overwhelming force. In simple strategic terms the Czech republic in March 1939 was like a 'pocket', cut off from all external sources of support, surrounded by hostile forces, facing a Cannae-like battle of annihilation. I come back to my essential point: the country was not defensible. Clio the Muse02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't doubting you, Clio, just adding more detail. As I said, if the Czechs felt they couldn't win without the Allies in '38, they certainly wouldn't have changed their mind in '39. The failure of Britain and France to honor their "guarantee" to the Czechs in '39 is just one more example of Western perfidy toward Central Europe, as in '38, '45, '56 and '61. -- Mwalcoff16:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
December 1
Romanticism: Literature
I know it may sound like homework but it isn't. What are the major works of Heinrich Heine, John Keats, Percy Bysshe Shelly, SIr Walter Scoot, Honore de Balzac, Stendhal and Mary Shelly. Please, answer them and by the way, I read the articles but you didn't mention some of their work as "major".
Well, it's all there; it really just depends what you are looking for. With Mary Shelly only Frankenstein has been of lasting significance; but with the others there is a whole 'oeuvre' to be considered; anything from Balzac's La Comédie Humaine to Scott'sWaverley Novels. Some are better than others, though I'm not sure it's all that meaningful to isolate the good from the bad. For the poets, the 'pure' poets, or the 'purely' poets, just have a look through their collected works. Clio the Muse03:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Heine, it is his poetry that has received most literary attention and recognition. Three grand collections are at your disposition: Book of Songs (including the very famous "Lore-Lei" (in "Die Heimkehr"), "Belsazar", and "Die Grenadiere" ("The Grenadiers") ), Germany. A Winter's Tale, and finally Romanzero (including "Alte Rose" ("Old Rose") among others). Two other famous poems from his legacy are "Nachtgedanken" ("Night Thoughts", opening with the often quoted lines "Should I think of Germany at night/it puts all thought of sleep to flight"), and "Wo wird einst des Wandermüden letzte Ruhestätte sein ...", which is also Heine's epitaph. Heine's astute and acerbic essays, travel reports, and letters are worth reading as well, even if they haven't entered the literary canon to the same degree his poems have. ---Sluzzelintalk12:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stendhal's "big book" is le Rouge et le Noir, usually translated as Scarlet and Black, or the Red and the Black, but la Chartreuse de Parme, translated as the Charterhouse of Parma, and also as the Green and the Pink, also worth reading. Both are written in the "realist" spirit, so there is no feeling that life should make sense or consist of anything more than random and unjust events. (In view of your heading: Stendhal is profoundly anti-romantic.) SaundersW14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Scott, surely The Heart of Midlothian is now considered his best work. As for Keats, no doubt the Ode to Autumn, the Ode on a Grecian Urn and the Ode to a Nightingale are pre-eminent poems, as is On First Looking into Chapman's Homer.
As a footnote to the (very expert) discussion of Heine above, I would mention his Buch der Lieder and Romanzero as very well-known poetry titles; Reisebilder (notably Die Harzreize) for prose, and the famous essay on Die romantische Schule. Bessel Dekker15:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the author of this painting? / Unrecognizable signature
There is a signature on this painting but I am unable to recognize/read it. This painting has been in my attic for the last 20 years. I got it as a gift from an old lady who said it was made by a reknowed Swedish artist. What does the signature say, or who is the painter? Which kind of movement is it? --Funper00:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was never good at reading handwriting, my knowledge of Swedish painters is less than tiny, and I'm really going out on a thin little twig here, but it's not entirely different from some of Siri Derkert's later work, and she seems to have changed her style and signature throughout the course of her artistic career. Here's the homepage's gallery. Good luck in finding your artist! ---Sluzzelintalk02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sluzzelin! I looked a little closer and the signature seems to be "Siri der[kert]". It is an oil on panel. --Funper14:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FDR said that LEnd LEase was like giving a garden hose to a neighbor's house on fire. Saying he doesn't want $$ just the hose back when the fires done. Was all the war material given to the Allies returned to the USA when the war was over??? --Gosplan00:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Lend-Lease. When the war ended, much of the materiél was sold to the nations rather than sent back - transit was expensive, and the US army would have little use for 15,000,000 pairs of used boots. I'm not sure about other nations, but the UK finally repaid the Lend-Lease loans, which were made to pay for the equipment, last year. There was also the reverse lend lease (where other Allies provided materiél for American soldiers stationed there - worth roughly 20% of the US contributions), which partially offset the US donations. The return of lend-lease items was contested on both sides; the Europeans didn't want to lose all the equipment they had received, while the USA did not want an influx of second-hand war materials, which would harm US defence contractors.[10][11]Laïka00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why the black population is still growing in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Sub-Saharan Africa is faced with famine, wars and AIDS. But why the black population is still growing in Sub-Saharan Africa along with all these problems that are happening? 99.245.20.22406:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, so I might venture only a guess. First off, mild poverty actually ends up creating a larger birth rate than riches because people are less worried about making a career (i.e., the abysmal birth rate of Japan vs. that of India). Also, Africa may be the poorest continent in the world, but it's most certainly enjoyed the explosion of wealth that the rest of the world has seen in the past 100 years, the past few decades especially. Thus, while the poverty in Africa is bad, it's by no means omnipresent (most Africans live in cities, just as in the West, not in rural slums). The Evil Spartan06:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also not an expert, but with iffy health conditions and few or no social safety nets for old age, you want to have as many children as you can so that at least some live to pass on your genes and take care of you if you manage to survive to become an old geezer. Clarityfiend09:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even before that, you would want as many children as possible to help in agriculture or to alleviate your poverty by getting paying jobs. Girls don't count because there are few non-laborious jobs in poor areas. --Bowlhover14:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In (South east) Asia, children are regarded as an insurance for old age. Although many now survive, and may in certain cases become a liability rather than an asset, government propaganda and other discouraging influences seem only partly effective in changing traditional views. Bessel Dekker15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know Sub-Saharan Africa is poor and people have many children. But Sub-Saharan Africa is affected with wars and AIDS which are supposed to reduce the population. So then wars and AIDS have no impacts, right? 99.245.20.22416:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could only draw such a conclusion if you consider in this case, solely, the net effect on the number of living people as meaning "war and AIDS have no impacts". They have huge impacts on social and family systems, on medical care, on indivdual lives, on the quality of life generally, on specific economies, and on and on. The net number of people may rise, but those numbers include children orphaned by either or both, the sick, the wounded and the dying (often over prolonged periods, during which they can do little to help themselves or others) which likely represent a higher percentage of the population than they would be in peaceful times, with no epidemic. I am not sure where you are going with this conclusion, but what you have said equates, on an individual level, as if I were to say that a woman whose 3 children are killed in a fire, where all her worldy possessions are also lost, and her husband is injured so severely as to not be able to work again, has 3 more children, two of whom have serious ailments because of poor nutrition and an inability to access medecine and medical care, had suffered no impact from the fire. But yes, the "population" of her family has not decreased and the fire had "no impact" on that total number. (If this is an inappropriate "rant", please feel free to delete it.) Bielle19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though AIDS is a terrible scourge, health conditions have actually improved overall in Africa over the last century. There are fewer deaths from childhood diseases (and fewer women die in childbirth), which means more people survive to become parents.--Pharos08:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by modern form, you mean the semi-secular, heavily commercial form, then it largely dates back to the Great Depression; the US economy was weak as people weren't buying luxuries - as this meant that shops took less profit, they couldn't afford to pay staff as much, so they staff got less money and so could not buy luxuries - a vicious circle. To break it, Franklin D. Roosevelt had the American Thanksgiving moved to form one extra-long shopping season which basically lasted all of December, to encourage people to buy more luxuries.[12] However, the concept of buying presents dates back to the great Victorian Christmas literature - as well as A Christmas Carol, there's the classic poem A Visit from Saint Nicholas ("Twas the Night Before Christmas"), which popularised the idea of Father Christmas as a gift-bringer (imported from older traditions such as Sinterklaas), and The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon a (largely made-up) travelogue by Washington Irving which introduced ancient British Christmas traditions such as Yule logs, mistletoe and the great Christmas dinner to America (and reintroduced them to the UK). Indeed, people complained about the commercialisation even back in the 1850s; in "The First Christmas in New England", Harriet Beecher Stowe complains that the "true meaning of Christmas" is being lost in shopping. Laïka14:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Stephen Nissenbaum [13] the poem "The night before Christmas" (pub 1823) was formative in the tradition of Santa Claus entering houses to give gifts to children, replacing an older tradition of buying off drunken wassailers in the streets of New York with gifts. I thought that Hobsbawm's the Invention of Tradition dealt with Christmas customs, but can only find a mention of Carols in the introduction. SaundersW14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen's Christmas tree at Osborne HouseFor the Christmas tree in the modern Anglo-Saxon tradition, our article states: "Images of the royal family with their Christmas tree at Osborne House were illustrated in English magazines, initially as a woodcut in the Illustrated London News of December 1848, and copied in the United States at Christmas 1850. Such patriotic prints of the British royal family at Christmas celebrations helped popularise the Christmas tree in Britain and among the Anglophile American upper class." While there is a large degree of continuity in the traditions as they evolved and continue to (d)evolve, it would appear that a recognizably modern form arose among the upper and middle classes in the second half of the 19th century, with no single event being a water shed. --Lambiam15:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is true for other (sub)cultures. In the Netherlands, we used to think that Christmas trees were a continuous survival from heathen times (celebrating the return of light, of course) until research showed that their common use dates from the twentieth century. Bessel Dekker15:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't seem to recognise any of the above as descriptive of modern Christmas. Some nice nostalgic descriptions of fanciful Victorian middle class celebrations. Surely modern Christmas is an (almost) commercial event driven by social competativeness and designed to relieve customers of as much money as possible. Am I a tad cynical or is this really the way we are? Richard Avery15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I say above, the hyper-commercial Christmas was largely a product of the tail-end of the Great Depression. This combined with the development of Christmas advertising (esp. Coca-Cola) and the definition of Christmas and the New Year as official holidays, produced a season which inspired positive feelings in the population, was well established, and allowed people to leave work to spend time (and hence money) with their families - fertile ground for businesses to move into (businesses will always move into gaps in the market, especially if they can markup goods and encourage consumers to pull a Deadweight loss by buying unnecessary tat (Marginal cost > Marginal benefit)). Laïka16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, the Christmas tree is said to be brought from by Prince Albert and thus introduced in Victorian Britain from where it spread to th US.--Tresckow18:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's become something of a cliché to say that the modern concept of Christmas-and here I am talking about its essential design, not its later permutations-is a creation of the Victorians; of Prince Albert and Ebenezer Scrooge. Cliché it may be; but it also happens to be true, by and large. Actually, what is closer to the truth is that the Victorians did not so much invent Christmas as repackage and update some fairly well-worn themes. What they did invent, if that is the right word, is nostalgia, a reverence for the past, for a tradition that never existed in the form that they understood. It took its modern shape in the 1840s, a time of great change and transition in English society, when the middle-classes looked to create a cosy ritual of family and togetherness, a defense against the anonimity and rootlessness of modern urban society. The attitude here was perfectly expressed by Thomas K Hervey in his 1836 publication, The Book of Christmas;
If the old festivals and commemorations in which our land was once so abundant-and which obtained for her, many a long day since, the name of 'merrie England'-had no other recommendation than their convivial character, the community of enjoyment which they imply, they would on that account be worthy of all promotion, as an antidote to the cold and selfish spirit which is tainting the life-blood and freezing the pulses of society.
Sentimentality, strong family feeling, goodwill towards others, consumption and expenditure, fun and games, feasting and drinking-it's all there by the 1840s, an odd mixture of old and new. And if anyone wants to know how a real Christamas is celebrated, and by that I mean an English Christmas, you could do no better than refer to Remaining Christmas, an essay by Hilaire Belloc, a little taste of which follows below.
This is how Christmas eve is spent in this house. On the morning of that Eve, large quantities of holly and laurel are collected from nearby trees and lots of the farm. Every room in the house is decorated with fresh smelling leaves, berries, needles, and boughs. A Christmas tree twice the size of a man is set up, to which little candles are affixed. Presents are there for all the children of the village, household members, and guests.
At five o'clock, already dark in England that time of year, the village children come into the house with the candles burning on the tree. There is first a common meal. Next the children come to the tree where each is given a silver coin and a present. Then the children dance and sing game songs. The tradition of Christmas here is what it should be everywhere, knit into the very stuff of the place; so that I fancy the little children, when they think of Bethlehem, see it in their minds as though it were in the winter depths of England, which is as it should be. The coming of Christ to Bethlehem is also His coming to the winter depths of England.
One of the primary factors in the creation of the modern version of Christmas was surprisingly the Unitarian Church. Up until the beginning of the 19th Century, Christmas was celebrated in English speaking countries as a baudy drinking holiday where drunken youths would wander from door to door singing drinking songs disguised as carols, and begging for ale or wine from peoples' homes. As this changed to become a holiday focused on gift giving, some people began to feel that the result was an over-commercialization of the holiday that served to spoil children. In this article http://www.uuchelmsford.org/Sermon031214.htm concerning the creation of Christmas the author (who is a Unitarian minister) describes how the Unitarians began making changes to the traditions - first by introducing to New England the tradition of the Christmas Tree, and then by focusing on children giving gifts in addition to receiving them, which was seen as a way of removing the focus on the receiving of gifts only. -- Saukkomies 09:23 2 December 2007 (EST)
A Christmas Carol was published in 1843. The "Spirit of Christmas Past" section shows a great deal of nostalgia for the Christmas celebrations of Scrooge's youth, surely the 180s or 1820s, at the latest. Was Dickens inventing the Christmas celebrations of those periods, or was he reflecting reality? Corvus cornixtalk21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Fezziwig, alive again! It may just be a case, Corvus, of selective memory, or, rather, giving a single episode from the past a more general character of significance. Christmas was always there, though in the past-the time before Dickens-it was more marked by degrees of disorder, perhaps, rather than domestic, middle-class cosiness. Clio the Muse02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marius, or The Fugitive - in English?
A Francois Ceresa wrote "Cosette, or The Time of Illusions" (a sequel to "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo) then he wrote a sequel to his "Cosette, or The Time of Illusions" titled "Marius, or The Fugitive". It looks like Cosette was translated into English (they were written in French) but I can't find Marius in English anywhere. Was it not translated into English; and if not, is there any reason?
Amazon carries the French version only and I was unable to locate an English version anywhere. The reviews of Cosette, from professionals and laymen alike, were consistent in denouncing it. Thus, most of the potential target audience for the sequel already had reason not to want to risk their time or money on another sequel by the same author. It seems that Marius had an initial printing of 250,000 but disappointing sales. In other words, it flopped - and in the native language of the author, no less. I doubt that it was ever translated into English. 152.16.59.19009:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching a DVD of the old British TV series The Great War, and am now at the part dealing with the development of trench warfare. It's not quite clear to me from the commentary if this condition of stalemate, which prevailed over the course of most of the war, was the fault of the commanders or not? I would welcome some educated opinion on the matter. Many thanks. General Joffre13:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From a tactical point of view, the main reason that WW1 evovled into the incredible slaughter of the trenches is that the machine gun was already invented while the tank was not invented yet (or rather, that machine guns had already entered mass production while tanks were still in the very infancy of their development and were available only in very small numbers) which gave an immense advantage to the defensive over the offensive. In simple terms, World War 1 had trench warfare because a defensive position with machine guns is almost impossible to attack by infantry alone; World War 2 didn't have trench warfare because tanks are very effective at breaking such defensive positions. From a political point of view, things look a bit different, of course: when you realize that you can hold your defensive position practically indefinitely but have no chance of mounting a decisive attack because your opponent can also hold his defensive position indefinitely, the logical thing to do would be to seek peace negotiations because it should be obvious that nobody can win such a war and it will end in a giant battle of attrition with millions dead, but apparently such was not the mindset of the time -- Ferkelparadeπ14:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they didn't just use infantry alone—heavy shelling and aerial attacks were possibilities as well. Keegan has some sort of awful statistic about the amount of shells fired at Verdun versus the amount used in previous wars, but I can't find my copy of History of Warfare just this moment (I fear I lent it out to someone!). But yeah—I think in this case you can put a pretty strong amount of blame on the technologies of warfare themselves creating tactics of this sort. Attempts were made to gain decisive advantages by introducing new technologies (notably gas warfare) but in each case countermeasures were quickly adopted (e.g. gas masks) and the opposing forces adopted similar weapons, the result being a whole lot of slaughter and no ground gained. --24.147.86.18722:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edited)There was prolonged static trench warfare in the American Civil War, at such places as Vicksburg and Petersburg [14] (page 208) and in the Atlanta campaign. Atlanta fell basically because the greater manpower of the Union forces allowed them to extend the opposing trenches to the point that the defending Confederated were spread too thin to mount an effective defense. There were no machineguns, but rifle fire and grapeshot were effective substitutes. If anyone stuck his head above the earthworks of a rifle trench [15] a sniper would likely end his life. [16] A charge across the no mans land would result in great carnage. Similar to WW1. Sharpened sticks set in logs were the precursor to barbed wire. There were desparate charges across the hundreds of yards between the trenches, with axmen to try and chop a way through the abatis under fire. Edison03:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Great War is tremendous, is it not? It must surely count as one of the greatest TV documentary series ever made. Anyway, as far as your question is concerned, General Joffre, I do not believe that the generals were responsible for the stalemate. Some, it is true, were more limited in imagination than others, but all were dealing with some unique circumstances. The size of the armies, and the length of the fronts-some 475 miles in the west-meant that the the outflanking manoeuvre, the classic way of defeating an enemy in battle, simply was no longer available. The only way to win was to fight through the opponent's defensive system, and this entailed disastrously high casualties. It would take time, and technical advance, to work a way through this problem. In the meantime stalemate was inevitable. There was already a foretaste of this during the Crimean War and in the American Civil War, both in the examples given above by Edison and in the 1864-5 Siege of Petersburg. Clio the Muse03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I respect Clio's opinion on this, I wanted to offer a second opinion on the subject to help round the discussion out. I actually did not like the documentary The Great War. I thought it was very heavily biased toward the British point of view. It glossed over the many British blunders made during the war, while making the most of those of the Germans, French and Americans. The documentary did not talk very much at all of some of the major battles of the war such as Verdun that did not include the British, and it also downplayed the very important role that the Americans played when they entered the war. Instead, it made them appear to be Johnny-Come-Latelies that happened to show up just as the glorious British Army was wrapping things up neatly. The one thing I did like about the documentary was its coverage of the worldwide aspects of the war, especially in Africa. But this hardly would warrant it being recommended as "one of the greatest TV documentary series ever made".
On another note, trench warfare did not take place in World War II, but not solely due to the implementation of the tank and other armoured vehicles. After WWI the infantry was re-examined by the major powers, and tactics were developed to help infantry break through entrenched enemy lines. A very good example of these tactics is shown in the movie "Saving Private Ryan", in which the American forces landing on Normandy in D-Day had to go up against some incredibly well-fortified positions with no tank support. The fluidity of the new infantry tactics played heavily on the use of focusing the attack on seizing machine gun nests FIRST, and then removing the heavier artillery positions later, allowing the armoured vehicles to then come forward and push through the lines to do what they did best - to speed up the enemy's retreat. --Saukkomies 11:37, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks, Saukkomies. I'm sorry you did not like The Great War. I stand by by estimation, though, that it is indeed one of the greatest TV documentaries ever made. Only The World at War and The Civil War, so far as I am concerned, stand any direct comparison. But The Great War was the first. Made as long ago as 1964, it covers the whole conflict in 26 forty minute episodes, with hours of original footage, quotations from a large variety of contemporary sources, eye-witness accounts and a wonderful narrative voice-over by Michael Redgrave. It is, I admit, ever so slightly skewed to a British perspective, at least insofar as most of the eye-witnesses are British, though I believe that an effective balance is maintained in the best traditions of the BBC.
I must say I'm perplexed by some of what you have written in the above, which makes me think that you may possibly have misremembered some of the episodes, or, indeed, have been watching a different series altogether? There is absolutely no attempt made to disguise the British 'blunders', as you put it. The failures of the Gallipoli campaign are fully explored as are other missed opportunities, including Sir John French's failure to have his reserves sufficiently close to the front to exploit the initial advantage gained by Sir Douglas Haig at the Battle of Loos. I completely fail to detect any attempt to emphasise unfairly the mistakes made by other armies. As for not 'talking very much' about some of the other major battles, well all of episode eleven-"Hell cannot be so terrible"-is devoted to the Battle of Verdun, whereas only part of episode thirteen-"The Devil is coming"-is devoted to The Battle of the Somme. All of the other battle fronts are covered, with due emphasis given to the importance of the Brusilov Offensive. There is also plenty of coverage given to American involvement, with all of episode sixteen-"Right is more precious than peace"-given over to the political build-up to the declaration of war in April 1917, just as episode eighteen-"Fat Rodzyanko has sent me some nonsense"-is given over to the Russian Revolution. Your final estimation about the 'glorious British army' is-and I am sorry, I have to be blunt-grossly misleading, making the whole thing appear like propaganda, which it is not, by any degree, or by any reasonable measure. Anyway, I would urge all of you who are interested in the First World War, in good history, in good documentry and, above all, in good film-making to get a hold of the DVD and make up your own minds. It's worth it; believe me. Clio the Muse00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clio, I must apologize. It just goes to show that one ought to look at the links before opening one's mouth (or typing on one's keyboard) about something. It turns out that there are MANY different documentaries that have the title "The Great War". I looked just now at the documentary that you had been talking about, and to my chagrine it is NOT the one I had thought it to be when I wrote my previous comment! The documentary I had seen recently that also was called "The Great War" was atrocious! So I do offer you my sincerest apologies, and also my thanks - because now I have a new documentary series to watch! Saukkomies03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of Tracy Worcester, "Although there are some brave politicians who are prepared to risk something, most of them keep behind the party lines and are bent on the never-ending, short-term task of winning votes." Appeasement was amazingly popular in a country still shaken by the Great War and further weakened by the economic recession of the 1930s, and one would expect democratic politicians to respond to that. In particular, from the point of view of a Conservative British government, Stalin's Soviet Union was undoubtedly seen as the greater enemy, so to appease Hitler served the double purpose of (1) seeking to avoid a war in which British lives and capital would be sacrificed and (2) looking for a proxy to keep Soviet communism at bay. I hesitate to say this, but appeasement (without the benefit of hindsight) was an entirely rational policy, in its day.
Let me briefly put the argument for the appeasers, perhaps as devil's advocate. Pre-war Germany treated several of its minorities very badly (especially Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally ill), but its worst excesses, including what we call the Holocaust, were made possible by the War. Even on the point on which the British Empire and the French Republic went to war in September 1939, the freedom of Poland, the war was unsuccessful. After it, Poland remained partitioned, with huge parts of its territory being gained by the Soviet republics (whose successors still hold them today) and with what remained Polish, together with other great swathes of central and eastern Europe, being under Soviet domination for two generations. The deaths of fighting men and women were of the order of twenty million, and civilian deaths something like fifty million more (see World War II casualties). No doubt the alternative to all this, without the second world war being fought, was a central and eastern Europe dominated for perhaps as long by aggressive extremism of another kind. Those who promoted appeasement, weak, short-sighted and foolish though they seem to us now, had a strong case at the time which perhaps was not entirely destroyed by the out-turn of events. Xn401:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite frank, 217.42, there is an awful lot of retrospective justification in Churchill's political career. From the hindsight of history we know that appeasement was a doomed policy; but there was simply no way of knowing this at the time. I personally am far less hesitant on this issue than Xn4, and will go so far as to say that appeasement was a rational and understandable policy taking all of the political, diplomatic and strategic factors into account. It was unheroic, yes, but it was necessarily unheroic. Neither Britain nor France were ready for war in 1936, or 1937, or 1938. They were only just ready in 1939, largely thanks to the time that Neville Chamberlain had bought at Munich. For along with seemingly spineless concessions to Hitler-and the unprincipled sacrifice of a central European ally-went a steady process of rearmament, particularly important for the RAF, which was to be the decisive defensive wing in 1940. Rearmament was not, of course, Chamberlain' chief aim; for that was simply to secure the peace. He failed, but it was not a failure without consequence.
Anyway, turning to your specific question, it is important to see Churchill's 'prescience' in a far wider political and personal context, which might help you to understand why he stood alone on this issue, as on so many others. You see, Churchill was not just opposed to the appeasement of Germany; he was opposed to all forms of appeasement. Put this another way, he was opposed to political compromise on issues of fundamental importance to the interests of the British Empire, as he conceived those interests. The emphasis here is important, for it entailed a refusal to entertain any kind of compromise, even in forms that most people, including the bulk of his own Party, considered perfectly reasonable. For example, he refused to entertain the proposal, again accepted by his own party, that India should aim for Dominion status within the Empire. For Churchill any understanding with Ghandi and Congress was, almost by definition, 'betrayal', attacked in the same way he was later to attack attempts to reach an undersatnding with Germany. Here was the arch-reactionary, the voice of the Tory ultras, whom no less a figure than Sir Samuel Hoare believed was aiming to smash the government and introduce some sort of undemorcatic and Fascist rule in Britain and the Empire. Ridiculous, of course; but it remains true that Churchill's 'warnings' over India and Europe began to seem more and more out of touch, more and more unreasonable and reactionary, the voice of the past. Hardly surprising when one considers that in the preface to My Early Life, written in the summer of 1930, he bemoaned all of the political and economic changes in British society since the Victorian era, including universal suffrage.
Even before Hitler, true to his unique style, he was warning against disarmament, a principle universally strived for, describing the 1932 Geneva talks on the subject as 'mush, slush and gush.' In the Commons his speeches came close to war-mongering, and were generally perceived as such. His seeming lack of judgement was confirmed in 1936 during the Abdication crisis, when he threatened to form a 'King's party', even though there were great constitutional issues at stake, even though almost all opinion in Parliament was against Edward. It was at this point that his political stock sank to its lowest. He subsequently sought to recover by pronouncements on foreign policy. But he now had the reputation of being 'unsound' on almost all issues. In the Commons his denunciation of the Munich Agreement was seem merely as more of the same old stuff; the same old uncompromising Winston, full of hot air and bellicose intentions, unrealistic in every degree. It was fortunate for him, and his future reputation that history, at least in this one instance, proved him to be in the right. Clio the Muse03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly missed the 'playing for time' point, which is very important. Some of the appeasers (and I think it's fair to include Chamberlain among them) went along with the 'playing for time' notion but in their bones were against any new war with Germany. Even when it came to the crunch in September 1939, Chamberlain's cabinet had to make him declare war. I was hesitant above because it isn't self-evident that even that position can be defended. Xn404:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tresckow, there seems to be some confusion here. If you look at the page on Pinto you will note that it says that he introduced Anjiro to St. Francis Xavier in 1549, yet if you turn to that on Xavier it says that he first met the Japanese nobleman in Malacca in December 1547. They had already been in touch with one another as far back as 1545. St Francis's ship, with Anjiro on board, entered Japanese waters on 15 August 1549, at the port of Kagoshima. I think the reasonable deduction is that Ajiro first met Pinto at this time. Clio the Muse01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That´s the reason I asked for infos. The articles are contradicting. OK so Ill go with 1549. I think its funny how the Shogun series are always associated with William Adams but never with Pinto despite its big similarities.--Tresckow14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The principal reason that almost all the recipes on the Net call for ready-made dough is that it is, by far, the hardest part to get right. A friend used to say that cooking was an art, but pastry is chemistry. The slightest difference, even in the temperature of the ingredients as you add them, can change delight to disaster. That being said, the doughs usually associated with this dish are puff pastry and phyllo dough. Both should result in the thin, multi-layered, delicate pastry that I think the French call "mille-feuille" (thousand leaves). Good puff pastry can take hours to make, and I have never had a result that was worth the effort. I have never tried to make phyllo, but I am sure someone reading this will be able to comment. I'd buy the ready-made puff pastry (though not the crescent-roll dough recommended in your recipe); my time is worth more than the difference in the cost, especially after I calculate the cost of the pastry ingredients. Bielle18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only person I know who makes their own puff pastry was trained as a pastry chef—everyone else just buys the ready-made stuff. Just buy the ready-made stuff, unless you really undervalue what your time is worth and don't care whether the end-product is any good. (I've made a variation of this recipe that just used regular puff-pastry dough, which is easy to find and not all that expensive. It's a very easy recipe and a great hit at parties and big dinners. Google 'baked brie' for a dozen or so recipes.) --24.147.86.18718:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Croissant pastry is different from puff pastry (or mille-feuille), phyllo (or filo), as it uses yeast as a raising agent. Here's [17] a recipe for croissant (or crescent) dough. SaundersW21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick the soldier
Thanks to those who responded to my previous question on Fredrick the Great. Now I would like to know how he compares with Napoleon as a soldier? Hugo McGoogle19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was one important difference between the two men in the conduct of war. Frederick was very much a man of the eighteenth century, a soldier in the old tradition of limited warfare for limited aims. He would not have sympathised with, or understood, the Napoleonic style of struggle, based on national mobilisation, aiming at total victory. In the field the great Prussian king fought skilled campaigns of manouevre and counter-manouevre, wearing down his enemies by a series of widely separated attacks. He did not look for absolute victory in one big battle in the fashion of Napoleon. Still, he used deception, like Napoleon; he concentrated all of his artillery at decisive points in the battlefield, like Napoleon; he deployed all of his striking power at a single point of decision, again like Napoleon. Above all things, both men were acutely aware of the importance of terrain, and used it to full advantage. Frederick thought quickly and moved rapidly, another quality he shares with the French general. How would they have fared, one against the other? It's difficult to say, though I think it safe to conclude that Napoleon would have found the Prussian king difficult to pin down, and may have found himself under attack where he least expected. I think there is no better verdict than that he passed himself, after his victory at the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt, when he visited Frederick's tomb at Potsdam. Turning to his marshals he said "Hats off, gentlemen! If he were alive we would not be here." Clio the Muse01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
painting as a response to flowers
Sorry to be vague: I think it might have been in an old documentary by Robert Hughes that he quoted someone who said something about painting being humanity's vain attempt to answer the beauty of flowers. Can anyone find the actual quote?
Yes, here's the original of that - "L'art, c'est l'effort inlassable d'égaler la beauté des fleurs sans jamais y arriver." (Literally, "Art is the unflagging effort to equal the beauty of the flowers, without ever getting there".) Xn400:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt this expression is weighty and profound, full of precise meaning. To me-unenlightened and untutored-it looks rather like socio-babble! Clio the Muse01:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Bill O'Reilly and his "war" on the "secular progressives", its just a buzzword Dobbs uses to pejoratively label groups that that lobby and campaign for immigration reform (a societal issue that is central to ethnic minorities). These so-called political commentators realized that if they adopt a fancy, but vague term, they can use it to describe anyone that they disagree with. Thus, they only have to say the codewords "secular progressive special interests" or "socio ethnocentric special interests" and their audience knowns when to boo and hiss. Its no more than a argumentum ad hominem, but it seems to go down pretty well with the American public. There is a more academic meaning of the term, see ethnocentrism, but ironically enough, Dobbs' own political views would be better described as ethnocentric than those he uses the term to criticize. Rockpocket08:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information, Rockpocket. There is clearly a whole dimension of American cultural experience and exchange that has yet to penetrate the quiter corners of rural Cambridgeshire! Thinking specifically of Mr Dobbs, though, I'm reminded of one of the quips of Grucho Marx-"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception." Clio the Muse23:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Clio, the cable political discussion genre is a uniquely American experience, which never fails to amuse me. There are numerous pundits who host such programs, each trying to out-populist the others. When I first saw The O'Reilly Factor I wasn't sure whether it was an Alan Partridge style parody or not. Turns out they are for real (the excellent The Colbert Reportis a parody, but its sometimes difficult to tell the difference). Some of the pundits are beyond satire though, for example consider Sean Hannity's website, "Hannidate": a "place where people of like conservative minds can come together to meet.[18] The American equivalent of a Young Conservatives social, except everyone has better teeth. Rockpocket07:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer coaxed me into reading the article on Lou Dobbs as well. I was surprised at the use of "populism" as a self-declared position in present day politics. I didn't know there was a Populist Party of America and of Maryland. In most European countries, or so I believe, populism is usually used in a crritical, sometimes even derogatory way, to characterize other politicians who play to the crowd. ---Sluzzelintalk23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Populism" in the United States is a particular set of beliefs, not necessarily demogoguery. Its most identifiable characteristic is isolationism and opposition to free trade. Right-wing populism, such as that of Pat Buchanan, also takes a hard line on immigration, opposes affirmative action and is wary of the power of the federal government. Left-wing populism like that of Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader adds opposition to big corporations and is amenable to the welfare state. Lou Dobbs reflects a bit of both -- you can call him a centrist populist who, to a degree, reflects kind of the pre-1972 New Deal coalition, before the Democratic Party and progressive organizations adopted identity politics. -- Mwalcoff02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Allegory
I've been reading articles all week about Jean-Dominique Bauby. I have not read the book, nor watched the movie, but from everything I can surmise he was an exquisite human being. I tear up just thinking about his story. And so I ask, very humbly, if someone could please decipher the allegory behind the title: "The diving bell and the butterfly." Sappysap23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"My diving bell becomes less oppressive, and my mind takes flight like a butterfly." The diving bell is a metaphor for the body in which the author is trapped following his stroke; the butterfly an image of his unfettered mind. - Nunh-huh00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seasonal quiz help
Could one of you bright sparks help me with the answers to the following. 1) Which English possession was taken by the French on 7 January 1558? 2) Which English statesman died on 3 September 1658? 3) Which English king was crowned on Christmas Day? 4) Which British colony surrendered on Christmas Day? 5) Which stone disappeared on Christmas Day? 5) How is Rembrant's 1642 Masterpiece The Company of Frans Banning Cocq and Willem van Ruytenburch better known? 6) What epithet was given to Harold Macmillan's abrupt dismissal of seven members of his cabinet in July 1962? 6) Which English king was said to have died from a surfeit of lampreys? 7) In February 1429 Sir John Fastolf drove off a Franco-Scottish attack on an English supply convoy near Orleans. How is this action better known? 8) What did Henry VII do with the Yorkist imposter Lambert Simnel after capturing him in 1487? Thanks, y'all. Pope Hilarious23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's best to add the answers in the following list:
8. (from our article Lambert Simnel): "He pardoned young Simnel (probably because he had mostly been a puppet in the hands of adults) and gave him a job in the royal kitchen as a spit-turner"
It's possible to answer these questions using Wikipedia or Google, if you know how to search. For example, typing in the year or the month-and-day combination will give you a list of events that occured in that year or on that month and day. Wikipedia also has an enormous number of articles, and searching using the textbox on the left (press "Search" if "Go" doesn't work) will usually give you useful results. --Bowlhover04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
December 2
Can someone write me some poetry
for a girl that I can pretend I wrote. her name is Victoria/Vicki/Vic. Brown hair, blue eyes, cute (hmmm....). We're not together though I want us to be.
Sorry, bud, you're out of luck, at least with me. Depending on how old she is, you might be in just as good shape if you were straightforward with her or wrote it yourself. I believe there are other forums on the internet where people could help you better with your work. The Evil Spartan00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would be much better off looking at sites that have poetry...http://www.lovepoemsandquotes.com/ It needn't specifically use the name Victoria though, what matters is that you are expressing what you think to her - be it through carefully selecting some wonderfully worded classics or by your own attempts. Either way good luck ny156uk00:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love so much I may be sicky,
Please don't be too picky, Vicki.
How do I love thee, Vicki-wiki?
More than Minnie loves her Mickey!
Bobbie, speak from your heart, and in your own words. Girls can detect insincerity like a shark detects blood. Believe me! (PS. I did not pen the above ode!!!) Clio the Muse00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Girls love insincerity! Here's my contribution. Use it as you see fit:
If you cannot write your own poetry, quote a famous poet and then explain how it makes you feel. It worked for Clinton - using Whitman to win the favor of many women. -- kainaw™03:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I am suddenly reminded of this bit from the opening monologue from Bull Durham: "You see, there's a certain amount of life wisdom I give these boys. I can expand their minds. Sometimes when I've got a ballplayer alone, I'll just read Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman to him, and the guys are so sweet, they always stay and listen. — 'Course, a guy'll listen to anything if he thinks it's foreplay." --Anon, 11:18 UTC, Dec. 2, 2007.
Hey vicky, your so so icky, just the thought of being around you makes me oh so sickyyyy. lol you could do that though i dont think it will work. Esskater1104:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heed some of the advice given to you above, and beware, young Christian: Though she may be willing to lie to herself, your Roxane will eventually "see through all the generous counterfeit". And the young cadet's exit comes far too soon. ---Sluzzelintalk15:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Email this thread to her to indicate the depth of your infatuation, the sincerity of your love, the degree of your modesty, and the total loss of your common sense. (joke)--Eriastrum17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe no one has gone with the obvious "poem": Oh Vicki, you're so fine/ You're so fine you blow my mind/ Hey Vicki! Though she's probably heard that one before. (In seriousness, I agree with the others: find a poem which summarizes your feelings for her and use that. - just don't try to claim authorship. She will find out, and it won't end well for you.) -- 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.21 (talk)
I wouldn't have suggested that myself. I understood 'Hey Mickey' was a song written by a woman in love with a gay man. Steewi00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to write a poem for you Vicky,
But I couldn't, so I asked on a Wiki
This poem isn't great, but I guess you can't be picky.
In the potato article, it says that the potato was unpopular in France while gaining popularity in Europe, but doesn't specify why. My Google research has lead to 2 reasons:
The French likened the potato plant to looking similar to a type of poisonous nightshade.
The French thought the potato was beneath them as a peasant food
Is there a predominant reason for the unpopularity? I know the tomato was also likened as a poisonous type of nightshade and was unpopular in Britain for a while because of it. I would've thought that that would take precedence to class stature, but of course, I wouldn't know any better.
Possible explanations: it is not mentionned in the bible and it grows realy easely so it might be the "plant of the devil", this might be further reinforced by its growing underground. There were rumours that it caused illness and was only used to feed livestock. It was a completely unknown plant and at first people didn't know what to call it. It was first called truffle or cartuffle before it became patate and earth apple both terms that are still used today the first considered more lower class.
There's the famous story of Parmentier's efforts to make the consumption of potatoes more widespread in France at the end of the 18th Century (about 2 centuries after it was first introduced) after he had come back from captivity in Prussia where he first ate the plant. He offered to Louis XVI the flowering plant and organised a banquet where all the meals had potatoe as a base ingredient thus popularizing it with the courtiers and the fashion of eating the tubercule raining down to the lower classes. He then planted a whole field of potatoes in Paris and had it guarded by soldiers. The rumour spread in the starving city that they were guarding a valuable plant and interest grew. Parmentier then kept the guards during the day and withdrew them at night. All the potatoes were gone in a matter of days! The king remarked to him then: "France will thank you one day for having invented the poor man's bread". Keria12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catholics under Elizabeth
I saw and enjoyed Elizabeth the Golden Age. I have two questions. Is it historically accurate? (I can't really believe that Elizabeth Carried on with Raleigh in the manner depicted!) Second, and more generally, if Catholics and Catholicism were so suspect how did people of this religion fare under the rule of Elizabeth? 86.148.38.11614:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your first question is one I have given before, 86.148; it is best not to look for accuracy in historical drama of this kind. There are too many absurdities to mention in detail; the burning Armada, being one, and the Queen still entertaining the prospect of marriage while in her fifties, being another. Enjoy the movie; forget the history.
As far as the Catholicism question is concerned, to begin with the situation was fairly fluid, with patterns of conformity and dissent dictated as much by local considerations as by national policy. It was quite possible for people to be Catholic in some aspects of their lives, though not in others; conformist and non-conformist at one and the same time. This flexibility gave way to more rigid attitudes in 1571, by which time the Church of England had given firm expression to its Protestant doctrine in the Thirty-Nine Articles, while the Council of Trent gave a far stricter definition of what it meant to be a Catholic, forbidding any kind of participation in heretical services. At that point the whole question moves from one of faith to one of politics: the conflict and contradiction between loyalty to one's faith and loyalty to one's nation. Even so, it is important not to place too much weight on Pius V's Regnans in Excelsis, declaring Elizabeth to be a pretender, as most English Catholics made open and sincere declarations of loyalty to the crown.
Still, for obvious reasons, it made the general position of recusants that much more problematic. The government became more vigilant, though action against priests was restricted to the new cohort emerging from Douai College, and not the surviving native or Marian priests, who were allowed to continue with minimum interference. In 1585 all priests ordained abroad and returning to England were declared guilty of high treason, and those who helped them of a felony. At the same time the pressure of the recusants became more systematic. It was possible for ordinary people to remain Catholic-and a great many did-though the financial penalties for doing so became ever more burdensome. By the end of Elizabeth's reign in 1603, while it is difficult to give precise figures, Catholics comprised no more than about 2% of the total population in England, more numerous in some places than in others. The most secure were the upper class and noble Catholics, those who could afford to pay the recusancy fines. But the faith survived also among sections of the working population. They survived, with difficulty, yes, but without the wholesale persecution that was the fate of religious minorities on the Continent. Clio the Muse01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The French National Assembly and Senate have autorized ratification of the London Agreement (a patent law treaty signed in 2000). However, the French government has not yet "deposited the instrument of ratification". Can we technically already say that the London Agreement has been ratified by France? (Note that I am not sure whether the terms actually matter much since the Agreement will only enter into force after the deposit of the instruments of ratification by France, but I am just wondering whether the present previous wording in the Wikipedia article is was legally accurate). Any idea? Thanks. --Edcolins15:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it easy for a website with advertisements to claim fair use? I heard of a case where a website managed, but is that just a once off thing or is that likely to happen?--Phoenix-wiki(talk·contribs)15:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To start, this depends on the applicable jurisdiction(s), which are not always easy to determine for websites. Different countries have drastically different fair use criteria. Assuming that U.S. federal law applies, whether fair use can be rightfully claimed is a difficult balance between several factors that must be considered, including "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". However, according to our article Fair use, this factor has recently been deemphasized in some Circuits since many, if not most, secondary uses seek at least some measure of commercial gain from their use. I think it is fair to say that it is probably not easy if the use of the copyrighted material is for blatantly commercial purposes, but if, for example, a for-profit website devoted to art sells posters, but also, as a public service, alerts its visitors to exhibitions in musea, and then uses a low-resolution copy of the museum poster to illustrate such an alert, one may imagine they might be successful in making the case that this constitutes fair use. --Lambiam19:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Military service is only obligatory for Swiss males, who have to serve for at least 260 days in the armed forces; conscripts receive 18 weeks of mandatory training, followed by seven 3-week intermittent recalls for training over the next 10 years.[19] See also our article Military of Switzerland. I can find no information suggesting that a male would not be admitted to university before having fulfilled this obligation; somehow I doubt that there is such a restriction. --Lambiam18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that, Sandstein? It seems to me that if military service is mandatory, one who does not fulfill the military obligation would not be able to go to university without first serving his prison sentence for failing to report for duty. --M@rēino20:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, this is the case. In practice, prison sentences (typically of three months) for not doing military service are rare. Most college students who do not want to serve in the army are somehow able to get a medical exemption or do an alternative civil service. What I meant that there is no connection in law between education and military service. Sandstein20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that service in the Swiss Army would be entirely different from American or British service. There is absolutely no threat of being sent abroad. About how many Swiss soldiers have been killed in action in the last 150 years? Probably not many. Wrad20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rendition by US Authorities (non terrorism cases)
I have read today in the UK Sunday Times a report from a current legal case. It would appear that the American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the rendition law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate. During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005. Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said. He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”
Can anyone enlighten me on this subject? I would have thought that such actions would be unconstitutional on many levels, but the US legal system is rarely clear and concise!83.148.88.3719:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert but I am an American. From what I can gather, it comes down to the fact that George W. Bush is "The Decider". Therefore, laws, morals, ethics, diplomacy and rights only exist if Bush decides they exist. I don't know why this is hard to understand! It isn't relative, it's ABSOLUTE!
For my part though I hope someday G.W. Bush and his cronies come to France. If only the French had caught Kissinger! Then, the International War Crime Tribunal! I am ever ashamed of my country and the things it has done. For a good read, check out Harold Pinter's Nobel acceptance speech (Google it, it's online). It made me cry. Saudade723:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, my understanding is that in [parts of?] the US, you can arrest someone and bring them to court even if you're not a formal law enforcement officer - as long as there's a warrant, it's legitimate. As this is basically a form of arrest, which by definition is legal, the courts don't consider it kidnap or unlawful detention or the like. Doing it overseas is substantially more, uh, legally exotic, but as far as the courts are concerned, it's legal to them. If you break local law in doing it, that's your own problem, but the US court won't consider that a violation. (Usual disclaimers, mainly that I read about this years ago, apply) Shimgray | talk | 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the protections in the Constitution do not apply to people who are neither citizens nor residents of the United States. The Bush administration has seized upon this constitutional loophole, and the rest of the world is at its mercy. Marco polo17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the Bush administration has claimed that even citizens' rights can be suspended if the U.S. government decides (without judicial review) that a citizen is an enemy combatant. The Bush administration has avoided judicial tests of this policy. Absent a judicial ruling against this policy, the Constitution's protections apply only to U.S. citizens and (to a lesser extent) non-citizen residents who happen to have the approval of the current government. Marco polo17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> I wish people wouldn't throw out uninformed answers without any background knowledge or research. Anyway, the lawyer for the U.S. cited the case United States v. Alvarez-Machain. That case, and Ker v. People of State of Illinois before it, say getting forcibly abducted from one jurisdiction to another does not mean you get to have the charges thrown out. It does not mean that this kind of abduction is itself legal. If person X kidnaps person Y from the UK to face charges in the US, person Y can't get the charges thrown out, but he could press kidnapping charges against person X in the UK or US. -- Mwalcoff00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problems in the aboriginal communities??
I would like to find a few articles on "problems in the aboriginal community" in Canada for my project. I need information and I need it fast. It would be nice to find a few articles on these topics:
Yes, is the short answer; for Nazis and Fascists of all sorts. According to Paul Preston, a specialist in Spanish history and biographer of Francisco Franco, many were given asylum and a fresh identity in Spain at the end of the war. Franco himself connived at the escape of Leon Degrelle, the Belgian Fascist leader and SS general. Other major figures who obtained a safe haven in Spain included Otto Skorzeny and Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, head of Vichy's Jewish Agency, and instrumental in the deportation of many people to Auschwitz. In May 1946 it was estimated by a sub-committee set up by the United Nations Security Council that between 2-3000 German Nazi officials, agents and war criminals were living in Spain, along with several thousand members of the Vichy Milice. Clio the Muse00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baghdad in Afghanistan?
Is there a place called Baghdad in Afghanistan? It seems there is according to [20]. I could not find it myself. If it exists, is it notable enough to have its own article? Baghdad, Afghanistan
The article's title is incorrect and should read "Detained Nepalis in Iraq to be released soon" The Nepalis worked and were held as detainees in Baghdad, Iraq. ---Sluzzelintalk20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, there is such a place: [21], [22]. This is also confirmed by the [NGA GEOnet Names Server, which classifies it as a "populated place". Google maps also knows a "Baghdad, Afghanistan", but the satellite images show nothing suggesting human habitation. --Lambiam21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Actually, its my fault for not researching thoroughly enough. Google Earth did show Baghdad, Vardak Afghanistan. The result is not in a very high resolution. However, the fact that it exists is all that matters at the moment.
This may not be so surprising, if you remember that "Baghdad" is a Persian word (or compound word), and Pashto and Dari are both forms of Persian. There are probably numerous cities of the same name. Adam Bishop06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far as pre-history goes, the current wisdom in the UK and Ireland is rather anti-migrationist. Not so in other countries. While you might find something like Image:Folkevandringene.jpg in a German book on the Völkerwanderung, you wouldn't find anything like it in a serious British book on the Anglo-Saxons. Catherine Hills' Origins of the English discusses the reactions of archaeologists to a study by Heinrich Härke which proposed to identify "British" and "Germanic" skeletons in a sub-Roman graveyard: the Germans were amazed that anyone would suggest "British" people had survived in the area to be buried; their English counterparts were puzzled that Härke would seriously suggest that there were any actual "Germans" there (p. 61). Angus McLellan(Talk)16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mad monarchs
We must all be aware of the madness of King George. I was wondering if there were any other mad monarchs living around the same time, or are monarchs all mad? Anyway, if any were mad did they show the same symptoms as poor old George? Kaiser Will06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) By the medical standards of his day, George was considered "mad", but if he were on the throne today, he would almost certainly have been diagnosed with porphyria and treated accordingly. King Ludwig II of Bavaria was a nutcase, though. -- JackofOz08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that Mad King Ludwig was just a bit eccentric, and that the courtiers and members of his family plotted against him for largely political reasons. King George III was a man of very strong opinions even when not affected by porphyria. Sam Blacketer11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maria I, Queen of Portugal from 1777 to 1816, was the one contemporary of George who also suffered from a form of mental collapse. Her grandfather, Philip V of Spain, and her granduncle, Ferdinand VI, had also experienced increasingly severe bouts of insanity. I note that the Wikipedia article on Maria says that she may have been afflicted by porphyria, which seems to be turning into a convenient 'one size fits all' explanation for royal lunacy. Her symptoms seem to have been nothing like those of George, and far more like those of her grandfather, who was quite simply mad! Amongst other things he convinced himself that he was unable to walk because his feet were different sizes. Maria descended into her own madness in January 1792. Always prone to religious mania, she convinced herself that she was in hell, telling her doctors that they might cure madness but they could not reverse the decrees of fate. The Portuguese government sent for Francis Willis, the same doctor who had treated George, but he found that Maria's condition did not respond to his 'scientific method.' It would appear that the Portuguese queen was suffering from some extreme form of bi-polar disorder, in which she switched rapidly from one extreme mood to another. Maria, unlike George, had no respite from her condition, which continued until her death in 1816. Clio the Muse00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the Roman Emperor Caligula might be a good candidate for this list of mad monarchs. Almost all contempory accounts we have of him describe him as being insane. Saukkomies15:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read our article Kosovo War, in particular the section "Background"? For further background reading, see the Kosovo article with its section "History", and also the article on the Battle of Kosovo, which was used by Milošević to create a legend of historical betrayal of Christians by Muslims. Note that Serbs are predominantly Serbian Orthodox Christian, while Islam is dominant among the Albanian majority in Kosovo. If, after reading this, you have questions remaining, please come back here. --Lambiam12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references that Lambiam provided do indeed thoroughly address this question. However, after looking at them myself, I thought that perhaps they might be a bit lengthy and involved for someone who is wanting a "brief" explanation for the Kosovo problem. So, not to dismiss Lambiam's excellent post and research, I thought I'd give a thumbnail outline of the background leading up to it. Kosovo, which the important part of it is a very large valley tucked into the Balkan Mountains of southern Serbia/Yugoslavia, was historically very significant to the Serbians - in the 1200s when the Serbs were gaining independence from the Byzantine Empire and asserting themselves as a nation for the first time, their main center was in Kosovo, which is viewed by Serbs as the heartland of their people. This would be similar to how some North American Indian Tribes have sacred areas where they feel a deep ancestral connection (such as Bear Butte is to the Lakota, and the Four Sacred Mountains of the Navaho). The Serbs, therefore, feel that Kosovo belongs to them.
When the Ottoman Empire conquered much of the Balkans in the 1300s, they also took over Kosovo. From that point until World War I Kosovo was occupied primarily by the Islamic Ottomans, which led to a gradual de-Christianization of the region, along with an exodus of Serbs. After the war was over, the Serbs attempted to recolonize Kosovo, but because it is so isolated and has few natural resources it was not a very attractive place for people to try to make a living, so this effort was not entirely successful.
Enter the Albanians. During World War II the Italians and Germans established a puppet state in the region, and began to exterminate the Serbians (who were against the Nazis), and settled Islamic Albanians in Kosovo. After the war Kosovo became part of Yugoslavia under General Tito. Neighboring Albania had a series of internal political problems, and many Albanians fled their home country over the mountains to settle in Kosovo. Albanians have the highest birth rate of any ethnic group in Europe, and it did not take long before the Albanians greatly outnumbered the Serbians in Kosovo.
When Tito died and Yugoslavia split up in the late 1980s, the Serbs claimed Kosovo as part of Serbia. This set the stage for the events that led to the conflict between the Serbs and the Albanians in Kosovo. Saukkomies15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I can't agree with "Enter the Albanians. During World War II the Italians and Germans established a puppet state in the region, and began to exterminate the Serbians (who were against the Nazis), and settled Islamic Albanians in Kosovo." There have been Albanians in Kosovo for much longer than that. The Ottomans settled Albanians there, and it's also very likely that the Albanians are directly descended from the Illyrians, the population longest established in the region. The Albanian language is known to be derived either from Illyrian or from Thracian. The second century geographer Ptolemy refers to the Albanoi of what is now Albania, while the Serbs are believed to have come south from White Serbia (now in Poland) in the late sixth century. So both Serbs and Albanians (not to mention others, such as Bulgarians and Vlachs) have been there for a very long time indeed. Sadly, when it comes to the history of Kosovo, many of the wars which have washed over it (including the recent Kosovo War of the late 1990s) have resulted in the deliberate destruction of many original sources, so that the truth about much of the history of Kosovo (as with other parts of the Balkans) can be obscure. Xn402:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbi Kook and the Shemittah year
Can any user please let me know whether during the Shemittah year (and the aftermath) Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook himself ate produce which had been grown utilising the Heter Mechirah? Please also let me know the source for the answer. Thank you. Simonschaim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.53.160 (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the two do you mean: (1) "What is the historical point of view Seamus Heaney uses in his poems to present Ireland?", or (2) "From a historical point of view, how should we evaluate the way Seamus Heaney presents Ireland in his poems?"? If you mean (1), then we should first consider the question (0): "Does Seamus Heaney present Ireland in his poems from a historical point of view?". Perhaps he doesn't, but takes things from an individual point of view as they happen, without any attempt to frame them in some historical perspective. --Lambiam15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
er, thats no help. What I mean is in his poems, how does he present Irelands history and how its history is relevant to it today. thanks. Weasly14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a homework question to me (particularly as we studied Seamus Heaney at school). We're not supposed to answer your homework for you as you don't learn anything if somebody else does it and at the end of the day, it's only yourself you are cheating. I would suggest looking at our Seamus Heaney question as a starting point and come back here if you have any more specific queries. 62.249.220.17917:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Maynard Keynes quote on tedium of stock-trading
I seem to recall a quote by John Maynard Keynes that stock-trading is tedious and only people with a certain kind of disposition can tolerate it. Could someone find the exact reference please? Cheers. – Kaihsu15:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last time Switzerland declared war? From it's article, it looks like in 1847 there was a minor civil war in which about 100 were killed, and then nothing. Is this really their last war? Wrad16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the same article you can read that "in 1815 the Congress of Vienna fully re-established Swiss independence and the European powers agreed to permanently recognise Swiss neutrality. The treaty marked the last time that Switzerland fought in an international conflict." — Kpalion(talk)18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, I'm intrigued. Given the history and decentralised political structure of the country-independent cantons and city republics-has Switzerland ever declared war as Switzerland? I confess I'm not even sure if the war of 1847 was a civil war as such or a war between sovereign political entities, each with their own army! Clio the Muse00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is one reason other countries have avoided provoking Switzerland into a declaration of war (at least since 1891) the fear of their knives? Edison03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, and of course our gnomes can be quite nasty too! Clio makes a good point: In the self-consciousness of many Swiss, "we" fought a couple of wars and battles since the early 14th century. (Though another "we" fought in far more other conflicts, of course) The Old Swiss Confederacy had a political body, the Tagsatzung, where military ventures could be discussed and decided. But the more or less autonomous cantons/states sometimes also acted on their own, even against each other's interests at times, and to call this formation "Switzerland" is historically probably incorrect, or misleading at best. I suspect Sandstein can give a more succinct answer, and I hope he will. I'm curious, by the way, when was the earliest usage of the English word "Switzerland" as a political entity? And when was the first mentioning of the word "Switzerland" in English at all? ---Sluzzelintalk12:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent the Old Swiss Confederacy can be referred to as a common body politic, or "Switzerland", at all, it is only because of its joint defence agreements, which were the very raison d'être of the Confederacy from its inception. Still, as far as I know, the Confederacy as a whole never formally declared war on anyone. I suspect this is because aggressive campaigns were generally waged by individual cantons or by groups of cantons, or by mercenaries fighting (at least nominally) on behalf of a foreign power. At any rate, the cantons went completely on the defensive after the defeat of Marignano in 1515, i.e., at a time before before formal declarations of war became very common in northern Europe. After that, the Confederacy having won its de facto independence in the Swabian War, the Swiss ceased to have any substantial foreign military conflicts of any kind up until the Napoleonic invasion of 1798. After Swiss de jure independence and perennial neutrality was recognised in the Peace of Westphalia, there was certainly no need for declarations of war in any case. I suppose such a declaration, if necessary, would have been issued by the Tagsatzung, which also oversaw the War Council, a staff of officers that jointly exercised federal high command. The Restauration-era Federal Treaty of 1815, at any rate, attributed all powers related to foreign policy to the Tagsatzung. (Sources: HDS, specifically [24], [25], [26], [27])
The reason that the Sonderbund war is most often called a civil war rather than a war between states is, I suppose, mostly due to its limited scope, and to the fact that history is written by the victors. In my opinion, how one labels the war is just a matter of semantics. Certainly, the Confederacy of 1815 and 1845 was not (yet) a full territorial state in the modern sense - but neither were most of its individual cantons. Both the cantons and their union had attributes of statehood. (Actually, there is still mostly consensus among Swiss constitutional scholars that both the Confederation and the modern-day cantons are states in every sense of the word, the full sovereignty of the latter being theoretically only limited by the Federal Constitution.) The most apt historical analogy of the Sonderbund War is, I think, the U.S. Civil War, because it was fought in part over very similar issues of union or confederation. A partial modern analogy of the 1815 Confederacy is today's European Union, which is also characterised by a rather fuzzy distribution of sovereignty between union and member states (albeit in very different areas of competence). Sandstein18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reading your articles on Muslim Spain with some interest. I have a particular curiosity over the taifa statelets and the invasion of the Almoravids from North Africa. There is some information here why the taifa were considered heterodox but I would like a fuller account, if possible, of the ways in which they were in breach of Shari'ah and at variance with the wider Muslim world. My thanks. Shabib ibn Yazid19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the taifa principalities, the Almoravids were fundamentalists. This may depend on you viewpont, but it is perhaps not so much that the taifa were in some way in clear breach of the Shari'ah, but that the Almoravids had an extreme interpretation of the obligations and restrictions entailed by it. But, I think the main point of the Almoravid ruler Yusuf ibn Tashfin, in obtaining a fatwa against the taifa states denouncing them as in breach of the Shari'ah, was not a religious but a political one: it was needed to legitimize his subsequent attack and annexation of these states. Without the fatwa, the attack on his Muslim brethren would have been a grave sin. We have no impartial accounts of the events from these days, so such interpretations of the events are necessarily tentative. --Lambiam20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lambiam that there was a political purpose in Yusuf's actions, though with his form of Islamic fundamentalism there is no clear separation between religion and politics. For one thing the rulers of al-Andalus had long since ceased to acknowledge the authority of the caliph in Baghdad. Yusuf, as we know from the inscriptions on his coinage, considered himself to be the caliph's deputy. Any action in Spain was thus legitimate punishment of rebels against the central Islamic authority. The taifa rulers were also in the practice of paying parias, tributes to the Christain rulers to the north, which could be conceived as contrary to Shari'ah, which does not allow Muslims to be subject to non-Muslims. Similarly the taifa princes' tax regime was not authorised by canon law. There were also taifa states, notably Granada, where Jews had authority over Muslims as counsellors of the prince, a practice which caused considerable resentment and a murderous pogrom in 1066. In addition to these there were also many minor breaches that would have gone against the puritanism of the Almoravids, not least of which was the general hedonism of court life among the taifas. "Their minds were occupied by wine and song", so one contemporary account went, and not in a mood of celebration. Clio the Muse01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Medical/Cosmetic Tourism Lawsuits
Has there ever been a case where an American patient has sued a foreign plastic surgeon for malpractice? Was the suit lodged in American courts or in the country where the surgery was performed.
I'm a U.S.-educated expat (b. 1953), and find myself with a text to translate from Hebrew and pitch to native speakers of English, ages 10-12. The only English-language books whose language level I know well is the Harry Potter series. (UK/US is not an issue here.) What grade level's average reading comprehension would they represent? -- Thanks, Deborahjay23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my (Australian) perspective, the first couple of books are at a level about that of an upper primary school student (aged 10-12). As the series continues, the reading level, with the content, gets higher. The last two books are at a level more like middle high school (14-16). There are some ways to gauge the level of a text through the length of sentences, the vocabulary, etc. but they vary by different theories. Steewi00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S. textbook-publishing industry, texts for that age range should largely avoid words of more than two syllables, except the most common ones (e.g. "probably"). Uncommon words of few syllables should be avoided. When using a somewhat uncommon word, such as "balcony" or "triumph", you might offer a parenthetical paraphrase (which could be set off by commas or em-dashes rather than parentheses), unless you have a picture to illustrate the word. Sentences should generally have no more than one clause, though very simple two-clause sentences are okay. Sentences should in any case be kept under 15 words where possible and under 20 words with very few exceptions. Marco polo (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
December 4
Russian Music
I am not a musician, so I would be very grateful for a non-technical answer to my question, if that is possible. I tried to read the article "Minor scale" so that I could explain more clearly what I meant, but I ended up no wiser and with headache. Both articles dabbed from Russian music were equally unhelpful in this specific search. Is there any traditional Christmas music from Russia that is not written in a minor key? By that, I mean (as opposed to what a musician might mean) anything that is not sung in a "lah" based scale. If you know the names (in Russian and English as in "Эй, ухнем - Volga Boat Song") that would be wonderful. Thank you Bielle00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Shchedrik Щедрик (better known as Carol of the Bells) is in a major key. It is Ukrainian, rather than Russian, but it's close. I don't have the music in front of me, so apologies if I'm wrong. Steewi (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carol of the Bells says that it is "unusual" for a Christmas song in that it is written in a minor key. I don't recognize the words shown in the article, so I can't do a "test" sing. And there is no music (not that music would help me, but it might help someone else) which I could use to confirm. Thanks for trying. If there are no more takers on Russian "seasonal music" written in a major key, are there any folk songs from Russia written in a major key? Thanks again. Bielle (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Name of artist for Blood Money cover art
Greetings, oh mighty and all-knowing Wikipedia hive-mind!
I was wondering if any of your myriad processing nodes might be able to identify the artist who did the box cover art for the game Blood Money, which can be seen on the linked article.
Whoops, never mind! Looking at the image page gave an original source URL of exotica.org.uk, and going to that URL got me a gallery of video game covers, complete with artist information. According to that site the artist is one Peter Andrew Jones. Hmm.. I guess having answered my own question means I've now been officially assimilated into the hive. Resistance is futile! --Monorail Cat01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Monorail Cat! And you beat me to it too. Here's the link to publisher Psygnosis's page on Blood Money for those interested. Your question led me to read the article on Roger Dean, and I'm glad you posted it, even though you edit-conflicted me! ---Sluzzelintalk01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
George as a female name isn't all that uncommon, particularly where it's short for Georgina. Also, it seems in the case of George Sand that it was a psuedonym, and she was a feminist. Maybe it was some kind of statement regarding feminism? particularly as Georges are usually assumed to be male, when it's not always the case that they are. That's just speculation on my part though --Monorail Cat02:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Presumably it's because professional writing was not regarded in those days as a suitable pastime for a woman. Mary Ann Evans wrote under the name "George Eliot" for the same reason. -- JackofOz02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name George Sand supposedly was chosen on St. George’s day (April 23) in 1832 as a nom de plume for her novel Indiana, with the last name being a contraction of the name of her lover Jules Sandeau. - Nunh-huh04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many women had written fiction, even before Fanny Burney's blockbuster Evelina, but critics tended to adopt a double standard when discussing "lady novelists". "George Sand" wanted her work judged by the same criteria that would apply to any "serious", i.e. male, novelist. --Wetman09:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A number of factors have led some commentators to conclude she had lesbian proclivities: although married with 2 children, she separated from her husband; she was a known feminist; she had a particularly close friendship with another woman; she wore trousers in public; she smoked cigars and pipes in public; she took up with Chopin (inter alia), and if he were gay (which has been independently suggested but never proven; he certainly never married), this would have been a convenient cover for both of them. We'll probably never know whether the lesbian theory is true or not, but if it were, this could also help explain the male pseudonym. We don't need this theory, however, as many other women wrote under male pseudonyms who were completely straight (well, as straight as any true writer can be). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also George Achille-Fould, a nineteenth-century French woman painter, who also wanted just to have her work taken seriously. She doesn't have a Wiki page however although she is mentioned in some pages on the French Wiki. When I was doing research in the archives at the Musée d'Orsay I ran across a number of women painters working under the pseudonym "George". Saudade701:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
texas native american tribes
i am tring to help my son with his home work the question is in a puzzle form it states : the first 3 letters are the state that borders texas arkansas the tribe has 8 letters the first 3 letters are ark_k_s_ we have looked every where and i cant find the missing letters please help
alley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.75.54 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently spoke to my priest about having a hard time with the Holy Spirit and he told me to get and read the book by Saint???? I was wondering if you could help me. Thank you.63.215.27.17803:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After one has been praying for something for a long time, sometimes one perceives that it is not going to happen, and that the answer is "no". Under those circumstances it is better to understand that "no" is the answer than to be told to keep trying. SaundersW09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried googling some lines from this poem along with terms like "analysis", "critique", and similar, but couldn't find anything (not to say that a more thorough search wouldn't turn anything up), so I thought I'd throw in my 2p's worth - To me it sounds a bit like a religious person experiencing fear that the god they believe in might not be there, or that their god is disappointed in them, and thus refusing to answer their prayers. It seems like she writes from the point of view of somebody who has prayed again and again for some kind of divine intervention in her life, and has finally reached the point of asking "why won't God stop this", with the only possible answers being 1) I haven't been good enough to deserve God's favour, or 2) God isn't there at all.
The third line "'Thou shalt not' is a kinder sword" sounds like someone saying it would be better for God to be angry than not there, and the last line, "Disciple, call again" sounds like either desperation to want God not to give up on her, or a feeling that she hasn't tried hard enough yet, and needs to keep going to get a result.
Disclaimer: I know less about poetry than the average brick does. I'm just commenting on what it sounds like to me (which is in a way I think, kind of valid - after all, isn't art in the eye of the beholder?). I don't doubt, however, there are much more learned people on this reference desk who can provide better analysis than this. Finally, I also feel I should add that I am personally an atheist, and as this seems to be a religiously themed poem, I might have rather different views on it than people who have religious faith. --Monorail Cat09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[deleted and merged into topic above. Apparently something I did caused a duplicate question to appear]
I agree with Monorail Cat. The poem is describing a dark night of the soul, a crisis of faith in which a confirmation of God's existence — even if it was a denial of the narrator's prayer — would be more comforting ("a kinder sword") than no answer at all. Gdr12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A Charlotte Zolotow book"
I'm currently working on article for the novel Dragon of the Lost Sea which mentions that it's "A Charlotte Zolotow Book" on the back. What does this mean and how significant is it? It's not the same as the Charlotte Zolotow Award which was established in 1998 and in any case, the copy of the book that I'm working with is a 1988 edition. --BrokenSphereMsg me06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Doesn't sound significant enough to mention in the article and it's not the only book with this imprint, search engine hits turn up lots of others. BrokenSphereMsg me15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
French failing
In looking for an explanation for the completness of their collapse in 1940 the French, amongst other things, tended to blame the British for abandonment and lack of support. I was wondering how significant, therefore, Anglo-French disagreement was in the inter-war paeriod and was the disassociation between the two countries a reflection of the fact that they were allies who were not really allies? Plekhanov06:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, Plekhanov, you are already a large part of the way towards answeing your own question in suggesting that Britain and France allies who were not really allies; allies of occasion, it might be said, not allies of substance. It was not long after the conclusion of the Treaty of Versailles that the French started to feel that their wartime partner did not take their fears over security seriously enough. Versailles was not nearly tough enough as far as France was concerned, and the country was only prepared to drop its demand for a separate Rhineland state in return for a promise by David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister of the day, of an Anglo-American guarantee of French security. But it never came. The Americans drew back into isolationism, giving Lloyd George the perfect excuse to make his own exit from awkward Continental obligations.
France was left feeling betrayed and isolated, a sense of betrayal that only increased as it attempted to enforce the existing provisions of Versailles, particularly over the question of reparations, in the face of British criticism. In the end France was carried along by the evolving policy of appeasement in the 1930s because in the wake of the British initiative in this area there was really no other choice. Time and again they felt they had been let down when they had tried to make a stand, from the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 to the Disarmament Conference of 1932 to 1934, where their concerns over security were effectively ignored. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 further underlined how far the two wartime partners had drifted one from the other.
I have to say, though, that this is a very one-sided reading of a complex situation. Britain, although stand-offish at points, never at any point seriously considered abandoning the French altogether, even without a formal diplomatic agreement. After all, the country nearly went to war in 1938 with Germany over Czechoslovakia, a French rather than a British ally. There are many factors explaining the collapse of 1940, most to be found in France itself. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can't ignore the long-standing British policy of fostering a balance of power on the Continent. Britain was always careful to prevent one country's hegemony there, and France was looking likely to dominate in the long run. It wasn't personal, just business as usual. But those were unusual times, as it turned out. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Belief
In Ancient China, what were the gods that were worshipped, the beliefs and ways of life they followed? And compare this to Catholic religious beliefs, what are the similarities and differences between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.47.36 (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such "compare and contrast" questions have so often proved to be homework subjects that Reference desk volunteers are sometimes shy to answer them. --Wetman09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good place to start is Shangdi, Pangu and traditional chinese religion. There are some (controversial) claims that the apparently semi-monotheistic beliefs in ancient China were revelations of the same God that revealed himself to the Jews. This is by no means a common belief, however. Steewi (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why war?
Why did Germany declare war on the United States in December 1941 when it was under no obligation to do so?
More specifically, the United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Under the terms of the 1940 Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany, and Italy, these countries agreed to "assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict". Following the declaration of war on Japan, Germany would have been essentially breaking the Tripartite Pact if it had not declared war on the United States. So on December 11, 1941 Germany declared war on the United States, and on the same day the United States declared war on Germany and Italy. See Military history of the United States during World War II for more details. Gandalf6110:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Gandalf is correct, there was more to Hitler's decision to declare war against the US than just to honor the Tripartite Pact treaty with Japan. Hitler had repeatedly proven that he had no compunctions about ignoring treaties, and indeed almost his entire staff of advisors were completely against Germany declaring war against the US. The German Navy had wanted to do this for some time - citing evidence that the US was supplying the British with huge amounts of military and domestic resources, even though the US was supposed to be neutral. However, Hitler had up to this point opposed the Navy's request to open the war with the US, claiming that it would overstretch Germany's resources. There is a certain amount of evidence, however, that supports the theory that Hitler was overconfident in the weeks just prior to December 7th, 1941 - the date of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Germany's campaign against the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarosa), which had started some 6 months before, had scored some major victories in those weeks just preceding Pearl Harbor, and this buoyed Hitler's optimism that the war in Russia would soon be over, thus freeing up a lot of the German military, as well as providing Germany with much needed oil and other raw resources from Russia. Because of this, he overruled his advisors who were against war with America, and decided to go ahead and honor the Tripartite Treaty with Japan and declare war against the US.
The reasons why Hitler went against most of his staff members' advice and entered into a war against America has been minutely scrutinized in several sources including these:
- "From peace to war : Germany, Soviet Russia, and the world, 1939-1941", edited by Bernd Wegner, Providence : Berghahn Books, 1997. ISBN: 1571818820 (specifically, the chapter "Japan and the German-Soviet war 1941" by Manfred Menger)
- "Hitler Attacks Pearl Harbor : Why the United States Declared War on Germany" by Richard F. Hill. Boulder : Rienner, 2003. ISBN 1-58826-126-3. This book, however, received many dismissive reviews from critics who questioned the author's analysis. In it the author tries to make the claim that the US would have declared war on Germany regardless of whether Germany declared war first. I'm including it just as a counter-balance to my own point of view.
- "Hitler's biggest blunder : declaration of war on U.S. in 1941" by Sir Nicholas Henderson. History Today v. 43 (Apr. '93) p. 35-43. This article supports the idea that Hitler would have declared war anyway. Again, a counter-balance to my own views.
- "If Hitler hadn't : declaring war on U.S." by Alistair Horne. National Review v. 43 (Dec. 16 '91) p. 36+. In this article the author examines the decision to declare war against the US in detail, arriving at the conclusion that at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hitler thought that the war against Russia (Operation Barbarosa) was all but won, which gave him the confidence to go ahead and declare war with America. This is my own view on the subject as well. Saukkomies14:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The treaty called for Germany to aid Japan if attacked by a neutral country, but did it in fact require Germany to come to the aid of Japan if it was Japan which launched a war against a neutral country? It would seem as possible for Germany to be at peace with the US as for Russia to be at peace with Japan for much of the war. Edison18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before answering I should make it clear that Edison is quite right to raise doubts over the contention that the Tripartite Pact obliged Germany to declare war on the United States; it did not, not in any degree. The pact was defensive, not offensive in nature. In other words, it only came into effect if one or more of the contracting parties was attacked by another power, made clear in article 3:
Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.
Although the Germans were in fact working towards a more specific offensive agreement with the Japanese, the negotiations were not complete by the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The American declaration of war was a response to an attack, not an attack itself, and therefore not covered by the original terms of the 1940 Pact.
So, why did Hitler declare war? To begin with he already considered the United States to be a hostile power, teetering on the verge of outright belligerency. By the spring of 1941 it was evident that British hopes for victory, indeed the British ability to continue fighting at all, was increasingly dependent on American supplies. President Roosevelt, even in the face of Neutrality Acts, which limited his freedom of action, was obviously sympathetic to the British cause, carrying Congress with him in the passing of the Lend-Lease Bill in March 1941. As the season progressed it was more and more evident that Germany was facing an undeclared war in the Atlantic with the American navy. As the number of incidents increased Roosevelt authorised the navy to adopt a 'shoot on sight' policy in its conflicts with the German U-boat fleet, though the Germans were held back from counter-reprisals. This was particularly bad from the German perspective, because the U-boat campaign against the British was failing, allowing more and more war materials to get through by convoy. The German declaration of war on December 11 greatly improved the situation, ushering in what was to be known as the Second Happy Time for the beleagured U-boat crews.
The other major factor in explaining his decision to go to war was that he was convinced that the Americans would be pinned down for the forseeable future in the Pacific theatre, while being obliged to defend themselves in the Atlantic. For this reason he was determined to secure maximum co-ordination between the Axis powers. When the Japanese raised the question of German support in November 1941-without letting Hitler know of their exact plans-he and Ribbentrop were prepared to offer binding military assurances, even though this was not covered by the Tripartite Pact. When he heard of the attack on Pearl Harbor Hitler was ecstatic, describing it as a 'deliverance'. Even before the declaration of war Erich Raeder was authorised to go on the offensive in the Atlantic. Just before Hitler's apperance at the Reichstag on December 11 a new agreement was signed with the Japanese, ruling out an armistice with the British and Americans without mutual consent.
It was not he who was faced with a two front war: it was the United States. After all, how could a power whose regular army in the spring of 1940 ranked twentieth in the world, one place behind the Dutch, possibly confront both Japan and Germany? With only 245,000 men, the American army was able to field a mere five fully equipped divsions, which compared with 141 German divisions. It all made perfect sense: make sure the Japanese hold down the Americans and the British in the Far East; force the United States into a two-ocean war, cutting British supply lines, while finishing the offensive in Russia. It was his greatest miscalculation. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it to be the first generation of entrepreneurs to create companies in a country, helping develop economic growth. There are lots of first gen entrepreneurs in India. This blog post may help. Jpeob11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell, I just screwed something up!
Sorry everyone,
I replied to a question about analysis of an Emily Dickinson poem, and somehow created a duplicate of the question.
(IGNORE THE FOLLOWING. I'd put score-through text on it, but don't know the markup) --Monorail Cat09:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I then went to remove the duplicate and merge my reply into the original, but removing the dupe apparently somehow removed the original. If you look in this reference desk's history between my most recent edit before this one, and the one previous to that, you should see it. I'd restore it, but I don't really know what I'm doing, and I think I've already screwed stuff up enough just now...[reply]
Gah! Be still, my beating heart... Apparently Firefox is just playing cache tricks on me. The original question is still there.. just wasn't showing up for a while. Okay. Panic over. Everyone return to whatever passes for normality in your personal timespace continuum :) --Monorail Cat09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will find some details, Donald, in the page on The Rough Wooing. Assurance was one way the English had of creating a Scottish Fifth Column in favour of the marriage of the infant Mary Queen of Scots to Edward, Prince of Wales, a project favoured by Henry VIII. Practically speaking the results were quite variable. Although some among the senior Scottish nobility, captured at the Battle of Solway Moss in 1542, embraced assurance with enthusiasm-especially those committed to the cause of the Protestant Reformation-most ordinary Scottish borderers only did so to avoid English reprisals. In 1545 an invading English army was made up of a large number of assured Scots, who abandoned their forced loyalties, contributing to the Scottish victory at the Battle of Ancrum Moor, the most serious military reversal of Henry's reign. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What role did Caeso Malleus participate in for the Second Punic War (about 200 BC +/-)?
Was Caeso Malleus a consul then? Names of family members? Apparently Tuccia was one of his daughters, as was Megullia. He also possibly has something to do with the Scipio family and maybe Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus, however don't know exactly what role. Found references in Latin only:
Hello eyeryone (especially you, Clio!). I need some more help. I'm researching the early history of the Soviet Secret police, in its Cheka phase, and came across a reference to a celebratory poem by one Alexsander Eiduk. I've been quite unable to trace this through any of the usual sources and have come here to find out if anyone knows any more. Thanks a bunch. Fred said right13:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Heiduk was an Austrian who was imprisoned by the Gestapo for being a Communist, and died in a Viennese hospital in 1942. He praised Russian communism, which was one of his acts of treason. You can find more about him here [28]SaundersW (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Fred. The man you are looking for is Aleksandr Eiduk, a Cheka operative executed in 1938 during the Great Purge. In the early 1920s, soon after the Red Army conquered Georgia, he published a rather nauseating 'poem' in an anthology entitled The Cheka's Smile. Here it is;
There is no greater joy, nor better music
Than the crunch of broken lives and bones.
This is why when our eyes are languid
And passions begin to seethe stormily in the breast,
I want to write on your sentence
One unquivering thing: 'Up against the wall! Shoot'
In Moscow Eiduk admitted to a friend, with 'enjoyment in his voice like that of an ecstatic sexual maniac', how pleasing he found the roar of truck engines used at the Lubianka to drown out the noise of executions.
You will find the original of the above lines in Gosudarstvo i revoliutsii by Valerii Shambarov (2001), translated in Stalin and his Hangmen by Donald Rayfield, 2005, p. 76. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen," said Cacambo, "you think perhaps you are going to feast upon a Jesuit; if so, then it is an excellent thing, nothing can be more agreeable to justice than thus to treat your enemies. Indeed, the laws of Nature teach us to kill our neighbour, and this is the custom all over the world; if we do not indulge ourselves in eating human flesh, it is because we have much better to eat; but for you, who lack our resources, it is certainly a much better decision to feast on your enemies than to throw their bodies to the birds of the air, and thus to lose all the fruits of your victory.
No, I can't explain it but I can offer reactions. First up it is an excellent piece of work, original, tense, puzzling and teasingly allegorical. (what does the stone mean - if anything) I felt compelled to watch it through to the end with a high expectation of some sort of finale or punch-line. Mike Gravel seems to be looking for publicity for his causes and for sure this is one way of getting it along with the other 30 odd videos. Richard Avery15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Lumpi" (pron. loom-pee) is (or rather was, probably) the canonical german dog name (akin to Rover or Fido). I suspect that now a native German speaker will find it rather quaint. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Ouch at Blondi) "Lumpi" made me smile, and it's quaint indeed, these days, I don't think I've ever met a real-life dog named Lumpi, though it is often used as a metonym for "dog" as pointed out by Finlay McWalter. According to a 2003 telephone poll of 520 German dog owners, the top ten names for German Shepherds in Germany are Rex, Arco, Eros, Apollo, Askum, Asta, Blacky, Charlie, Cilla, and Conny (none of which are particularly German). Does it have an unusual color or other distinct features? Is it a female or male puppy? ---Sluzzelintalk15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than use a name that Germans would give to a dog, you could just pick your favorite German name, depending on the gender: Wolfgang (meaning, roughly, "wolf gait" and pronounced "vohlf gahng") would be somewhat appropriate, or you could try names such as Hermann ("hair mahn"), Gerhart ("gair hart"), Ludwig ("loot vick"), or Johann for a male dog, and Ursula (meaning, roughly, "little wolf", and pronounced "OOR zoo la"), Greta, Brunhilde, Angela ("AHN gheh la" with a hard "g"), or Inge ("ING a") for a female dog. Marco polo21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a dog, there's really nothing better than to use the name of a great German, such as Bismarck, Luther, Schiller, Bach, Goethe, or Adenauer. For a bitch, I've just heard a wicked rumour that Beethoven had a bitch whose name was Elise. Xn400:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But remember, studies by trainers have shown that your dog will respond best to a two-syllable name with a vowel ending. Therefore Lumpi = good; Wolfgang = bad. Saudade701:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My neighbor named his dog "Colonel Klinck". He calls the dog "Klinck." The name comes from Hogan's Heroes. The name has a certain notoriety, since my neighbor (who is also Don Geronimo), mentions the dog on his radio show. Klinck is actually a fairly friendly dog. -Arch dude (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entering Heaven -
Hi all
I'm an athesist and consequently the premise of the following may be flawed, but it's always intigued me and I'd be interested in any thoughts.
My (basic) understanding is that the bible teaches it is impossible to enter heaven unless you have a belief in Jesus as he died for our sins. Essentially, his sacrifice wipes the slate clean for his followers.
Let's assume this is true. Consider the following two scenarios:
One child is born the son of a priest and is brought up with the Christian faith instilled and leads a happy and religious life with Jesus in his heart, dies and goes to heaven.
On child is born in 3rd world poverty, is abused until adulthood, never given any form of education, religious or otherwise and dies not believing or Jesus, never having the opportunity to. He therefore is swiftly dispatched to hell.
How is this fair? This 2nd child may be no less "good" than the 1st but purely the situation of his birth and upbringing dicate him going to hell. How does Christianity explain this? This will also apply for the mentally handicapped, tribes in deepest darkest jungles etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.59.218 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is, it depends who you ask. There have been, throughout the history of Christian theology, those who have said that salvation outside of the church may be possible. Most notably in the twentieth century is Karl Rahner's idea of the Anonymous Christian, which addresses the very question you have in mind. More broadly, many Christian theologians have stated that God promises salvation through Jesus Christ, and about that we can be certain; however, the fate of those outside the church is a matter for God alone to judge. In particular, many have reflected on the words of Jesus (John 10:16): "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold."
To answer further, there are also those who simply do not believe in hell at all. The position being that those who are in Christ are resurrected to eternal life, while everyone else simply remains dead.
The Bible states very clearly that those who suffer and live in poverty are those who are more likely to get into heaven
However, the more modern right wing christian evangalistic view is to say that no, he will burn in hell forever. while the pasters child will go to heaven. But, it does not say in the bible anywhere that one has to be christian to go to heaven. so the Evangalists are once again Wrong wrong wrong. Further more, it states in the bible that heaven and the lords greatness are for all people. this happens when I-forget-his-name has a dream in which god offers him pork to eat. He cannot eat pork as he is Jewish, but upon wakeing, and reflection he sees that god has told him that heaven is for all people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution everyone to remember that discussions about a set of beliefs is usually fraught with interpretational bias, and that there are few, if any, facts, except to the extent we can determine that X religion states its belief in Y. Questions like "Is Y fair?" are seldom answerable in any meaningful way in respect of anything except fact, and even then the answer will depend upon an agreed meaning for "fair". Bielle17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I'm just questioning the beliefs themselves not making any ascertions of truth.
Thanks for your responses. I understand the answer depends on who you ask. I guess what I'm really asking is just how deeply held the principle is that you must believe in Jesus to enter heaven. For me, the more deeply held this belief.. the less credible the faith due to the above scenarios.
Since you're asking for points of view, I'll give you a unique one. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the gospel is preached to those who have died without hearing about Christ. They call the place of this preaching the Spirit world (Latter Day Saints), basically a place where the dead wait for their bodily resurrection. Missionaries for Christ teach everyone in this place the gospel, and everyone who accepts the gospel there will be able to receive the same blessings of heaven as those who heard and followed the gospel while they were alive on earth.
The biblical basis for this belief is in 1 Peter 4:6 "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Also, in 1 Peter 3:18-20 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
So again, to return to your specific question, a person who accepted the gospel and stayed faithful to the end of his or her life would go to heaven. A person who struggled through life in abject poverty, never learning about Christ, would hear about him in the Spirit World and have the same opportunities for heaven as the one who was raised in Christianity.
With this in mind, it makes a lot more sense to require belief in Christ for entrance into heaven. Everyone in this scenario has an equal chance to accept Christ into their lives. Everyone is required to have done this in order to enter heaven, as Christ stated: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) Wrad17:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question you ask really hinges on the central point of the doctrine of salvation as perceived by Christians. In my opinion, the real question is not to ask who will be saved and who will not be saved, but to inquire into the very basis of the need for salvation in the first place. In other words, why is salvation necessary? This is really the heart of the matter. I will reserve (at this time) my own views on this, but I believe if you concentrate on answering that question, all the rest will follow. The question of the need for salvation is the very foundation for Christianity. Saukkomies18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - As Pastordavid well said, it depends largely on who you ask. Different groups will have different answers for this. From a fundamentally textual viewpoint, which assumes that salvation is necessary and desirable (the user above is good to point this factor out) the Apostle Paul dealt with this in his New Testament letter to the Roman congregation. He wrote, "For the invisible things of [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead [...] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom 1:20, 2:14-16)
At the time when this was written, the Hebrews were expected to know the "way to Heaven," and the Gentiles were considered relatively uneducated in religious matters. What Paul's statements basically say is that while "Jesus Christ according to [his] gospel" remains the ultimate standard, there are more ways than one to learn about His "invisible things," in this case the essential truth behind such big words as "justification" and "sanctification." Of course, one hearing of the doctrines from the apostles directly were and are expected to accept it, as a number of other verses will state (at times quite strongly), but what might be taken away from this matter is that no one has an excuse to maintain a less-than-clear conscience. This means more (heaven-ward) than the mere "things contained in the law" as far as rituals and acts go. Not that these things are unimportant, of course... but the combination of mercy and justice about which Paul writes does not ultimately hold a human being accountable for more than he or she could possibly have known. Undoubtedly, some groups will have different takes on these verses, but just boiling it down, and stripping away the at times archaic language, this appears to be the most obvious meaning. ◄Zahakiel►18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I perhaps answered a little hastily, answering a question different than the one that you asked. You ask, given a person believes the scenario you pose to be the case, how is that situation fair. I cannot say (see my answer) that the situation you describe matches with my theology about what will happen in eternity. However, for those that it does, the answer is that God's divine providence and will is beyond our comprehension, and what seems unfair to us in this present age will not seem so when all things become known to us in eternity. Again, not my position in this particular case, but I think it would be the response to the question. Pastordavid19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slightly different spin on the verse "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) which is this: if anybody has come to the father, he (/she) has done it through Jesus. Not the orthodox reading, but a defensible one, I think. SaundersW (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. This seems a pretty orthodox reading to me. Is your statement intended to express a different reading than the one previously presented? I'm just not sure I see the difference... Wrad (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am not answering too late; I will attempt to steer clear of other answers and simply say that this is an excellent discussion so far that has attempted to be very neutral.
I would add only one thing. That God, in His Providence, may know whether or not the 2nd child will ever believe *even if* given the chance. In other words, some believe that God will send someone to that person, if they will believe, but if they will not, He will not. Becasue God has infinite knowledge in the Christian faith, this is possible.
I have heard of a Chinese woman in her 80s (and I'm sorry, I can't give a cite) who told a missionary that she had always known Jesus, and now she had finally met Him; in other words, god knew her heart, He knew she would believe, so He made sure someone got there.
That may be sort of repetitive to what was said above, and if so, I apologize, but I tried to be a little more specific, even if that was what was meant above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.19.1 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cromwell and parliament
The english fought a civil war to defend the rights of parliament against the power of the monarchy. But Oliver Cromwell was no more successful in establishing parliamentary rule. Is there any reason why his constitutional experiments failed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.67 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One possible explanation, which sadly is a bit shallow, is that every revolution seems to have a counter-revolution that follows soon afterward. One way of examining this is to look at Hegel and Marx's writings on the Dialectic of History. This theory tries to explain how human society changes over time. It goes like this: first there's an existing social situation, called the Thesis. Then, for various reasons, a new social situation arises that challenges the Thesis, which is called the Anti-Thesis. Then there is a period of struggle between the Thesis and the Anti-Thesis, resulting in the formation of a Synthesis. Depending on how strong the Thesis and Anti-Thesis are, the Synthesis will incorporate various elements of each of them. If the Thesis is much more powerful than the Anti-Thesis, the Sythesis will end up having more elements and influences from the Thesis than it does the Anti-Thesis, and visa versa. Once the new Synthesis is established, after a while it will then become the next Thesis, and a new Anti-Thesis will arise to challenge it. So it goes - back and forth like a see-saw, with Thesis and Anti-Thesis struggling over and over again. This is a possible explanation for why there seems to be a counter-revolution following each revolution in history. So it goes with the English Civil Wars as well. After Cromwell and the Puritan Parliamentarians had controlled the country for a while following the Wars, the English people rushed to embrace the almost hedonistic aristocratic return of James II and his court. This is just a theory, but it demonstrates perhaps Thesis and Anti-Thesis in action. Saukkomies19:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 217.43, there are two things that you have to consider here: first, the nature of the English Civil War itself, which fractured the country politically, producing an outcome in the Commonwealth of England which effectively precluded a large part of the natural governing class from the whole political process; second, even within the victorious Parliamentary camp there were divisions, between the radicals, like John Lilburne, on the one hand, and the grandees, like Oliver Cromwell, on the other. But even Cromwell had a concept of a 'godly commonwealth', the so-called Republic of Saints, which simply could not match with prosaic realities.
The third thing to consider is that while Cromwell made repeated attempts at a Parliamentary solution to the constitutional impasse, his power ultimately was derived from his military role and his standing in the New Model Army. He always had to be mindful of this, which inevitably limited his freedom of action. There were, in other words, some things that even the Lord-General could not do.
The growing rift between Cromwell and the Long Parliament, of which he was a member, actually comes before the execution of Charles I in January, 1649. During the course of 1648 Parliament, dominated by the Presbyterians, was fumbling towards a settlement with the king, a process that continued even after the bad faith he had shown in initiating the Second Civil War. In a mood of anger, fearing that the army had won a war only to lose a peace, Cromwell and the other generals initiated Pride's Purge in December 1648, effectively a kind of military coup, which removed all those MPs in favour of continuing negotiations with the king. The remainder, known to history as the Rump Parliament, proceeded to his trial and execution. Although all authority, in nominal terms, continued to be invested in Parliament, in the event of a dispute over matters of fundamental importance Pride's Purge had shown where the real power lay.
After the excution of Charles the ancient trinity of Crown, Lords and Commons was invested in the Commons alone, which in the form of the Rump comprised no more than seventy members. Cromwell hoped that it would embrace the work of godly reform; instead it turned by degrees into a self-serving oligarchy. Bolstered by further victories in Ireland and Scotland, Cromwell was more convinced than ever that he enjoyed the 'mandate of heaven'. As the Rump, in contrast, had proved itself to be, in his words, 'no longer a Parliament for God's people', he sent it packing in April 1653. His only mandate for this action was, once again, the power of the army.
It was at this point that Cromwell could very well have turned himself into an outright military dictator. He did not. Instead he adopted a scheme suggested by Major General Thomas Harrison for Parliament consisting exclusively of the 'godly', modeled on the ancient Jewish Sanhedrin. This was to be the Parliament of Saints, better known in English history as the Nominated or the Barebones Parliament, so named after one of its members, Praise-God Barebones (Yes, that really was his name!) But, swept by divisions, it lasted a bare six months, before handing all of its powers back to Cromwell, who now, of political necessity, took on full executive authority in his own person as Lord Protector.
Still the constitutional experiments continued in the First and the Second Protectorate Parliament. But nothing sufficied. The First Parliament was more interested in the question of constitutional power than godly reform. As a way out of the deadlock, and as a way of limiting the Lord Protector's powers, it offered Cromwell the crown, the one sure means of re-establishing the ancient constitutional balance. In the manner of Caesar he hesitated, and in the manner of Caesar he declined, because it was a simply a step too far for the New Model Army. He emerged from this more powerful that ever, with a Parliamentary solution as far off as ever.
The second and last Parliament of the Protectorate was to be just as disappointing as the first. Although chosen on a very narrow basis-excluding Royalists and Catholics-it was no more malleable than the first. It was dissolved in February 1658. No other was to be summoned in Cromwell's lifetime. The Lord Protector and the Saints simply could not fashion an assembly in their own impossible image. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice synopsis, Clio! What do you think of this idea of mine: that basically the turning point of the Revolution was not so much the Pride's Purge, which took place in December 1648, but rather when the Diggers were evicted from their communal farms, which took place in April of 1649. The reason I think this is because I believe the Diggers represented the real core of what the Revolution was all about - so far as the common soldier in the New Model Army was concerned. Although the Diggers at most only numbered a couple of hundred people, in my mind they seem to be the ones who were bold enough to try to put into practice the core values that had been expressed in the Putney Debates that the New Model Army had conducted in October of 1647. Every revolution has its "inner core" of revolutionaries who represent the real spark of what lights the hearts and minds of the people. Often these hardcore revolutionaries are much more fanatical than the majority of those who support the revolution, but it is they who fuel the fire, so to speak. This is how I view the Diggers: they seem to have been the real hardcore revolutionaries in the Civil Wars, and when their own army under Fairfax was sent to kick them out of the Commons wasteland that they were living on, I believe that was the real turning point of the whole thing because the "Revolution" had turned on itself at that point. Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Saukkomies02:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, Saukkomies. You see, the 'English Revolution' was, in the most fundameantal sense, a reaction rather than anything more far-reaching; a reaction against forms of royal absolutism that in themselves were felt to be upsetting an ancient balance between crown and nation. The most influential people, the people who made the revolution, were essentially conservatives, despite their puritanism or, perhaps, because of it. Men Like Cromwell, John Pym and John Hampden were always going to have a narrow, politically-based understanding of how far a revolution could be progressed. Freedom of conscience was certainly something that all could aim for; but they were never going to accept the social revolution in the form embraced by the Diggers and the Levellers, who were never more than a by-product of the greater cause. Even the agitators in the New Model Army had but a passing impact, as the ranks fell behind the greater need for military discipline in the face of a common danger, rather than holding to nebulous concepts of representative democracy. Political innovators the puritans may have been; social revolutionaries they were not. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why some Hindus all of sudden started wearing the karakul caps like Natwar K. Singh?
Is this right?
According to the official website of Toronto, it showed that O'Connor-Parkview had the most population of Afghani-Canadians in Toronto, according to Census 2001 of Canada. Is this true or there must be mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.251 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any reason why the O'Connor and Parkview area could not have a high concentration of Afghani immigrants. It is a working class neighbourhood, with a mix of rental and not-too-outrageously priced owner-occupier residences. Why would you think the Census has made a mistake? Bielle (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all Somalis speak Somali and are Sunni Muslims, so most also speak some Arabic. For historical and religious reasons, Somalia broadly aligns itself with the Arab world. Xn400:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are largely Islamic, and have had close contact with Arabs since trade routes in the Indian Ocean were opened in the early middle ages. Wrad (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrad is totally correct. For over 2000 years, up until the time of European colonialization of Africa, the East Coast of Africa was influenced primarily by the Arab traders who plied the waters of the Indian Ocean. Some of the Arabs stayed and intermarried with the local indigenous people, which resulted in the genetic makeup of the coastal people of East Africa today - part African, part Semitic Arab. The language spoken up and down the coast was Swahili, which means "Coast" in Arabic. Mogadishu, the capital and largest city of Somalia, was one of many of these trading towns that sprang up along the East African Coast, including the towns of Mombasa and Lamu, Kenya; and Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar, Tanzania. Here's an online article published by the National Geographic that talks more about this: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/10/01/html/ft_20011001.6.fulltext.html . Saukkomies02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of chruch/god from public education system
I know that in the 60's prayer was removed from the education system.Is there any other rulings declaring church/god be removed from school? wildboyz_211 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prayer was not removed from the education system. Anyone can pray whenever they want. Public prayer, led by teachers or administrators, is not allowed. And to answer your second question, there have been many rulings removing Bible passages and copies of the Ten Commandments from public schools. 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs)
If you want to talk about this meaningfully, you had better state whose educational system you area talking about. --Anon, 01:17 UTC, December 5.
Tom Driberg
I remember once read the following (the words are to the best of my memory): "To write an obituary of Tom Driberg without mentioning homosexuality would be like writing an obituary of Maria Callas without mentioning opera". Google has proven fruitless in my search for its author. Can anyone help? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that was in an obituary (which it sounds like), then it's presumably from a 'serious' British newspaper or magazine. It's most unlikely to be from the Daily Telegraph, notoriously coy about mentioning homosexuality at all in obituaries - it often uses the code phrase "He was unmarried". The Times is less coy about such things, but it wouldn't approach the matter jokily. It also wouldn't be from a serious left wing journal, I think. A possible candidate may be The Spectator, but that's only a guess, Jack. (I've read somewhere, by the way, that Attlee's only reason for keeping Driberg out of his government was that he was well known to be homosexual, so your quotation strikes me as fair comment.) Xn401:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a movie produced perhaps some time before World War 2 titled "Resurrection." Apparently it was based on the book of the same title by Leo Tolstoy. It is referred to by Viktor Frankl in his book "Man's Search for Meaning." I would like to find out if it is available on any modern media for purchase or viewing. I have searched the video stores and my library, but I only came up with copies of the Tolstoy book. Thanks.74.233.13.105 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
